I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the worthless
KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.

Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates". However,
I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
Firefox permanently.

And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my computer
against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
installing KB931768.

Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We desperately
need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless popups
until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC, then it
should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about procesing
his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.

Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more useful than
UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
.... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sorry. The individual user is "always" the biggest threat to the computer.
Without user action most computers would never become infected. Yes, there
are drive by downloads. With a program like BOClean installed (user action)
even these can be mitigated. They are stopped cold *before* they have a
chance to execute on your computer.

So, positive or negative, user interaction is the biggest threat, either by
not doing something that you could to protect your system or by doing
something that a prudent person would not do on your system.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

<invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
>I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
> install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the
> worthless
> KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.
>
> Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates".
> However,
> I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
> again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
> Firefox permanently.
>
> And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my
> computer
> against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> installing KB931768.
>
> Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We
> desperately
> need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
> Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless
> popups
> until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC, then
> it
> should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about
> procesing
> his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.
>
> Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more useful
> than
> UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
> .... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
> -----------------------------------------------------------[/color]

<invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
>I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
> install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the
> worthless
> KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.
>
> Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates".
> However,
> I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
> again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
> Firefox permanently.
>
> And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my
> computer
> against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> installing KB931768.
>
> Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We
> desperately
> need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
> Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless
> popups
> until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC, then
> it
> should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about
> procesing
> his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.
>
> Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more useful
> than
> UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
> .... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
> -----------------------------------------------------------[/color]


Regarding KB931768 , run Windows Update, select View Details, right click
KB931768, select hide this update.

--
Jim

<invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
>
> And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my
> computer
> against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> installing KB931768.[/color]

I was advised, by someone who knows better than I, that the main value of
UAC is to stop programs making changes to important settings without the
user's knowledge. I agree it's annoying, but I reckon it's trying to
protect me from the nasties, not to stop me having control of my own system.
Turn it off if you don't like it. I've decided to let it be for the time
being.

UAC actually gives control to the user.
In the past certain malware could make changes whether the user wanted
or not and usually without the user knowledge.
UAC prevents that.

As a computer is being initially set up or new programs installed, it
is normal for more UAC prompts.
Now I rarely see the prompts.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Geoff P" <notme@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23ygL7WLlHHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> <invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...
> I was advised, by someone who knows better than I, that the main
> value of UAC is to stop programs making changes to important
> settings without the user's knowledge. I agree it's annoying, but I
> reckon it's trying to protect me from the nasties, not to stop me
> having control of my own system. Turn it off if you don't like it.
> I've decided to let it be for the time being.[/color]

Richard Urban wrote:[color=blue]
> Sorry. The individual user is "always" the biggest threat to the
> computer. Without user action most computers would never become
> infected. Yes, there are drive by downloads. With a program like BOClean
> installed (user action) even these can be mitigated. They are stopped
> cold *before* they have a chance to execute on your computer.
>
> So, positive or negative, user interaction is the biggest threat, either
> by not doing something that you could to protect your system or by doing
> something that a prudent person would not do on your system.
>[/color]

You're calling Windows' Auto Update a "drive by download"?

LOL! Read for content, moron.

Alias
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>>> Regards,[/color][/color][/color]

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

<invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
> I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
> install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the[/color]
worthless[color=blue]
> KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.
>
> Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates".[/color]
However,[color=blue]
> I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
> again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
> Firefox permanently.
>
> And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my[/color]
computer[color=blue]
> against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> installing KB931768.
>
> Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We[/color]
desperately[color=blue]
> need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
> Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless[/color]
popups[color=blue]
> until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC,[/color]
then it[color=blue]
> should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about[/color]
procesing[color=blue]
> his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.
>
> Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more[/color]
useful than[color=blue]
> UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
> .... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
> -----------------------------------------------------------[/color]

Alias

No, I don't think he was.. read for content..


"Alias" <aka@aka.cl> wrote in message news:f24sn4$bnm$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Richard Urban wrote:[color=green]
>> Sorry. The individual user is "always" the biggest threat to the
>> computer. Without user action most computers would never become infected.
>> Yes, there are drive by downloads. With a program like BOClean installed
>> (user action) even these can be mitigated. They are stopped cold *before*
>> they have a chance to execute on your computer.
>>
>> So, positive or negative, user interaction is the biggest threat, either
>> by not doing something that you could to protect your system or by doing
>> something that a prudent person would not do on your system.
>>[/color]
>
> You're calling Windows' Auto Update a "drive by download"?
>
> LOL! Read for content, moron.
>
> Alias
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>>>> Regards,[/color][/color]
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> <invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=green]
> > I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
> > install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the[/color]
> worthless[color=green]
> > KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.
> >
> > Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates".[/color]
> However,[color=green]
> > I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
> > again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
> > Firefox permanently.
> >
> > And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my[/color]
> computer[color=green]
> > against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> > computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> > installing KB931768.
> >
> > Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We[/color]
> desperately[color=green]
> > need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
> > Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless[/color]
> popups[color=green]
> > until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC,[/color]
> then it[color=green]
> > should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about[/color]
> procesing[color=green]
> > his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.
> >
> > Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more[/color]
> useful than[color=green]
> > UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
> > .... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------[/color][/color]

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
[url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]

You should "Read for content".
You seem to have missed some content.
If you also read the OPs question, you will see the part about UAC.
Among other things, UAC can give control to the user by controlling
drive by downloads.
But you already know this and used your own apparent misunderstanding
to insult others while adding NOTHING of value to this thread.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Alias" <aka@aka.cl> wrote in message news:f24sn4$bnm$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> You're calling Windows' Auto Update a "drive by download"?
>
> LOL! Read for content, moron.
>
> Alias[/color]

Dumkoph! The man said that he wasn't a threat to his computer.

The man behind the keyboard is always the biggest threat to the computer he
is using, either by commission or by omission.

99% of the problems I have seen over the years have been self inflicted by
people "trying" things that they should not have even thought about.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Alias" <aka@aka.cl> wrote in message news:f24sn4$bnm$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Richard Urban wrote:[color=green]
>> Sorry. The individual user is "always" the biggest threat to the
>> computer. Without user action most computers would never become infected.
>> Yes, there are drive by downloads. With a program like BOClean installed
>> (user action) even these can be mitigated. They are stopped cold *before*
>> they have a chance to execute on your computer.
>>
>> So, positive or negative, user interaction is the biggest threat, either
>> by not doing something that you could to protect your system or by doing
>> something that a prudent person would not do on your system.
>>[/color]
>
> You're calling Windows' Auto Update a "drive by download"?
>
> LOL! Read for content, moron.
>
> Alias
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>>>> Regards,[/color][/color]
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> <invader@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:f24nb601d99@news5.newsguy.com...[color=green]
> > I set windows update to "Download updates but let me CHOOSE whether to
> > install them", and yet when I boot up my machine this morning, the[/color]
> worthless[color=green]
> > KB931768 "breaks IE7" update reinstalls itself and kills IE7.
> >
> > Well now I'm switching windows update to "never check for updates".[/color]
> However,[color=green]
> > I still have every expectation that this OS will reinstall KB931768 once
> > again tomorrow morning. If it does, then I suppose I just switch over to
> > Firefox permanently.
> >
> > And can someone tell me the purpose of UAC? It seems to protect my[/color]
> computer[color=green]
> > against me. I'm not a threat to my computer. Not once I have I broken my
> > computer. Yet Microsoft has broken it three times now by repeatedly
> > installing KB931768.
> >
> > Microsoft, if you are listening, please follow my suggestion. We[/color]
> desperately[color=green]
> > need MAC [Microsoft Access Control]. What MAC will do is everytime the
> > Microsoft developer wants to release a patch, bother him with endless[/color]
> popups[color=green]
> > until he gives up. If the Microsoft employee attempts to disable MAC,[/color]
> then it[color=green]
> > should either a) refuse to process his updates, b) lie to him about[/color]
> procesing[color=green]
> > his update, or c) inundate him with even more popups until he quits.
> >
> > Please Microsoft implement MAC. It will be a million times more[/color]
> useful than[color=green]
> > UAC. It might make Vista almost as stable as a Linux of Apple box.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted using Android Newsgroup Downloader:
> > .... [url]http://www.sb-software.com/android[/url]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------[/color][/color]

Richard Urban wrote:[color=blue]
> Dumkoph! The man said that he wasn't a threat to his computer.
>
> The man behind the keyboard is always the biggest threat to the computer
> he is using, either by commission or by omission.
>
> 99% of the problems I have seen over the years have been self inflicted
> by people "trying" things that they should not have even thought about.
>[/color]

Do you actually use one for anything at all except reading newsgroups?

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> UAC actually gives control to the user.
> In the past certain malware could make changes whether the user wanted
> or not and usually without the user knowledge.
> UAC prevents that.[/color]


If Richard is right it's USERS installing things that cause 99% of the
problems he sees, and given that UAC only warns as the ActiveX installer
used to do then UAC does nothing much more, does it? In the case of 64
bit however the system shuts down if I install an unsigned Kernal driver
which means that I can't even write my own any pore without paying MS
or Verisign or someone a ridiculous fee for my own work. Who did you say
has control?


[color=blue]
> As a computer is being initially set up or new programs installed, it is
> normal for more UAC prompts.
> Now I rarely see the prompts.[/color]

Same question as asked of Richard - do you actually use a computer for
anything except reading newsgroups?

"do you actually use a computer..."
Yes.
Why would you assume otherwise?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:eXmiz7AnHHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> If Richard is right it's USERS installing things that cause 99% of
> the problems he sees, and given that UAC only warns as the ActiveX
> installer used to do then UAC does nothing much more, does it? In
> the case of 64 bit however the system shuts down if I install an
> unsigned Kernal driver which means that I can't even write my own
> any pore without paying MS or Verisign or someone a ridiculous fee
> for my own work. Who did you say has control?
>
>
>[color=green]
>> As a computer is being initially set up or new programs installed,
>> it is normal for more UAC prompts.
>> Now I rarely see the prompts.[/color]
>
> Same question as asked of Richard - do you actually use a computer
> for anything except reading newsgroups?
>[/color]