CSotD: Just say ‘no’ to critical updates
Skip to comments
Lizzie of "Reply All," explains computer updates and upgrades in language we can all understand.
I currently have two semi-working laptops and one that works well.
By "semi-working" I mean slightly odd and tweaky, which is acceptable for goofing around but definitely not okay for a telecommuter to work on, since it's hard to fake productivity when all anybody sees of you is whatever you can produce on your computer.
Fortunately, laptops have come down in price such that, when they begin to be unreliable, you can replace them.
There is the argument that, if you spent a grand instead of $500 on a computer, it might last three years instead of one and you'd save money over the long run.
The counterargument is that it might not.
There's also the argument that, if you buy a Mac instead of Windows, you won't be vulnerable to all the viruses and malware and other sabotage that can bring down a PC.
This argument is based not on computer science but on market share. As Apple expands its presence in the market, the vandals have begun putting time into finding ways to sabotage the "impregnable" Mac programming and the argument is fading from use.
There are also the Linux and other alternative operating system fans, who are divided into two camps: Those who absolutely know computers and would be able to fix anything anyway, no matter what OS they were using, and those who think they belong in that camp but don't and whose computers go down mostly because they've been tinkered with by geniuses.
The "virus" argument is overblown at best.
Back in the 90's, there was a fellow whose name I've forgotten who argued persuasively that most "viruses" did not exist and that the vast majority of times someone's computer was diagnosed with a "virus," the fact was that the tech either didn't know what was wrong or how to fix it, or else had screwed things up beyond repair, and so – consciously or unconsciously — used "virus" as an excuse to clean it out and do a complete reinstall.
I'm not persuaded by his theory that viruses don't exist, but I firmly believe that about 90 percent of the "my computer got a virus" stories could be more accurately framed as "I did something to my computer that screwed up the settings."
And that can be as simple as installing something that was programmed for one system and then poorly adapted for another platform. And I say this as someone who has, at several newspapers, used a Mac computer to run Quark. If you think Macs can't freeze up or crash or freeze up and require crashing, well, I beg to differ, but I can only argue from experience, not from theory.
While there may be only so much experience in the world, there sure is no shortage of theory.
I've worked at papers so small they couldn't afford to keep a tech on staff, so they'd bring in general techs who, if you asked them something specific about a program, couldn't answer you because, while they knew how to install, upgrade and so forth, they didn't actually understand what the program was supposed to do.
If it wasn't running, they would reinstall it so it would run.
But if it didn't perform as needed, they were far worse than useless, because they would have to call Quark themselves (you wouldn't be allowed to) but then wouldn't be able to explain the problem.
I've also worked at papers with their own techs who understood what the various programs were intended to do and they fell into two categories: Those with a sense of adventure and innovation, and those with inflexible, unreasonable rules that took all the fun out of it.
God preserve us from adventure and innovation. If a program wasn't already unstable enough, the adventure-and-innovation gang would find a way to make it moreso, all in the name of "improving the way it operates."
If you've never worked in a tech-dependent job, here's a classic Norm to tell you what it's like:
I suspect the major tech firms have a lot of innovative geniuses and that they are the ones who keep offering critical updates, sometimes in ways that make it hard or impossible to say no. Then, about three weeks later, there's another set of critical updates.
My theory is that the second set of critical updates is meant to correct what happened when you installed the first set of critical updates. But that it will also install some updates that will have to be corrected in another three weeks.
This continues until they've rendered your laptop so unstable, tweaky and unreliable that it's mostly good for streaming episodes of "Dogs in the City" on a shelf over the sink while you do dishes.
Don't watch "Dogs in the City" on a shelf over the sink while you do dishes.
Listen to Lizzie: Just say "No" to critical updates.
(And disable the "automatic update" settings so they have to ask you each time. Then say "no" to their requests, shut down the computer, and say 'yes' to poor old Dad.)
I've run this clip before. I'll probably run it again.
Comments 5
Comments are closed.