Wow, this latest Win Update

[LowRyter]

Man, this last Windows update was a doozy. 

First, I couldn't even log on.  The password box wouldn't accept text.  After several tries, I discover there some kind of drop down box with icons that defy description (and BTW, I can't figure out how to get rid of that stupid password thing anyway).  The 2nd icon allows me to type my password.

Next I keep getting prompted about getting background images to my aps or something, then when I clear it wants to configure Skype which I don't use nor do I want to load contacts on it.

Then, the sound didn't work for media.  Had to reboot to get my sound to work.

Went to File Manager (File Explorer) and now there are blocks and lines to sort and categorize my Download stuff which is confusing.

I am afraid to know what I might find next.


OK, time to roll the credits and hear about the virtues of Linux and Mac.  No argument from me.  It's quite apparent that I know nothing about computers and care even less.   Just wish the damn things worked and quit bothering me with shit I don't need.

[Lannis]

   Just wish the damn things worked and quit bothering me with shit I don't need.

No need in wishing and hoping and wanting and waiting.   You just stated both the knock against windows and the 'raison d'etre' for Linux in one sentence.  Nuff said.

Lannis

[LowRyter]

That sure help my mood Lannis.

[Lannis]

That sure help my mood Lannis.

It's for next time.   And Microsoft will make SURE there is a next time, and sooner than you think ....

[Two Checks]

If Windows is so great why does it need to be updated every week?

[StuCorpe]

I have been fighting the latest Ubuntu update (19.10) for 2 days now trying to get some parts of it to work the way I think they should (or work in any manner). 

[oldbike54]

 Weird , this computer gets all of the updates , nothing changes , I must be doing something wrong 

 Dusty

[s1120]

The last few updates have made internet explorer almost unuseable. Chrome seems fine for me.

[Two Checks]

Internet Explorer is dead. Edge is the default browser for W10.

[Bulldog9]

If Windows is so great why does it need to be updated every week?

Most are security patches. Some are to roll out new features and fix bugs, but the security patches are the big deal.

[Two Checks]

Like I said, if its so great, why does it need bug fixes (bad programming), and security patches (more bad programming)?

[StuCorpe]

It probably needs security updates because of the idots called "hackers" and people making new malware all the time.  Just my opinion.

[Bulldog9]

Like I said, if its so great, why does it need bug fixes (bad programming), and security patches (more bad programming)?

Hackers..........

[Two Checks]

If its so great how is it so easily hacked?

[trippah]

My brand new HP laptop, maybe fifth time on the internet; all of a sudden, big red screen, call win support at whatever number is on screen.  Did so, was led by the nose for about five minutes until they offered a deeper scan etc for a fee - what would this fee be?, dude on phone continues his sell.  I shut off the computer - went to my older computer win 7 and YES, this scam is noted when I searched.
Wow, Win 10 has so far been so superior fighting malware etc.

[jdgretz]

If its so great how is it so easily hacked?

Back when I was doing IT Security for Black Projects, we had a discussion with one of the developers who was complaining about the security requirements.  I explained it to him this way.

My job is to make sure the information is safe - safe from hackers, safe from accidental exposure to those not cleared for the information, and to ensure its integrity - that the data has not been inadvertently changed or modified.  There is nothing in my job description that says I have to make it available to engineers to do their work. 

This is where we start to compromise.

I think we started to reach an understanding at that point.  How is this relevant? 

PC operating systems (Apple and Windows) are designed to be (somewhat) easy to use, and in Windows case, to be (more or less) backwards compatible.  Apple is similar, but somewhat less so when it comes to backward compatibility.  Those operating principles mean old code must still be supported at some level which then requires either a bloated Operating System, or a limit on how far back one wished to be compatible.  MS has recently drawn a line in the sand with some of their products saying that older versions will not work (not just not be supported) with the current version of the OS.  About time, I'd say. That decision will allow them to trim a bunch of code and tighten up the security.  Apple has done this numerous times in it's history.  They have told users they have to upgrade to newer hardware (replace their computers, not upgrade)  and software (will not run on older machines) in order to use the newest programs and features.

While the current Apple OS is a derivative of Unix, it is still "fixed" to be more user friendly that pure Unix.  Linux is similar.  User ease of use was/is high on the design criteria.  Any time you make the OS easier to use, it comes at a price.  Usually that price is security related.

Why do folks target Microsoft?  It's the big dog.  There are more Windows machine around than any other Operating System.  It's a more attractive target, and given the number of users, it's probably safe to assume there are a number of those machines that are not being properly secured - which in turn, makes them easier targets.

At the other end of the scale are IBM Mainframes.  Very little OS hacking there.  Even as an authorized user, the IBM interface is a pain in the a$$ to use, plus the security programs and procedures do a damn good job.  Hackers at that level are a whole other group of folks than script kiddies and the "Russians" who push out encryption software.

Going back a bit (1985ish) Macs were the training ground for most hackers as they were relatively easy to write viruses for (fork virus) and to then take over.  DOS and the first couple of iterations of Windows were more difficult, so you ended up with each virus targeted specifically at a sub routine or individual program that was in common use rather than the core operating system.  Taking control was a lot more difficult back then as there was no World Wide Web.  Most computers that had remote access were on dial-up connections, or from point to point circuits in corporations.  As more and more external parts were added to the core operating system, and more entry points for the applications, more vulnerabilities were created.  But, it became easier for the end use to easily make use of. The Web made remote access much easier, and those points of access were relatively easy to compromise.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

I use Windows by choice.  I know it's vulnerabilities, short comings, and capabilities.  There are programs I use that are not available on *nix, and I don't wish to play with emulators or adding Windows to *nix in order to run those programs.  Having said that, I do have a stand alone Unix box that runs my firewall and VPN, as well as another box or two for testing and other projects.

As long as it works for you, enjoy it.  Sort of like motorcycles.

jdg

[oldbike54]

 The hackers are just as talented as the people designing operating systems . There is not now , or has ever been a foolproof system or device .

 Dusty

[StuCorpe]

 The hackers are just as talented as the people designing operating systems . There is not now , or has ever been a foolproof system or device .

 Dusty

And never will be.  If a man can make it another man, or woman can break it and or fix it.

[Lannis]

The hackers are just as talented as the people designing operating systems . There is not now , or has ever been a foolproof system or device .

 Dusty

And never will be.  If a man can make it another man, or woman can break it and or fix it.

Well, we're none of us looking for "foolproof".  The various Linux systems are certainly not "foolproof" or "unhackable", BUT we find that the hackers are going for the "deep pockets, people with vulnerable Windows systems of which there are 100 million of them out there, many of them fat, dumb, happy, and unprotected .... versus something like Ubuntu or Debian, of which there are (say) 3 million of them out there, with some level of protection.   There's just not as much potential there for big results for the hackers, and so they tend not to spend their time messing with them.   And so in actuality we find that Linux systems are messed with MUCH less than others ...

I'll take that, versus some ideal of "foolproof" that can never be met.

Lannis

[Two Checks]

Windows is like an insecure jail. Poor security but it gets "upgraded" weekly (weakly?). But the upgrades are hacked immediately. Its as if the programmers are the hackers.
Sells a lot of anti virus software.
I used Macs before they were Macs, aka Lisa and then the Apples before that.
Never worried about that kind of stuff. Now ya gotta worry about it...why? Its basically MS these days.
Since these windows machines are backward compatible to a point-Macs were, too-why is all that old code vulnerable? Didn't they write patches to fix that? And why does the new stuff get hacked immediately? Is it that bad?
Are programmers leaking info or are the programmers the hackers, ensuring job security?
Once they write a new OS, unless they are tasked with a new OS, without all the "updates" they are out of work.
Just thinking outside the box.

[nobleswood]

Jdgretz, thanks for that explanation, clarification from someone who can see above the trees while I still have my nose pushed up against a tree trunk 

[LowRyter]

I am still getting notices to set up Skype.  Had three of them this morning. 

[oldbike54]

Well, we're none of us looking for "foolproof".  The various Linux systems are certainly not "foolproof" or "unhackable", BUT we find that the hackers are going for the "deep pockets, people with vulnerable Windows systems of which there are 100 million of them out there, many of them fat, dumb, happy, and unprotected .... versus something like Ubuntu or Debian, of which there are (say) 3 million of them out there, with some level of protection.   There's just not as much potential there for big results for the hackers, and so they tend not to spend their time messing with them.   And so in actuality we find that Linux systems are messed with MUCH less than others ...

I'll take that, versus some ideal of "foolproof" that can never be met.

Lannis

 Interestingly enough , I haven't ever been hacked . Then again it wouldn't matter , there isn't anything on here that anyone could make use of .

 Dusty

[LowRyter]

I have two notices to update the background my Skype.

What now?

https://youtu.be/YLGhHTkFh7Q

[fossil]

Windows is like an insecure jail. Poor security but it gets "upgraded" weekly (weakly?). But the upgrades are hacked immediately. Its as if the programmers are the hackers.
Sells a lot of anti virus software.
I used Macs before they were Macs, aka Lisa and then the Apples before that.
Never worried about that kind of stuff. Now ya gotta worry about it...why? Its basically MS these days.
Since these windows machines are backward compatible to a point-Macs were, too-why is all that old code vulnerable? Didn't they write patches to fix that? And why does the new stuff get hacked immediately? Is it that bad?
Are programmers leaking info or are the programmers the hackers, ensuring job security?
Once they write a new OS, unless they are tasked with a new OS, without all the "updates" they are out of work.
Just thinking outside the box.

You must definitely une another sort of Windows than me. My Win 10 1909 gets updates for Defender all the time. For the OS one update per month is usual. Feature updates (which are great - they steadily enhance the functionability of the machine) come every 6 months normally.

And no, Defender is not the sole protection program for Windows. It is only a part of Windows Security.

[Two Checks]

At work I configure computers for use in the field for individual clients. There are weekly updates. Usually come out on Tuesday. They even include previews of updates.
Updates to Windows Security? It must not be very secure! Thanks for affirming my point!

[Wayne Orwig]

You must definitely une another sort of Windows than me. My Win 10 1909 gets updates for Defender all the time. For the OS one update per month is usual. Feature updates (which are great - they steadily enhance the functionability of the machine) come every 6 months normally.

And no, Defender is not the sole protection program for Windows. It is only a part of Windows Security.

I got an OS update in August, and one in early December. And the weekly security updates.

I signed up for the beta updates a bit over a year ago. I had some issues with the betas, so I went back to the normal updates. Never had an issue with the normal updates, and usually get feature improvements that are nice.

[Monza-jockey]

I mainly run Linux (Mint Cinnamon "Tricia" 19.3). My definite favorite.
I'm very satisfied how it runs, security, etc.

 When I have to run Windows, it's on a dual boot Linux box.

Also running iOS on Mac hardware; Android on Motorola.

Play around, make back-ups and have fun!

[Muzz]

Weird , this computer gets all of the updates , nothing changes , I must be doing something wrong 

 Dusty

So far, this is us also... (fingers crossed).