From: "Rich Gauszka" 

not sure - It's under FoxNews Technology but the writer John Pallatto
appears affiliated with eweek.com. checking the archives it looks like
Fox's Tech Tuesday is a product of Ziff Davis Media Inc. Does this mean MS
pissed off both Fox and Ziff Davis? 




"Gary Britt"  wrote in
message 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
>> onto the desktops of millions of PC users.
>>
>> If it was going to try this tactic, it should have at least made sure
>> that the installation was so reliable that it would work virtually every
>> time. Microsoft has likely set back IE 7 adoption by months at least for
>> the people who experienced these problems.
>>
>> I know that I was prepared to make a permanent switch to Firefox if I
>> found that I could not restore my IE 6 configuration. I may yet make
>> greater use of Firefox just to reduce my dependence on Explorer.
>>
>> It's significant that Microsoft apparently hasn't tried a similar trick
>> with its corporate customers who are much more particular about how and
>> when they upgrade to any new application. The cries of outrage directed
>> at Redmond would have been a lot louder and more anguished.
>>
>> There is no question that thousands of Windows XP users like myself have
>> successfully or even deliberately installed IE 7 and are pleased with the
>> new browsing features it gives them.
>>
>> But why does Microsoft believe it must treat its customers like children
>> and trick them into installing a new application? It's like parents
>> tricking babies to swallow bitter medicine by mixing it with some
>> applesauce.
>>
>> It's bad enough that the Internet allows Microsoft to reach out and touch
>> 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
>> software. Without the Internet, prompt distribution of security updates
>> would be impossible.
>>
>> Then there are those annoying automated prompts that pop up every time
>> 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
>> arms of Microsoft.
>>
>> But the security update channel shouldn't be used by Microsoft to launch
>> marketing experiments on its customers. Nor should the patch mechanism be
>> used to spring new products on users without their full knowledge and
>> acceptance.
>>
>> There should be a further examination of this process to see whether
>> Microsoft is violating the terms of its antitrust agreements with state
>> and federal governments by using the security patch channel as a sly
>> technique to head off competing applications from the PC desktop.
>>
>> As for myself, I will forever approach future "security"
updates with
>> great caution. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me."
>>

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