On Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:02:16 AM UTC-4, o m e H o m e G u y wrote:
The Village Idiot and Google-Groper trader_4 wrote:



MSFT has no obligation to the handful of people like you

who for some bizarre reason, think that it's a good idea to

apply future updates for embedded XP to XP Home, Pro etc.



The point I made went completely over your head.



Of course Micro$hit has no obligation to XP users.



The point was that MS is playing with fire if they try to screw with

their WindozeUpdate mechanism to try to trip-up XP systems using this

hack if there is any chance that it will also screw up some of the

POS2009 systems.



No, the point went completely over your head. I never
said that MSFT would deliberately screw with anything. They
don't have to. They have clearly stated that they are not
issuing updates for XP for home and business. And they have
specifically warned against using the Embedded XP hack, stating
that they are not testing, validating, what those updates will
or won't do when you install them on a product that they
are not intended for. THAT is the issue. Might they put something
into a future update to make sure it won't install on a system
that you're not legally entitled to install it on and for which
it's not intended? Perhaps. So, yeah add that to your list of
potential problems.




MSFT has stated that support for XP is over,



Why are you repeating old news?



And why do you fail to understand that POS2009 is simple XP-SP3 with a

different license agreement?


Show us where MSFT has said that. And why do you fail to understand
that applying software updates that you have no license for is
illegal?






screw around with the Taurus's out there..... Surely this Mustang

electronic part will work...." Good grief.



Again you are showing that you are totally clueless when it comes to the

internal architecture of the similarities and differences in the

architecture within the NT-based Windows product family.



You're demonstrating that you're making wild assumptions about
what effect an update for one product will have on another
and have no experience in the real world with what it takes to
validate a product. Everyone reading this knows you have no way
of knowing what those updates will or won't do. You don't have
the source code, don't know what specific differences there are
and you haven't validated a damn thing. That's with regard to what's
out right now, let alone what's coming in the next 3 years.



As others have pointed out to you as well, if you're running IE6,

7 etc, you have bigger problems than security updates, a lot of

websites will no longer even work with it.



That statement is a diversionary tactic by you. We were not discusing

the relative merits of the different versions if IE in terms of

web-compatibility.


It;s been brought up before in the thread you started, by posters
other than me. It's perfectly valid. A huge part of security
vulerability is browser related. Yet you want to present a hack to
update an OS with Internet Explorer updates for versions of IE that
won't even work anymore. Who is even using IE6? The last 3 versions
of IE won't run on XP period. If you care about browser security on
XP, just install an alternate up to date browser. Good grief.





Do I read IE6, 7 *and* 8 for POSready 2009?



Oh look - what does it say under "Target Platforms" ? Does it say

"Windows XP Embedded" ?



As has been pointed out to you a dozen times now, if you're using
IE6 you have bigger problems than security updates.






Want to try again to debunk and inject FUD into the applicability of

these POS2009 updates to any generic Windows XP system?


Sure, you have no qualifications whatever to determine how future
updates intended for Embedded XP will affect XP Home. Microsoft has
specifically advised against doing it.

You whole position here is like the nutty lady that was arguing
about airplane fires. Her faulty logic was that because a basic
handout about fires doesn't specifically say that inhaling smoke
particulates is harmful and can cause injury, then it means that
inhaling them is merely an "inconvenience".

Your faulty logic is that because Embedded XP has a lot in common
with XP Home, that it's perfectly fine and legal to trick XP Home into
applying future updates intended only for Embedded XP and that
it will work with no possible problems. It's even worse than the
nutty lady, because in this case Microsoft has specifically advised
against it. And somehow you then try to morph that into nothing
bad will happen because MSFT doesn't want to screw with their
customers. Really? The .0000000000001% that would do what you're
proposing, possibly screwing themselves after MSFT told them not to,
and you're sure MSFT is not only going to give a damn, but take
steps to make sure it won't happen?

One user has already tried it and reported what happened. If
others want to use it, that's fine. But I sure wouldn't do it
based on the recommendation of the resident troll who's main
purpose here isn't contributing to the group, but making one stupid
OT post after another. And you want to talk about "divisive"?
Give us a break.