"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:33:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes

In view of the fact that there is a virus doing the rounds, (it tries
to
attack me on average 1.5 times daily) which purports to come from
Microsoft
and which includes an attachment which is said to cure something or
other,
I will not avail myself of this advice, however good it might be,
until I
hear from others who are brave enough to follow it.

There's a difference between downloading an official patch from
Microsoft, and executing an email attachment merely claiming to be a
patch (and in being in reality malware).

The vulnerability and patch don't apply to Windows 98 and some other
old
versions of Windows.

Ah, well, I am running Windows 98 and have no intention of upgrading.
Do you really mean that later versions have newly introduced
vulnerabilities
which did not exist on the older versions?

Yes.

Win 98 is not supported from 1-1-2004.

I have never needed any support from Microsoft since I bought my Windows 98.
When your doomsday arrives, if I still have enough marbles left to do it, I
will migrate from Windows to Linux.

Are there no Americans around who might care to prosecute Microsoft for
ceasing to support software for the use of which they were paid?

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:18:25 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

In view of the fact that there is a virus doing the rounds, (it tries to
attack me on average 1.5 times daily) which purports to come from
Microsoft
and which includes an attachment which is said to cure something or
other,
I will not avail myself of this advice, however good it might be, until
I
hear from others who are brave enough to follow it.

There's a difference between downloading an official patch from
Microsoft, and executing an email attachment merely claiming to be a
patch (and in being in reality malware).

I think Franz doesn't trust the URL. I use Microsoft products under great
duress.

You are quite right.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

In view of the fact that there is a virus doing the rounds, (it tries to
attack me on average 1.5 times daily) which purports to come from
Microsoft
and which includes an attachment which is said to cure something or
other,
I will not avail myself of this advice, however good it might be, until I
hear from others who are brave enough to follow it.

The message to which I referred was a notice from Microsoft distributed
for them by Demon - and probably other ISPs. The URL gives direct access
to MS Windows Update where the patch can be downloaded and installed by
MS users. Its purpose is to protect against new developments of the
blaster worm. Uninvited e-mails purporting to be from Microsoft should
be deleted without opening.

I would rather rely on Norton to fight virus attacks than rely on Microsoft.

Franz

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:43:16 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:33:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes

In view of the fact that there is a virus doing the rounds, (it tries
to
attack me on average 1.5 times daily) which purports to come from
Microsoft
and which includes an attachment which is said to cure something or
other,
I will not avail myself of this advice, however good it might be,
until I
hear from others who are brave enough to follow it.

There's a difference between downloading an official patch from
Microsoft, and executing an email attachment merely claiming to be a
patch (and in being in reality malware).

The vulnerability and patch don't apply to Windows 98 and some other
old
versions of Windows.

Ah, well, I am running Windows 98 and have no intention of upgrading.
Do you really mean that later versions have newly introduced
vulnerabilities
which did not exist on the older versions?

Yes.

Win 98 is not supported from 1-1-2004.

I have never needed any support from Microsoft since I bought my Windows 98.
When your doomsday arrives, if I still have enough marbles left to do it, I
will migrate from Windows to Linux.

It's not that difficult to install SuSe Linux, the problems come if
you want to run Linux and WinXP on the same PC, when WinXp is already
installed.
Both Linux and XP are very stable OS, I found that programs that are
stable on WinXP were sometimes not so stable on Linux. We have had no
crashes on either of the Dell WinXP PCs that we have owned for about
12 months now. One of them is used by my son for games and Autocad.
I have tried both SuSe Linux and WinXP over the last year and decided
to stick with Win XP, since I haven't found any advantages in
switching to Linux and several of the programs, excluding MS products,
that I use are only available for windows machines.
--
Martin

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:46:24 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

In view of the fact that there is a virus doing the rounds, (it tries to
attack me on average 1.5 times daily) which purports to come from
Microsoft
and which includes an attachment which is said to cure something or
other,
I will not avail myself of this advice, however good it might be, until I
hear from others who are brave enough to follow it.

The message to which I referred was a notice from Microsoft distributed
for them by Demon - and probably other ISPs. The URL gives direct access
to MS Windows Update where the patch can be downloaded and installed by
MS users. Its purpose is to protect against new developments of the
blaster worm. Uninvited e-mails purporting to be from Microsoft should
be deleted without opening.

I would rather rely on Norton to fight virus attacks than rely on Microsoft.

Microsoft occasionally anticipate problems before they happen whereas
Symantec react to problems. For example Microsoft provided a patch to
prevent Blaster type worms in July 2003, before Blaster attacks
started.
It's safer to take the input from both companies,BUT if I could only
chose one I would chose Symantec :-)
--
Martin

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

Ah, well, I am running Windows 98 and have no intention of upgrading.

me too

Do you really mean that later versions have newly introduced
vulnerabilities which did not exist on the older versions?

of course, what else are new versions for?

--
dave @ stejonda

In message , Alan Gould
writes

The following message from Microsoft appeared in Demon announce today:

It was sent out as one of M$'s official Security Bulletins a few days
ago.

Note that M$ Security Bulletins are PGP signed and never include an
executable, they always provide a pointer to a page on a M$ site from
where the update can be downloaded.

--
dave @ stejonda

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:40:43 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

Ah, well, I am running Windows 98 and have no intention of upgrading.

me too

Do you really mean that later versions have newly introduced
vulnerabilities which did not exist on the older versions?

of course, what else are new versions for?

well they don't crash for a start.
--
Martin

In message , martin
writes
of course, what else are new versions for?

well they don't crash for a start.

NME - winXP crashed every time I tried to access the LAN here so I wiped
it and installed w98se - no prob's

--
dave @ stejonda

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:15:19 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , martin
writes
of course, what else are new versions for?

well they don't crash for a start.

NME - winXP crashed every time I tried to access the LAN here so I wiped
it and installed w98se - no prob's

Could it be that you made a cock up with the installation?

Think about it, there must be millions of XP users accessing LAN
without crashes.
--
Martin

In message , martin
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:15:19 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:
In message , martin
writes
of course, what else are new versions for?

well they don't crash for a start.

NME - winXP crashed every time I tried to access the LAN here so I wiped
it and installed w98se - no prob's

Could it be that you made a cock up with the installation?

Think about it, there must be millions of XP users accessing LAN
without crashes.

installation as supplied with m/c and then reinstalled n times - and
yes, I am coming around to thinking that I'll have to go the XP (or
Linux) route in the end

--
dave @ stejonda

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:03:33 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , martin
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:15:19 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:
In message , martin
writes
of course, what else are new versions for?

well they don't crash for a start.

NME - winXP crashed every time I tried to access the LAN here so I wiped
it and installed w98se - no prob's

Could it be that you made a cock up with the installation?

Think about it, there must be millions of XP users accessing LAN
without crashes.

installation as supplied with m/c and then reinstalled n times - and
yes, I am coming around to thinking that I'll have to go the XP (or
Linux) route in the end

Somebody had trouble installing Linux on Dell PCs at work, but in the
end he succeeded.
--
Martin

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

I would rather rely on Norton to fight virus attacks than rely on Microsoft.

I also use NAV/Symantec - regularly updated.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"martin" wrote in message
...
Microsoft occasionally anticipate problems before they happen whereas
Symantec react to problems. For example Microsoft provided a patch to
prevent Blaster type worms in July 2003, before Blaster attacks
started.
It's safer to take the input from both companies,BUT if I could only
chose one I would chose Symantec :-)
--

Guys, you're missing the point! Symantec and Microsoft do different
things - MS to my knowledge have *never* released anything to do with a
virus. If you don't update both, you either don't understand what you're
doing (which is fine) or you're a misguided fool (which is not!).

Microsoft update Windows and Office. Symantec update their own anti-virus
and other products. Having one or the other up to date only will never be
secure. MS didn't provide a patch to prevent the Blaster worm (it is not a
virus), they released a patch to fix a vulnerability in their software. The
worm happens to exploit this and companies like Symantec, McAfee, etc.
release DATs to detect (and hopefully prevent if you got the DAT before the
worm tried to infect).

It's not "safer" to update both - it's absolutely necessary.


a

"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message .

NME - winXP crashed every time I tried to access the LAN here so I wiped
it and installed w98se - no prob's


Probably because you have no clue what you're doing or your machine isn't
suited to it. That's about the most pathetic defence of Win98 I've ever
heard! Keep your bug-ridden out of date software, you'll be someone's bitch
soon enough if you stay connected for long enough!

Im not a MS fan at all, but XP is rock solid compared to anything else
they've ever released. Any other opinion on this matter is based on
singular (and therefore irrelevant) "bad" experiences.



a