services in vista

No, it isn't anyones guess. Do you think I do this stuff on a whim ? Dont you think I test to see if things still work ? If Microsoft hadn't been so ludricrously over the top with their security perhaps I wouldn't mind. But being forced to use their tools ,( which, by the way, dont actually do their job ) Is a downright cheek. As to Microsofts Licensing, IE: is it still genuine, well they can go and sing. And as for Microsoft support, Have you tried it ?

Curious law in the UK states that for an agreement to exist it must be either Verbal or Signed. Ticking a box doesn't cut the mustard. So, the EULA is entirely worthless anyway. Dont get me going here or I'll tear the whole EULA to bits as to why it, in itself, is Illegal under uK law.

I think you misunderstand my intention. I have no interest in trying to
persuade you, in arguing over why your testing cannot possibly come close to
three years worth on about a million systems done by Microsoft and others, or
even in trying to argue why your interpretation of laws is more accurate than
that of the hordes of lawyers who crafted Microsoft's EULA.

My only intent is to make sure that this thread reflects the impact of this
type of modification on your system; lest future readers find this idea to
have some form of merit and destroy their systems with it, on the premise
that it was given as advice in a Microsoft-sponsored newsgroup. Disabling
fundamental security features of the operating system is a terrible idea,
made even worse by the fact that nobody has yet made a valid argument for why
this should be done, apart from that the features apparently offend someone
for some unstated reason.

"Bytesback" wrote:

>
> No, it isn't anyones guess. Do you think I do this stuff on a whim ?
> Dont you think I test to see if things still work ? If Microsoft
> hadn't been so ludricrously over the top with their security perhaps I
> wouldn't mind. But being forced to use their tools ,( which, by the
> way, dont actually do their job ) Is a downright cheek. As to
> Microsofts Licensing, IE: is it still genuine, well they can go and
> sing. And as for Microsoft support, Have you tried it ?
>
> Curious law in the UK states that for an agreement to exist it must be
> either Verbal or Signed. Ticking a box doesn't cut the mustard. So, the
> EULA is entirely worthless anyway. Dont get me going here or I'll tear
> the whole EULA to bits as to why it, in itself, is Illegal under uK
> law.
>
>
> --
> Bytesback
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bytesback's Profile: http://www.vista64.net/forums/member.php?userid=1668
> View this thread: http://www.vista64.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47418
>
>

Unstated Reason ? No, I think I stated it. They dont work. There we are. simple. And why do I draw that conclusion ? well...

Windows Defender. Hardly a paragon of Antispyware Excellence is it ? Like it doesn't stop most of it.

Windows firewall. Has to be configured to stop letting stuff out.And, if that stuff happens to be written by Microsoft, just lets it out anyway. I have tried stopping various things from accessing the net by setiing a rule, then when you look at the rule again you find it has been changed.

The whole security Center is to much like a Nanny state, people dont like it so they want rid of it. That is there choice. You or I cannot judge what other people wish to do, But if I'm asked for information and I know it I will happily tell them.

Testing for three years on over a million systems ??!!!! And its still full of bugs !

And the hordes of American lawyers who have shrouded that EULA in complete gobblygook so your average person cannot understand it may be interested in one of the more interesting UK laws covering agreements


"All terms (including core terms) must be in plain intelligible language otherwise they are open to challenge as unfair."

Enough said

"Jesper" <Jesper@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:492F224A-9CEA-4EE5-AC5F-4BE9906CA1CC@microsoft.com...
>I think you misunderstand my intention. I have no interest in trying to
> persuade you, in arguing over why your testing cannot possibly come close
> to
> three years worth on about a million systems done by Microsoft and others,
> or
> even in trying to argue why your interpretation of laws is more accurate
> than
> that of the hordes of lawyers who crafted Microsoft's EULA.
>
> My only intent is to make sure that this thread reflects the impact of
> this
> type of modification on your system; lest future readers find this idea to
> have some form of merit and destroy their systems with it, on the premise
> that it was given as advice in a Microsoft-sponsored newsgroup. Disabling
> fundamental security features of the operating system is a terrible idea,
> made even worse by the fact that nobody has yet made a valid argument for
> why
> this should be done, apart from that the features apparently offend
> someone
> for some unstated reason.

The reason I turned Defender off (without resorting to such crude hacks as
the ones detailed here) is because I already have a paid subscription to an
anti-spyware program i consder more effective. Without getting into the
debate over whether my opinion is "right" or not about which program is
better, I think that is in principle a fair reason to disable Defender.

Any Reason you care to mention is a fair reason, it's your choice.

"Bytesback" <Bytesback.2ncuur@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Bytesback.2ncuur@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> Any Reason you care to mention is a fair reason, it's your choice.
>

Well.. yes, I know that. But I respect Jesper's opinions and so when he
asked for a reason to turn defender off, I thought I'd present mine.