From: /m 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:34:18 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote:

>
>"Geo"  wrote in message
news:44a3051f{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "/m"  wrote in message
>> news:6mt5a2pif7s50v9bj2mso3qdprl7af1e7g{at}4ax.com...
>>
>>> Yeah, that's why they released WGA as pre-release code to an
>>> unsuspecting userbase....
>>
>> Today I was working on a friends XP system and went to windows update to
>> see
>> if he was up to date, it tried to install WGA as if it were a priority
>> security patch so they still haven't fixed the damn thing.
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>>
>
>From Phil Liu Microsoft ( I'm still waiting for his reponse to my query on
>the thread  as to how wga is 'designed' to aid a computer user security or
>performance wise - I expect some marketing gobbedlygook )
>
>http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=510421&SiteID=25&Page
ID=2
>There are different classifications for "High Priority Updates" and
>"Critical Security Updates".
>
>This update is classified as high priority because it is *designed* to help
>protect the computer against security threats and performance (thus fitting
>the definition of a high-priority update).
>
>We have (and still continue to) discuss the issue regarding classification
>of the update between High and Critical, but as the update sits, it has not
>yet been raised to the bar of a Critical Update.


My God, what are they smoking in Redmond?  It should be LOWERED to the sump
of a customer annoyance.  But as Vista is showing, Microsoft's new slogan
is, "how can we annoy you today?"

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5