"t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:4b46036aebd15e078181fa00ac5d912e@xxxxxx-gateway.com...
| Quote: |  | |
|
>
> FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote: | Quote: | | | |
>> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
>> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > > | Quote: | | | |
>> > >
>> > > FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote:
>> > > Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional
>> > > updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto
>> > updating
>> > > option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non-
>> > > essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". > >
| | | | | >>
>> More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended"
>> condition.
>> Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because
>> they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular
>> update.
>>
>> ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that
>> related
>> to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the
>> mix. | | | | | > Hello,
> I understand what you had said. Please consider this :
> 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista.
> 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be
> labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat.
> 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if
> one did not use it much, if at all.
> So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to
> satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a
> myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that. | |
| | |
On those occasions where an update causes problems on some systems,
you have the option of implementing a workaround rather than the faulty
update. Indeed, the recommendation is meant 'for most people' because
they aren't expected to know how to implement workarounds - and the
assumption is that updates won't be faulty.
IIRC history has proven otherwise.