Windows XP Home edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sundari
  • Start date Start date
S

Sundari

After applying the recent security patches, my computer is
starting to freeze up occasionally. Is this a known
problem, is there a fix for this behaviour? The only way I
can get it out of this state is to unplug the power supply
and plug it back again.
 
First, be sure your antivirus software has the latest definitions and run a
virus scan.

If your system is clear of viruses, open Control Panel, open Administrative
Tools, open Event Viewer, look for errors corresponding to the crash, double
click the error, the information contained within may give a clue as to the
source of the problem.

Assuming you have an XP CD and not a recovery CD, place the XP CD in the
drive, when the setup screen appears, select "Check System Compatibility,"
the report it generates may point to problem hardware or software on your
system. If you do not have an XP CD, you can download this application
known as the Upgrade Advisor from the following site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp
Note: If you have access to a broadband connection it might be best to
download using that as this is a rather large download.

Check for the latest drivers for your hardware, especially your graphics
card and soundcard and all peripherals connected to your system. No not use
Windows Update for this, go to the device manufacturer's web sites and if
you install updated drivers, ignore the message about drivers being unsigned
by Microsoft.

Note, whenever you install an update, you are changing the system
environment and this may necessitate updating drivers or other software as
mentioned above.
 
Where did you get the security patches? I hope not through email because
that is fraudulent. Microsoft doesn't send patches through email. If email
came to direct you to a download site and you are not subscribed to the
Microsoft Security Bulletins for this information, you may have downloaded
and installed a bug.
 
MaryQuiteContrary said:
Where did you get the security patches? I hope not through email
because that is fraudulent.
Click to expand...

What's "fraudulent" about them? They're not asking you for money!
 
Actually the e-mails are not from Microsoft at all.
They contain a virus. MS NEVERS sends
updates or fixes by e-mail. If you loaded one from an e-mail
you have a virus.

gls858
 
They are structured to appear as though they are from Microsoft, in an
attempt to entice people into opening the attachment and infecting their
system with a virus. By definition that's "fraud."
 
Michael said:
They are structured to appear as though they are from Microsoft, in an
attempt to entice people into opening the attachment and infecting
their system with a virus. By definition that's "fraud."
Click to expand...

My definition of Fraud is attempting to acquire financial benefit under
false pretences. Passing off a virus as a Microsoft patch isn't "fraud" -
it's deception.
 
I never knew this is a semantics discussion forum... :-)


--
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned here on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _SPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================
 
Mary's use did follow the dictionary definition and was valid in that
regard, regardless of a personal interpretation. Further, it might be
construed to be valid even under the legal definition: "Intentional
DECEPTION to cause a person to give up property or some lawful right." If a
person opens the attachment, they lose the ability to exercise their legal
rights with regard to the software. That would seem to measure up to the
legal definition.

In law school, they will tell you there are several types of fraud. Whether
or not it has legal weight might depend on damage to the victim but the
operative word is might. It also might be measured as potential damage as
well.

Nonetheless, the user does suffer damages if the user is no longer able to
use or otherwise access their system. That can result in financial loss. I
think there's a strong case here for fraud. Also, it could be argued the
very format of the message was designed not only to deceive users into
thinking it was legitimate but also to implicate Microsoft. Hence, the
"DECEPTION," costs Microsoft. You can have deception without fraud but you
cannot have fraud without deception. Fraud is not just the attempt to
acquire financial gain under false pretenses but can also be a deception
meant to cause harm or harm a reputation and I certainly think this falls
within that definition.
 
It isn't but there is a legal concept here and there are resulting damages
to both the individual user as well as to Microsoft. This shouldn't be
lost, ignored or minimized in any discussion of the harm it might cause and
the public should have an understanding of that and all the implications of
the actions of the person(s) who devised this scheme in the first place.
 
My definition of Fraud is attempting to acquire financial benefit under
false pretences. Passing off a virus as a Microsoft patch isn't "fraud" -
it's deception.
Click to expand...

From the dictionary:

fraud, n. 1) Willful deceit; trickery. 2) An act or instance of this. 3)
(U.S. informal) One who acts deceitfully; imposter. 4) A deceptive or
spurious thing.

Obviously, "fraud" is a perfectly acceptable reference to the
pseudo-Microsoft messages.
--
Brian Tillman
Smiths Aerospace
3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3
Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991
Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.

I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.
 
Brian said:
From the dictionary:

fraud, n. 1) Willful deceit; trickery. 2) An act or instance of
this. 3) (U.S. informal) One who acts deceitfully; imposter. 4) A
deceptive or spurious thing.

Obviously, "fraud" is a perfectly acceptable reference to the
pseudo-Microsoft messages.
Click to expand...

But all those definitions are qualified by the fact that a fraudulent act is
designed to give some benefit to the defrauder. The mails with viruses in
them give NO benefit to the sender therefore they are not fraud.
 
But all those definitions are qualified by the fact that a fraudulent act
is
designed to give some benefit to the defrauder. The mails with viruses in
them give NO benefit to the sender therefore they are not fraud.
Click to expand...

Quote the phrases from the definitions I posted that support your assertion.
--
Brian Tillman
Smiths Aerospace
3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3
Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991
Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.

I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.
 
Back
Top