From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   It's an eweek story that one of the Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's =
ridiculed and according to him so did many of the responses to the =
original story.  See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327.  The =
orginal is at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.

Rich

  "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:45b6e9dc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John Pallatto=20
  appears affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it looks like =
Fox's=20
  Tech Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this mean MS =
pissed=20
  off both Fox and Ziff Davis? 




  "Gary Britt"  wrote
in message=20
  news:45b6e394$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  > Is this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by Fox's =
website?
  >
  > Gary
  >
  > Rich Gauszka wrote:
  >> ROFL - looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox News
  >>
  >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html
  >>
  >> The solution was quick and simple, but the irritation was enormous. =

  >> Microsoft decided it would use the security patch process to sneak =
IE 7=20
  >> onto the desktops of millions of PC users.
  >>
  >> If it was going to try this tactic, it should have at least made =
sure=20
  >> that the installation was so reliable that it would work virtually =
every=20
  >> time. Microsoft has likely set back IE 7 adoption by months at =
least for=20
  >> the people who experienced these problems.
  >>
  >> I know that I was prepared to make a permanent switch to Firefox if =
I=20
  >> found that I could not restore my IE 6 configuration. I may yet =
make=20
  >> greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on Explorer.
  >>
  >> It's significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a similar =
trick=20
  >> with its corporate customers who are much more particular about how =
and=20
  >> when they upgrade to any new application. The cries of outrage =
directed=20
  >> at Redmond would have been a lot louder and more anguished.
  >>
  >> There is no question that thousands of Windows XP users like myself =
have=20
  >> successfully or even deliberately installed IE 7 and are pleased =
with the=20
  >> new browsing features it gives them.
  >>
  >> But why does Microsoft believe it must treat its customers like =
children=20
  >> and trick them into installing a new application? It's like parents =

  >> tricking babies to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with some=20
  >> applesauce.
  >>
  >> It's bad enough that the Internet allows Microsoft to reach out and =
touch=20
  >> our computers whenever it decides to do security and application =
updates.
  >>
  >> Yes, it's true this is the most efficient way for Microsoft to =
patch its=20
  >> software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of security =
updates=20
  >> would be impossible.
  >>
  >> Then there are those annoying automated prompts that pop up every =
time=20
  >> one of your applications crashes, asking whether you want to send a =

  >> notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things those nasty =

  >> applications did to crash Windows. You are never far from the =
comforting=20
  >> arms of Microsoft.
  >>
  >> But the security update channel shouldn't be used by Microsoft to =
launch=20
  >> marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch =
mechanism be=20
  >> used to spring new products on users without their full knowledge =
and=20
  >> acceptance.
  >>
  >> There should be a further examination of this process to see =
whether=20
  >> Microsoft is violating the terms of its antitrust agreements with =
state=20
  >> and federal governments by using the security patch channel as a =
sly=20
  >> technique to head off competing applications from the PC desktop.
  >>
  >> As for myself, I will forever approach future
"security" updates =
with=20
  >> great caution. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on =
me."
  >>=20

------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   It's an
eweek story that =
one of the=20
Ziff Davis zdnet blogger's ridiculed and according to him so did many of = the=20
responses to the original story.  See http://blogs.zdnet.com/O" target="new">http://blogs.zdnet.com/O=">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=3D327">http://blogs.zdnet.com/O=
rchant/?p=3D327. =20
The orginal is at http://www.e" target="new">http://www.e=">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp">http://www.e=
week.com/article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp.
 
Rich
 

  "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
  wrote in message news:45b6e9dc$1{at}w3.nls.net...not=20
  sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John Pallatto =
appears=20
  affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it looks like Fox's =
Tech=20
  Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this mean MS pissed =
off=20
  both Fox and Ziff Davis?
<g>"Gary
Britt" =
<GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=">mailto:GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}generalcogster.com">GaryNOSPAMBritt{at}genera=
lcogster.com>=20
  wrote in message news:45b6e394$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> Is=20
  this a Fox story or an eWeek story that is carried by Fox's=20
  website?>>
Gary>> Rich Gauszka =
wrote:>>=20
  ROFL - looks like MS pissed off someone at Fox =
News>>>> http://www.fo" target="new">http://www.fo=">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html">http://www.fo=
xnews.com/story/0,2933,246023,00.html>>>>=20
  The solution was quick and simple, but the irritation was enormous.=20
  >> Microsoft decided it would use the security
patch process =
to=20
  sneak IE 7 >> onto the desktops of millions of PC=20
  users.>>>> If it was
going to try this tactic, it =
should=20
  have at least made sure >> that the installation was so =
reliable=20
  that it would work virtually every >> time. Microsoft has =
likely set=20
  back IE 7 adoption by months at least for >> the
people who=20
  experienced these
problems.>>>> I know that I
was =
prepared=20
  to make a permanent switch to Firefox if I >>
found that I =
could not=20
  restore my IE 6 configuration. I may yet make >>
greater use =
of=20
  Firefox just to reduce my dependence on =
Explorer.>>>> It's=20
  significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a similar trick=20
  >> with its corporate customers who are much more
particular =
about=20
  how and >> when they upgrade to any new application. The =
cries of=20
  outrage directed >> at Redmond would have been a
lot louder =
and more=20
  anguished.>>>> There is
no question that thousands =
of=20
  Windows XP users like myself have >> successfully
or even=20
  deliberately installed IE 7 and are pleased with the
>> new =
browsing=20
  features it gives
them.>>>> But why does
Microsoft =
believe=20
  it must treat its customers like children >> and
trick them =
into=20
  installing a new application? It's like parents
>> tricking =
babies=20
  to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with some >>=20
  applesauce.>>>> It's bad
enough that the Internet =
allows=20
  Microsoft to reach out and touch >> our computers
whenever =
it=20
  decides to do security and application =
updates.>>>> Yes,=20
  it's true this is the most efficient way for Microsoft to patch its=20
  >> software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of =
security=20
  updates >> would be
impossible.>>>> Then =
there=20
  are those annoying automated prompts that pop up every time =
>> one=20
  of your applications crashes, asking whether you want to send a =
>>=20
  notice to Mother Microsoft, telling her what bad things those nasty=20
  >> applications did to crash Windows. You are
never far from =
the=20
  comforting >> arms of
Microsoft.>>>> But =
the=20
  security update channel shouldn't be used by Microsoft to launch =
>>=20
  marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch mechanism =
be=20
  >> used to spring new products on users without
their full =
knowledge=20
  and >>
acceptance.>>>> There
should be a =
further=20
  examination of this process to see whether >>
Microsoft is =
violating=20
  the terms of its antitrust agreements with state >> and =
federal=20
  governments by using the security patch channel as a sly
>>=20
  technique to head off competing applications from the PC=20
  desktop.>>>> As for
myself, I will forever =
approach future=20
  "security" updates with >> great
caution. "Fool me once, =
shame on=20
  you. Fool me twice, shame on me.">> =


------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C73F32.8B678340--

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