Windows updates and dial up users
Larry Seltzer has a nice column about the difficulties of keeping up with Windows patches if you have a dialup connection. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272162,00.asp "It occurred to me that one way to make things easier for dial-up users, and even broadband users in many cases, would be to issue periodic update CDs. Imagine a disc with all of the updates on it and a program, it could even be written in Windows Script Host, to check a system for which updates need to be installed, apply them in the correct order and even reboot in between. Such a program would not be hard to write." [...] "I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month? And how much of a market would there really be? Are there enough people that would apply patches if they got a monthly CD that it would actually make a measurable difference? What price point are they willing to pay for the CD, and what does it mean for Microsoft? I mean... look at it from Microsoft's point of view - why should they *CARE* if 65% or 85% of the hosts on the Infobahn are exploding Pintos, when unlike a Pinto exploding on the Washington Beltway, a Pinto exploding on the Infobahn doesn't affect their bottom line any?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user. Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3 hours to download and theyre paying per minute on the call What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of downloading.. ? Steve
Stephen J. Wilcox said:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3 hours to download and theyre paying per minute on the call
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of downloading.. ?
Steve
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roy Bentley wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox said:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3 hours to download and theyre paying per minute on the call
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of downloading.. ?
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide updates as part of their license agreement to users, this would just be an enhancement of their existing facility offering a new level of security whereby users can gain access to critical updates without putting their machines at risk by connecting to the global Internet... Steve
Stephen J. Wilcox said:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:25:50 EDT, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> said:
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD, assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may
people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3 hours to download and theyre paying per minute on the call
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user
Microsoft already does this, it is their TechNet program. They include all service packs and updates. Unfortunately, they charge a whopping pile for the service, beyond the reach of most home/dial users. Jerry -------Original Message------- From: Stephen J. Wilcox Date: Monday, September 22, 2003 07:27:10 To: Roy Bentley Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu; Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Windows updates and dial up users On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roy Bentley wrote: put the
option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of downloading.. ?
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide updates as part of their license agreement to users, this would just be an enhancement of their existing facility offering a new level of security whereby users can gain access to critical updates without putting their machines at risk by connecting to the global Internet... Steve .
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide updates as part of their license agreement to users, this would just be an enhancement of their existing facility offering a new level of security whereby users can gain access to critical updates without putting their machines at risk by connecting to the global Internet...
Actually, they don't, and, that's probably why they don't want others redistributing their patch software. If you run Windows update, you have to agree to half a dozen additional and supplemental EULAs before you can actually get your software patched. (I carefully had someone else agree on the one Windows system I have to cope with so that _I_ am still not a party to a Micr0$0ft EULA). It would be an enhancement for the users, but, for Micr0$0ft, it's all about the EULA, and, if it is distributed on CD, it's much harder for them to enforce the "you must agree to the supplemental EULA" provisions. Owen
On 22 Sep 2003 10:45 "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote: | What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user | the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose | of downloading.. ? Toll free - in many cases international - with 56k lines max for dialup and many way below that, would - given the filesizes typically used in WindowsUpdate - be a very costly call for Microsoft. And there'd be rather a lot of them, so you can be sure that M$ would be recovering those $ from somebody. Most probably (current and future) users. WindowsUpdate would presumably refuse to update pirated copies of the software, but pirate copies of the software will still be just as open to the vulnerabilities that have been, and continue to be, discovered. Oddly enough the biggest killer of all will not be any of this, but the fact that most people will be unwilling for their single phone line to be tied up and unusable for the length of time each update will take. And then repeat that every month or so.. -- Richard
--On Monday, September 22, 2003 12:41 PM +0100 Richard Cox <Richard@mandarin.com> wrote:
On 22 Sep 2003 10:45 "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote: | What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user | the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose | of downloading.. ?
Toll free - in many cases international - with 56k lines max for dialup and many way below that, would - given the filesizes typically used in WindowsUpdate - be a very costly call for Microsoft. And there'd be rather a lot of them, so you can be sure that M$ would be recovering those $ from somebody. Most probably (current and future) users.
I have NO problem with that. Micr0$0ft should start bearing the costs of their brokenness. If they choose to pass that on to their end users, then that is a business decision they can make as a business. Hopefully when the true cost of Windows becomes part of the price tag, Windows users will wake up and realize it's too expensive.
WindowsUpdate would presumably refuse to update pirated copies of the software, but pirate copies of the software will still be just as open to the vulnerabilities that have been, and continue to be, discovered.
I have heard from multiple sources that this is not true. I suspect Micr0$0ft doesn't have the ability to reliably determine the difference between a pirated copy of Windows and the same serial number being reinstalled and repatched multiple times.
Oddly enough the biggest killer of all will not be any of this, but the fact that most people will be unwilling for their single phone line to be tied up and unusable for the length of time each update will take. And then repeat that every month or so..
Yep. Owen
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:45:13 -0000, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
You agree. I agree. Microsoft doesn't agree, and based on the fact that the user presumably agreed to the EULA as phrased, the users don't either. After all, if the users didn't like the current support, they're free to change vendors. ;)
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
The problem is that while we agree, Micr0$0ft does not. They feel they should have no "responsibility" whatsoever to the end user beyond cheerfully refunding their money if they decide to stop using Windows. They are of the opinion that they are patching these things out of the goodness of their hart as a favor and in the interests of above-and-beyond customer service. I do not understand why people continue to do business with such an arrogant self-serving organization which has repeatedly demonstrated a completely a-moral approach to business. Just my opinion. Owen
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:02:57AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
The problem is that while we agree, Micr0$0ft does not. They feel they should have no "responsibility" whatsoever to the end user beyond cheerfully refunding their money if they decide to stop using Windows.
Microsoft does not issue refunds if you stop using Windows, whether or not you were satisfied with the XPerience. My interactions with Microsoft have never been "cheerful", which is a state mostly reserved for New Product Launch(tm) parties and advertisements. Nor can one readily obtain a refund from an OEM, even if you never use Windows and reject the EULA (http://windowsrefund.net/index2.php). -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
If you bought your Windows from an OEM, you're pretty much screwed because Micr0$0ft has transferred all responsibility to the OEM, and, the OEMs don't want to issue refunds because that costs them on their deal with Micr0$0ft. (A questionable business practice on M$ part, at best). However, every time I have purchased a copy of Windows from Micr0$0ft or from a store without a computer, discovered it didn't work, called Micr0$0ft and insisted that they deliver what they promise, they have cheerfully offered to refund my money, and, I have always gotten my refund within 2-3 weeks of sending them their piece of shit product. If you're OEM doesn't refund you, the simplest course of action is to print out the EULA you didn't agree to which says in clear text that you are entitled to a refund from your OEM (at least the last time I looked at one, which, was probably NT4 or W2K at the latest). Attach that to your small-claims filing, and, have the OEM served (certified mail usually works with corporations). It's always good to name the CEO as a party in the suit and send the service to him personally as well as the corporation generally. In any case, my point is that at best, they'll refund your money. They don't feel they have any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Owen --On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:01 AM -0400 Henry Yen <henry@aegisinfosys.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:02:57AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
The problem is that while we agree, Micr0$0ft does not. They feel they should have no "responsibility" whatsoever to the end user beyond cheerfully refunding their money if they decide to stop using Windows.
Microsoft does not issue refunds if you stop using Windows, whether or not you were satisfied with the XPerience.
My interactions with Microsoft have never been "cheerful", which is a state mostly reserved for New Product Launch(tm) parties and advertisements.
Nor can one readily obtain a refund from an OEM, even if you never use Windows and reject the EULA (http://windowsrefund.net/index2.php). -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
participants (8)
-
Henry Yen -
Jerry Eyers -
Owen DeLong -
Richard Cox -
Roy Bentley -
Sean Donelan -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu