Larry Seltzer has a nice column about the difficulties of keeping up with
Windows patches if you have a dialup connection.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272162,00.asp
"It occurred to me that one way to make things easier for dial-up users,
and even broadband users in many cases, would be to issue periodic update
CDs. Imagine a disc with all of the updates on it and a program, it could
even be written in Windows Script Host, to check a system for which
updates need to be installed, apply them in the correct order and even
reboot in between. Such a program would not be hard to write."
[...]
"I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response basically
avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a CD,
assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough basis
for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks of the
patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on
a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every month?
And how much of a market would there really be? Are there enough people that
would apply patches if they got a monthly CD that it would actually make a
measurable difference? What price point are they willing to pay for the CD, and
what does it mean for Microsoft?
I mean... look at it from Microsoft's point of view - why should they *CARE* if
65% or 85% of the hosts on the Infobahn are exploding Pintos, when unlike a Pinto
exploding on the Washington Beltway, a Pinto exploding on the Infobahn doesn't
affect their bottom line any?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's responsibility
to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end user.
Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put
people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3 hours to
download and theyre paying per minute on the call
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the
option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of
downloading.. ?
Steve
Stephen J. Wilcox said:
> "I recently put this suggestion to Microsoft and their response
basically
> avoided the whole issue. Why wouldn't the company want to offer such a
CD,
> assuming that's the motivation behind their stonewalling?"
It would cost money to produce and ship a new CD on a frequent enough
basis
for it to do any good. Consider that we're seeing worms within 4 weeks
of the
patch coming out. How many CD duplicating places are willing to take on
a multi-million run with a 1-2 week turn-around, once a month, every
month?
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's
responsibility
to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra cost to the end
user.
Its not a problem patching on a dialup, it just takes longer, this may put
people off when they see their computer tell them its going to take 3
hours to
download and theyre paying per minute on the call
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user the
option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose of
downloading.. ?
Steve
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out
bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide updates as
part of their license agreement to users, this would just be an enhancement of
their existing facility offering a new level of security whereby users can gain
access to critical updates without putting their machines at risk by connecting
to the global Internet...
Steve
Toll free - in many cases international - with 56k lines max for dialup
and many way below that, would - given the filesizes typically used in
WindowsUpdate - be a very costly call for Microsoft. And there'd be
rather a lot of them, so you can be sure that M$ would be recovering
those $ from somebody. Most probably (current and future) users.
WindowsUpdate would presumably refuse to update pirated copies of the
software, but pirate copies of the software will still be just as open
to the vulnerabilities that have been, and continue to be, discovered.
Oddly enough the biggest killer of all will not be any of this, but the
fact that most people will be unwilling for their single phone line to
be tied up and unusable for the length of time each update will take.
And then repeat that every month or so..
Microsoft already does this, it is their TechNet program. They include all service packs and updates. Unfortunately, they charge a whopping pile for the service, beyond the reach of most home/dial users.
Jerry
You agree. I agree. Microsoft doesn't agree, and based on the fact that the user
presumably agreed to the EULA as phrased, the users don't either.
After all, if the users didn't like the current support, they're free to change vendors. 
Ok then different idea, assuming that we're all agreed its MS's
responsibility to ensure users are patched promptly and without extra
cost to the end user.
The problem is that while we agree, Micr0$0ft does not. They feel they should
have no "responsibility" whatsoever to the end user beyond cheerfully refunding
their money if they decide to stop using Windows. They are of the opinion
that they are patching these things out of the goodness of their hart as a
favor and in the interests of above-and-beyond customer service.
I do not understand why people continue to do business with such an arrogant
self-serving organization which has repeatedly demonstrated a completely
a-moral approach to business.
Just my opinion.
Owen
Realise that this would require MS to take responsibility for putting out
bad code. That's quite unlikely, IMO.
Hmm no, they dont have to take that approach, they currently provide
updates as part of their license agreement to users, this would just be
an enhancement of their existing facility offering a new level of
security whereby users can gain access to critical updates without
putting their machines at risk by connecting to the global Internet...
Actually, they don't, and, that's probably why they don't want others
redistributing their patch software. If you run Windows update, you have
to agree to half a dozen additional and supplemental EULAs before you can
actually get your software patched. (I carefully had someone else agree
on the one Windows system I have to cope with so that _I_ am still not
a party to a Micr0$0ft EULA).
It would be an enhancement for the users, but, for Micr0$0ft, it's all about
the EULA, and, if it is distributed on CD, it's much harder for them to
enforce the "you must agree to the supplemental EULA" provisions.
Owen
What if MS included something in the Windows Update that gave the user
the option of calling a toll-free number operated by MS for the purpose
of downloading.. ?
Toll free - in many cases international - with 56k lines max for dialup
and many way below that, would - given the filesizes typically used in
WindowsUpdate - be a very costly call for Microsoft. And there'd be
rather a lot of them, so you can be sure that M$ would be recovering
those $ from somebody. Most probably (current and future) users.
I have NO problem with that. Micr0$0ft should start bearing the costs
of their brokenness. If they choose to pass that on to their end users,
then that is a business decision they can make as a business. Hopefully
when the true cost of Windows becomes part of the price tag, Windows
users will wake up and realize it's too expensive.
WindowsUpdate would presumably refuse to update pirated copies of the
software, but pirate copies of the software will still be just as open
to the vulnerabilities that have been, and continue to be, discovered.
I have heard from multiple sources that this is not true. I suspect
Micr0$0ft doesn't have the ability to reliably determine the difference
between a pirated copy of Windows and the same serial number being
reinstalled and repatched multiple times.
Oddly enough the biggest killer of all will not be any of this, but the
fact that most people will be unwilling for their single phone line to
be tied up and unusable for the length of time each update will take.
And then repeat that every month or so..
Yep.
Owen
Microsoft does not issue refunds if you stop using Windows, whether or
not you were satisfied with the XPerience.
My interactions with Microsoft have never been "cheerful", which is a
state mostly reserved for New Product Launch(tm) parties and advertisements.
Nor can one readily obtain a refund from an OEM, even if you never
use Windows and reject the EULA (http://windowsrefund.net/index2.php).
If you bought your Windows from an OEM, you're pretty much screwed because
Micr0$0ft has transferred all responsibility to the OEM, and, the OEMs don't
want to issue refunds because that costs them on their deal with Micr0$0ft.
(A questionable business practice on M$ part, at best).
However, every time I have purchased a copy of Windows from Micr0$0ft or
from a store without a computer, discovered it didn't work, called Micr0$0ft
and insisted that they deliver what they promise, they have cheerfully offered
to refund my money, and, I have always gotten my refund within 2-3 weeks of
sending them their piece of shit product.
If you're OEM doesn't refund you, the simplest course of action is to print
out the EULA you didn't agree to which says in clear text that you are
entitled to a refund from your OEM (at least the last time I looked at
one, which, was probably NT4 or W2K at the latest). Attach that to your
small-claims filing, and, have the OEM served (certified mail usually works
with corporations). It's always good to name the CEO as a party in the
suit and send the service to him personally as well as the corporation
generally.
In any case, my point is that at best, they'll refund your money. They don't
feel they have any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Owen