[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       patchmanagement
Subject:    RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases
From:       Melvin Backus <melvin.backus () byers ! com>
Date:       2017-04-24 17:54:02
Message-ID: 1ADD796D2529E94DB4552E7C1F12A21ADEBFE183 () ATLEXCH04 ! byers ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

Not to mention that even with a 64-bit OS installed, the applications are still \
predominately 32-bit. In many cases, including some of Microsoft's offerings, the \
64-bit has a propensity to break things, particularly if it has a large plugin/addon \
population.


--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world...
         those who understand binary and those who don't.

-----Original Message-----
From: Job Cacka [mailto:job@ccbox.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 12:26 PM
To: Patch Management Mailing List <patchmanagement@listserv.patchmanagement.org>
Subject: RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases

Which presents another point. Do they need a 64-bit OS? Most of my customers wouldn't \
know the difference. There are those that would and we make sure their experience is \
good. But for the vast majority of our user base 64-bit was a non-issue, because \
3.5GB of RAM ran everything they needed.  There are many improvements that were \
included in 64-bit OS that will benefit the user, but the majority will not see them.

We had better responses of installing SSD as Boot devices than the conversion from \
32-bit to 64-bit.

Job

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn K. Hall [mailto:patchmanagement.org@12pd.com]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Patch Management Mailing List
Subject: RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases

> Look how long it took for 64bit OS's to become mainstream.."

I'm currently in the process of reviewing an organization with ~1100 devices and NOT \
ONE is running a 64-bit OS. "Mainstream" still leaves plenty of people in the dust.

-S
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Job Cacka [mailto:job@ccbox.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:18
> To: Patch Management Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases
> 
> "Imagine a world where the company designing your operating system 
> DIDN'T have to worry about 30 years of backwards compatibility. Can 
> you imagine how much further along we would be without that massive 
> tether of backwards compatibility tying us down?
> 
> 
> 
> Look how long it took for 64bit OS's to become mainstream.."
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this is a challenge. However this is a challenge MS engineered 
> and designed their OS into. So my level of sympathy is very low.
> 
> 
> 
> Job
> 
> 
> 
> From: Matthew Houston [mailto:Matthew.Houston@camden.nsw.gov.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:09 PM
> To: Patch Management Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases
> 
> 
> 
> We already do that, though not with petrol.
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia you have to get a pink slip. If your car is to 
> old and decrepit then it won't pass a safety standard and 
> won't be allowed on the road. Does this affect some cars that 
> 'technically' are still road worthy.. Well yes. Is it for the 
> greater good and the safety of the general public.. For sure.
> 
> 
> 
> <sarcasm> Maybe we should get the government to scan every PC 
> to ensure they are up to scratch before they are allowed on 
> the internet? </s> I kid, I kid but really what choice does MS have. 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a world where the company designing your operating 
> system DIDN'T have to worry about 30 years of backwards 
> compatibility. Can you imagine how much further along we 
> would be without that massive tether of backwards 
> compatibility tying us down? 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how long it took for 64bit OS's to become mainstream..
> 
> Matthew Houston 
> Information Systems Support Specialist 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Job Cacka [mailto:job@ccbox.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017 1:16 AM
> To: Patch Management Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases
> 
> 
> 
> "P.S. I wonder how people would we react in a hypothetical 
> world where a monopoly company builds 90% of all cars, and 
> operates all gas stations, if they would suddenly refuse to 
> sell gasoline for cars older than 5 years? (officially of 
> course only to protect them from unlikely damage caused by 
> slightly higher ethanol concentration)"
> 
> 
> 
> </sarcasm> But it is for our own good and security, so for 
> any inconvenience we should be satisfied that our best 
> interests are being looked out for, despite the cost to our wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> Job
> 
> 
> 
> From: Klaus Hartnegg [mailto:hartnegg@uni-freiburg.de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:46 PM
> To: Patch Management Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [patchmanagement] Known issues in this releases
> 
> 
> 
> This is claimed to repair the patch mechanism / disable the 
> buggy sabotizing code which was recently added to it:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/18/bypass-for-windows-update-lo
> ck-for-modern-processors-found/
> 
> I would not recommend to permanently rely on such a hack for 
> the other affected CPUs!! But it may be an option for those 
> who are only affected by the current false positive detection 
> / overreaction.
> 
> P.S. I wonder how people would we react in a hypothetical 
> world where a monopoly company builds 90% of all cars, and 
> operates all gas stations, if they would suddenly refuse to 
> sell gasoline for cars older than 5 years? (officially of 
> course only to protect them from unlikely damage caused by 
> slightly higher ethanol concentration)
> 
> 
> 
> 


---
PatchManagement.org is hosted by Shavlik

The content on the email list is intended for assisting administrators.  If
you would like to use any of this content in a blog or media publication,
please contact the owners of the list for approval.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org
If you are unable to unsubscribe via this email address, please email
owner-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org


---
PatchManagement.org is hosted by Shavlik

The content on the email list is intended for assisting administrators.  If you would \
like to use any of this content in a blog or media publication, please contact the \
owners of the list for approval.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org
If you are unable to unsubscribe via this email address, please email
owner-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org


---
PatchManagement.org is hosted by Shavlik

The content on the email list is intended for assisting administrators.  If you would \
like to use any of this content in a blog or media publication, please contact the \
owners of the list for approval.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org
If you are unable to unsubscribe via this email address, please email
owner-patchmanagement@patchmanagement.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]