Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MS Downloads of Dell Graphics Drivers?

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 9, 2005 7:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Boy am I confused.

Hi,
I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
DELL graphics drivers.

I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!

What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
before I tried the downloads.

Mike
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 2:28:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Boy am I confused.
>
> Hi,
> I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
> I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
> DELL graphics drivers.
>
> I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
> that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>
> What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
> before I tried the downloads.
>
> Mike
>
You should never download MS drivers for your hardware. Always use those
supplied by the manufacturer (Dell). The MS drivers are not the same as
those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.

Bobby
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 3:45:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The drivers supplied by Microsoft are from the hardware manufacturer, Dell
in this case.
The manufacturer pays to verify a driver meets standards and at that point
Microsoft distributes the driver.

Otherwise you are correct, it is always best to get drivers directly from
the manufacturer and not from Microsoft.
If Windows Update shows a driver as a Driver Update, check the driver at the
manufacturers website and determine if you need it.
If a driver is a Critical Update, there is a reason the manufacturer and
Microsoft have made that determination.
Still go to the manufacturer but in this case, you should strongly consider
the newer driver from the manufacturer.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:io3qe.23851> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
Always use those
> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell). The MS drivers are not the same as
> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.
>
> Bobby
Related resources
June 10, 2005 7:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>
> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Boy am I confused.
> >
> > Hi,
> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
> > DELL graphics drivers.
> >
> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
> >
> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
> > before I tried the downloads.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.

Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've updated
to the latest Dell stuff.

> Always use those
> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).

First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point
and often that's before MS does.

> The MS drivers are not the same as
> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.

Nonsense.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 8:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
news:br7qe.303140$cg1.268476@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>>
>> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Boy am I confused.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
>> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
>> > DELL graphics drivers.
>> >
>> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
>> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>> >
>> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
>> > before I tried the downloads.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>
> Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've updated
> to the latest Dell stuff.
>
>> Always use those
>> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>
> First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some
> point
> and often that's before MS does.
>
>> The MS drivers are not the same as
>> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.
>
> Nonsense.



>
>Okay, for the benefit of the group, here is the "real deal"

Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for the
benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers "extended"
drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by the
manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm drivers
developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
footprint and still provide functionality.
They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or enhancements
to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
A simple experiment will demonstrate this;

1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but don't
install it.
2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to your
HDD and don't install it.

Now, simply compare the file sizes.

Hmmm....


Bobby
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 8:41:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

There's no set formula whether drivers from Microsoft or Dell are better. I've
had drivers from the Microsoft update site hose up a system, so they should
NEVER be characterized as perfection. Name brand manufacturers tend to lag way
behind in providing updated drivers, because all they really care about is
selling new systems, not supporting existing ones.

The bottom line is that very few desktop and server systems use customized
chipsets, and drivers are tightly tied to the chipset. (Way back when computers
cost thousands of dollars, Compaq and others imposed on chipset manufacturers to
make some chips a little different. Once Compaq found out the high cost of
supporting custom chipsets, it then began using standard ones across the
board(s). )

Me? I almost routinely go to the web site of the chipset or motherboard
manufacturer. For example, the drivers from the Intel web site are just fine
for motherboard chipsets and built-in Intel "extreme graphics". The chipset
manufacturer does all the work to correct driver defects, then issues copies to
Micro$oft and the name brand manufacturers and/or board manufacturers. So if
you want the latest, go to the website of the chipset manufacturer... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:04:39 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>>
>> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Boy am I confused.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
>> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
>> > DELL graphics drivers.
>> >
>> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
>> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>> >
>> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
>> > before I tried the downloads.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>
>Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've updated
>to the latest Dell stuff.
>
>> Always use those
>> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>
>First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point
>and often that's before MS does.
>
>> The MS drivers are not the same as
>> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>
June 10, 2005 8:51:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iG8qe.8606$Kj3.6213@trnddc03...
>
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
> news:br7qe.303140$cg1.268476@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
> >>
> >> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Boy am I confused.
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is
awaiting.
> >> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to
download
> >> > DELL graphics drivers.
> >> >
> >> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog
box
> >> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
> >> >
> >> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back
ground
> >> > before I tried the downloads.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
> >
> > Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've
updated
> > to the latest Dell stuff.
> >
> >> Always use those
> >> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
> >
> > First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some
> > point
> > and often that's before MS does.
> >
> >> The MS drivers are not the same as
> >> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your
computer.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
>
>
> >
> >Okay, for the benefit of the group, here is the "real deal"
>
> Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for the
> benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers "extended"
> drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by the
> manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm drivers
> developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
> drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
> footprint and still provide functionality.

If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.

> They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
enhancements
> to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
> A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
>
> 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
don't
> install it.
> 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to your
> HDD and don't install it.
>
> Now, simply compare the file sizes.
>
> Hmmm....

WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that the
color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 8:51:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>
> WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that
> the
> color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
>

you are ignornat.

I agree with the otherguy ... never install device drivers via windows
update. They are the baseline reference drivers, not the preferred OEM
drivers. They are there largely, as the other guy said, to get basic
plug-n-play support for devices until you can install the current OEM
drivers for the devices.

Just 2 days ago, I accidently downloaded a CMedia sound driver via windows
update. My board has an nForce 2 chipset, so its an nVidia audio chip.
Windows update mis-identified my hardware. the driver that was downloaded
and installed stopped the sound from working AT ALL. I had to do a driver
rollback to get my sound back.

That is just 1 instance, and over the years there have been many others.

On the servers I manage, there are often new Intel, HP, Emulex, etc drivers
available, and I would get fired if I ever let WU install those.

Moral of the story ... DO NOT USE WU FOR DEVICE DRIVER INSTALLS. EVER.
PERIOD.

have a nice day
June 10, 2005 8:51:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42a9183d.11168342@nntp.charter.net...
> There's no set formula whether drivers from Microsoft or Dell are better.
I've
> had drivers from the Microsoft update site hose up a system, so they
should
> NEVER be characterized as perfection. Name brand manufacturers tend to
lag way
> behind in providing updated drivers, because all they really care about is
> selling new systems, not supporting existing ones.
>
> The bottom line is that very few desktop and server systems use customized
> chipsets, and drivers are tightly tied to the chipset. (Way back when
computers
> cost thousands of dollars, Compaq and others imposed on chipset
manufacturers to
> make some chips a little different. Once Compaq found out the high cost
of
> supporting custom chipsets, it then began using standard ones across the
> board(s). )
>
> Me? I almost routinely go to the web site of the chipset or motherboard
> manufacturer. For example, the drivers from the Intel web site are just
fine
> for motherboard chipsets and built-in Intel "extreme graphics". The
chipset
> manufacturer does all the work to correct driver defects, then issues
copies to
> Micro$oft and the name brand manufacturers and/or board manufacturers. So
if
> you want the latest, go to the website of the chipset manufacturer... Ben
Myers

Probably true for the chipset driver and display drivers but then that
wasn't the issue at hand was it.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 9:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
news:x%8qe.925452$w62.919450@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:iG8qe.8606$Kj3.6213@trnddc03...
>>
>> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
>> news:br7qe.303140$cg1.268476@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>> >>
>> >> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Boy am I confused.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is
> awaiting.
>> >> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to
> download
>> >> > DELL graphics drivers.
>> >> >
>> >> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog
> box
>> >> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>> >> >
>> >> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back
> ground
>> >> > before I tried the downloads.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >> >
>> >> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>> >
>> > Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've
> updated
>> > to the latest Dell stuff.
>> >
>> >> Always use those
>> >> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>> >
>> > First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some
>> > point
>> > and often that's before MS does.
>> >
>> >> The MS drivers are not the same as
>> >> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your
> computer.
>> >
>> > Nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Okay, for the benefit of the group, here is the "real deal"
>>
>> Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for the
>> benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers "extended"
>> drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by the
>> manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm drivers
>> developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
>> drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
>> footprint and still provide functionality.
>
> If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
>
>> They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
> enhancements
>> to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
>> A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
>>
>> 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
> don't
>> install it.
>> 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to
>> your
>> HDD and don't install it.
>>
>> Now, simply compare the file sizes.
>>
>> Hmmm....
>
> WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that
> the
> color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
>


The only thing worse than someone who cannot admit he's wrong is someone who
is clueless calling someone else clueless.

Bobby
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 10:22:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

fred wrote:
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>
>><axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Boy am I confused.
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
>>>I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
>>> DELL graphics drivers.
>>>
>>>I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
>>>that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>>>
>>>What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
>>>before I tried the downloads.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>>You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>
>
> Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've updated
> to the latest Dell stuff.
>
>
>>Always use those
>>supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>
>
> First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point
> and often that's before MS does.
>
>
>> The MS drivers are not the same as
>>those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
As others have said, you are incorrect. For example, on my desktop I
have an ATI card and Windows Update wants me to use the update published
in February of this year over the Catalyst driver published today
(6/9/05) by ATI, themselves. I agree that in the very long run, when
OEM's stop providing drivers for products that have reached their
end-of-life periods, you ought to use ones put out by MS. However, in
the case of products who are still supported by their producers, it's in
your best interest to use OEM publishers latest drivers.
June 10, 2005 10:52:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"NuTCrAcKeR" <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote in message
news:aJCdnfURYdFfvTTfRVn-vw@speakeasy.net...
>
> >
> > WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that
> > the
> > color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
> >
>
> you are ignornat.
>
> I agree with the otherguy ... never install device drivers via windows
> update. They are the baseline reference drivers, not the preferred OEM
> drivers. They are there largely, as the other guy said, to get basic
> plug-n-play support for devices until you can install the current OEM
> drivers for the devices.

Get a clue. What I said and is the standard procedure for the competent is
to download and install the latest from the system mfg and/or component mfg.
THEN if Windows Update still offers a driver for the gadget then by all
means download and install MS's version.

> Just 2 days ago, I accidently downloaded a CMedia sound driver via windows
> update. My board has an nForce 2 chipset, so its an nVidia audio chip.
> Windows update mis-identified my hardware. the driver that was downloaded
> and installed stopped the sound from working AT ALL. I had to do a driver
> rollback to get my sound back.
>
> That is just 1 instance, and over the years there have been many others.
>
> On the servers I manage, there are often new Intel, HP, Emulex, etc
drivers
> available, and I would get fired if I ever let WU install those.
>
> Moral of the story ... DO NOT USE WU FOR DEVICE DRIVER INSTALLS. EVER.
> PERIOD.

A moral from the clueless.
June 10, 2005 10:52:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Nicholas Andrade" <SDNick484@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ikaqe.26611$J12.21757@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> fred wrote:
> > "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
> >
> >><axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>Boy am I confused.
> >>>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
> >>>I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
> >>> DELL graphics drivers.
> >>>
> >>>I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
> >>>that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
> >>>
> >>>What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
> >>>before I tried the downloads.
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>
> >>You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've
updated
> > to the latest Dell stuff.
> >
> >
> >>Always use those
> >>supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
> >
> >
> > First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some
point
> > and often that's before MS does.
> >
> >
> >> The MS drivers are not the same as
> >>those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your
computer.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> >
> As others have said, you are incorrect. For example, on my desktop I
> have an ATI card and Windows Update wants me to use the update published
> in February of this year over the Catalyst driver published today
> (6/9/05) by ATI, themselves. I agree that in the very long run, when
> OEM's stop providing drivers for products that have reached their
> end-of-life periods, you ought to use ones put out by MS. However, in
> the case of products who are still supported by their producers, it's in
> your best interest to use OEM publishers latest drivers.

Right, usually Windows Update stops offering a driver if the one on the
system is newer than MS's. I wonder what's happening there?
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 11:25:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
news:JMaqe.925996$w62.427014@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "NuTCrAcKeR" <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote in message
> news:aJCdnfURYdFfvTTfRVn-vw@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> >
>> > WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim
>> > that
>> > the
>> > color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
>> >
>>
>> you are ignornat.
>>
>> I agree with the otherguy ... never install device drivers via windows
>> update. They are the baseline reference drivers, not the preferred OEM
>> drivers. They are there largely, as the other guy said, to get basic
>> plug-n-play support for devices until you can install the current OEM
>> drivers for the devices.
>
> Get a clue. What I said and is the standard procedure for the competent
> is
> to download and install the latest from the system mfg and/or component
> mfg.
> THEN if Windows Update still offers a driver for the gadget then by all
> means download and install MS's version.
>
>> Just 2 days ago, I accidently downloaded a CMedia sound driver via
>> windows
>> update. My board has an nForce 2 chipset, so its an nVidia audio chip.
>> Windows update mis-identified my hardware. the driver that was downloaded
>> and installed stopped the sound from working AT ALL. I had to do a driver
>> rollback to get my sound back.
>>
>> That is just 1 instance, and over the years there have been many others.
>>
>> On the servers I manage, there are often new Intel, HP, Emulex, etc
> drivers
>> available, and I would get fired if I ever let WU install those.
>>
>> Moral of the story ... DO NOT USE WU FOR DEVICE DRIVER INSTALLS. EVER.
>> PERIOD.
>
> A moral from the clueless.

ATI has just released the Catalyst 5.6 drivers for their video cards. S.
you are telling me that I should install these drivers (released yesterday),
and then go and download the driver "update" on Windows update that was
released over 4 months ago?

You are the clueless one.

Since you cannot mount a defense for the drivel you are spewing, perhaps it
is time for *YOU* to realize that when one makes a mistake and is not
willing to admit it, it might be better to simply STFU.

You continue to show your complete ignorance of the relevant facts here.

Welcome to the killfile.

Bobby
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 11:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>
> Welcome to the killfile.
>
> Bobby
>

agreed. He made my killfile filter as well
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 3:05:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
>Boy am I confused.

Yeah, it's confusing. I've had some bad results with WinUp
mis-identifying hardware and loading drivers that cause it to stop
functioning, so I'm wareful of device drivers from M$. IMHO, the
order of precedence is:

Drivers from the device manufacturer (Intel, ATI, nVidia, etc). These
will almost universally be the latest and greatest drivers, with all
the current performance enhancements and bugfixes.

Drivers from the computer manufacturer (Dell, etc). These are
nessesary in some cases, where the device manufacturer's generic
drivers aren't applicable to your custom hardware. For instance,
laptop video drivers are in this category.

Drivers from MicroSoft. These aren't always evil, BTW, I've had M$
drivers automatically discover what type of video card I have and
install a functional (if not optimal) set of drivers, so I can then
know what vendor to check for the latest drivers. However, they
should be either a last resort or a preliminary diagnostic tool.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 4:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

| > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for the
| > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers "extended"
| > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by the
| > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm drivers
| > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
| > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
| > footprint and still provide functionality.
|
| If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
|
| > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
| enhancements
| > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
| > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
| >
| > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
| don't
| > install it.
| > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to
your
| > HDD and don't install it.
| >
| > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
| >
| > Hmmm....
|
| WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that
the
| color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
|

Fred,

Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
exactly what he's talking about.

Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as opposed
to WUD.

As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic functionality
generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
provide.

A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;

"I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
(fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."

The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows Update. Go
to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain as
driver there."

--
Doug

I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
I was just trying to help.
Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
advice herein.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
Your mileage may vary.
See store for details. :) 

Remove shoes to E-mail.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 4:11:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> writes:
....
>Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
>exactly what he's talking about.

>Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
>the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
>recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as opposed
>to WUD.

Since it seems that everyone agrees with this, even those who many think
don't have a clue and the Microsoft approved MVP's...

WHY does Microsoft still provide this universally agreed bad feature?
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 5:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Equally true for network cards, audio cards, and just about any other hardware
you will find in a computer... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:51:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42a9183d.11168342@nntp.charter.net...
>> There's no set formula whether drivers from Microsoft or Dell are better.
>I've
>> had drivers from the Microsoft update site hose up a system, so they
>should
>> NEVER be characterized as perfection. Name brand manufacturers tend to
>lag way
>> behind in providing updated drivers, because all they really care about is
>> selling new systems, not supporting existing ones.
>>
>> The bottom line is that very few desktop and server systems use customized
>> chipsets, and drivers are tightly tied to the chipset. (Way back when
>computers
>> cost thousands of dollars, Compaq and others imposed on chipset
>manufacturers to
>> make some chips a little different. Once Compaq found out the high cost
>of
>> supporting custom chipsets, it then began using standard ones across the
>> board(s). )
>>
>> Me? I almost routinely go to the web site of the chipset or motherboard
>> manufacturer. For example, the drivers from the Intel web site are just
>fine
>> for motherboard chipsets and built-in Intel "extreme graphics". The
>chipset
>> manufacturer does all the work to correct driver defects, then issues
>copies to
>> Micro$oft and the name brand manufacturers and/or board manufacturers. So
>if
>> you want the latest, go to the website of the chipset manufacturer... Ben
>Myers
>
>Probably true for the chipset driver and display drivers but then that
>wasn't the issue at hand was it.
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 5:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do the
right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else Microsoft
touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they confuse
themselves... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:52:51 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
>"Nicholas Andrade" <SDNick484@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Ikaqe.26611$J12.21757@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> fred wrote:
>> > "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>> >
>> >><axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>Boy am I confused.
>> >>>
>> >>>Hi,
>> >>>I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
>> >>>I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
>> >>> DELL graphics drivers.
>> >>>
>> >>>I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
>> >>>that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>> >>>
>> >>>What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
>> >>>before I tried the downloads.
>> >>>
>> >>>Mike
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've
>updated
>> > to the latest Dell stuff.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Always use those
>> >>supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>> >
>> >
>> > First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some
>point
>> > and often that's before MS does.
>> >
>> >
>> >> The MS drivers are not the same as
>> >>those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your
>computer.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nonsense.
>> >
>> >
>> As others have said, you are incorrect. For example, on my desktop I
>> have an ATI card and Windows Update wants me to use the update published
>> in February of this year over the Catalyst driver published today
>> (6/9/05) by ATI, themselves. I agree that in the very long run, when
>> OEM's stop providing drivers for products that have reached their
>> end-of-life periods, you ought to use ones put out by MS. However, in
>> the case of products who are still supported by their producers, it's in
>> your best interest to use OEM publishers latest drivers.
>
>Right, usually Windows Update stops offering a driver if the one on the
>system is newer than MS's. I wonder what's happening there?
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 5:38:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

" HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point and often that's
before MS does." Huh? This gives me the impression that Microsoft has a whole
bunch of worker bees scrutinizing the drivers and fixing them up. And we are
supposed to think that Microsoft is so gracious and caring that they would do
this? Sure! I'd like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge while we're at it, too.

First, to get hardware device drivers onto the Windows installation CD and or to
get the latest versions of drivers onto the Microsoft update site, the chipset
developers (e.g, Intel and VIA for motherboards; Intel, ATI and nVidia for
graphics; Intel, 3com, Realtek for network cards; Conexant and PCTel for modems;
Creative and ADI for audio) first pay Microsoft for the privilege of including
the drivers on the install CD, then they pay to have each edition of drivers
tested in Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL), and they probably
pay by the megabyte for space on the update web site. WHQL DOES run some
pretty extensive tests on the drivers before they are affixed with an electronic
WHQL certificate and made available as updates.

Why are updates even done by the hardware manufacturers? Three reasons. The
one most people should be concerned about is to fix defects. The next is to fix
glaring performance problems, such as those revealed recently by a 3rd party
company testing network drivers. The third, usually the case for ATI, nVidia
and Intel, is to incorporate new hardware into an omnibus driver, i.e. a single
driver set that supports a wide variety of chips. Examples are Intel's
800-series motherboard chipsets and nVidia's family of graphics chips.

Many hardware manufacturers, especially those of low-volume devices such as
scanners and special purpose printers, often do not submit their drivers to WHQL
because it is too expensive to do so.

Hardware manufacturers often augment their driver sets with additional
utilities, which you will not find on the Microsoft update site. Examples might
be better fine-tuning of graphics capabilities (ATI, nVidia, Matrox) and
additional audio features (ADI and Creative).

Now where is it that the supposed Microsoft hardware driver developers enter
into play in the above scenario??? ... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:04:39 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:io3qe.23851$KQ2.14967@trnddc08...
>>
>> <axipolti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118355903.484653.169470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Boy am I confused.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I saw the MS yellow shield which indicated an MS download is awaiting.
>> > I clicked on it and a large gray dialog box asked if I wish to download
>> > DELL graphics drivers.
>> >
>> > I clicked YES and waited a second or two and then received a dialog box
>> > that advised the downloads could NOT be done...no explanation!!
>> >
>> > What gives. I removed all programs that were running in the back ground
>> > before I tried the downloads.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> You should never download MS drivers for your hardware.
>
>Wrong, always use drivers recommended by MS Update -after- you've updated
>to the latest Dell stuff.
>
>> Always use those
>> supplied by the manufacturer (Dell).
>
>First but not only. HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point
>and often that's before MS does.
>
>> The MS drivers are not the same as
>> those supplied by Dell, and may degrade the performance of your computer.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 9:36:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:D eadnVDwotLmKzTfRVn-sg@scnresearch.com...
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> writes:
> ...
>>Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
>>exactly what he's talking about.
>
>>Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
>>the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
>>recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as opposed
>>to WUD.
>
> Since it seems that everyone agrees with this, even those who many think
> don't have a clue and the Microsoft approved MVP's...
>
> WHY does Microsoft still provide this universally agreed bad feature?

As explained earlier in the thread.

"This is for the benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers
"extended"
drivers are not needed."

--
D
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 10:09:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do the
> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else Microsoft
> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they confuse
> themselves... Ben Myers
>
Beyond that, it's in MS's best interest to only push updates that will
support the lowest common denominator of hardware. If an older update
supports more hardware at a slight cost of performance, the'll go that
route every time.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 10:09:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Nicholas Andrade" <sdnick484@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:SHkqe.2059$bv7.672@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Ben Myers wrote:
>> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do the
>> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else Microsoft
>> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they confuse
>> themselves... Ben Myers
>>
> Beyond that, it's in MS's best interest to only push updates that will
> support the lowest common denominator of hardware. If an older update
> supports more hardware at a slight cost of performance, the'll go that
> route every time.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/maintain/DrvUpdate.mspx
June 10, 2005 11:31:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Apparently the local NG thugs have a reading impairment. I said from the
getgo that one should get their drivers from the mfg IF current. If WinUp
has a more recent driver then use the one from WinUp.

Is there anyone here with a clue? Go read what the experts in the
microsoft.* NGs have to say in more detail. You'll get an education.

"HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:csfqe.25198$JX5.13319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> | > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for
the
> | > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers "extended"
> | > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by
the
> | > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm drivers
> | > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
> | > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
> | > footprint and still provide functionality.
> |
> | If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
> |
> | > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
> | enhancements
> | > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
> | > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
> | >
> | > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
> | don't
> | > install it.
> | > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to
> your
> | > HDD and don't install it.
> | >
> | > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
> | >
> | > Hmmm....
> |
> | WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim that
> the
> | color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
> |
>
> Fred,
>
> Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
> exactly what he's talking about.
>
> Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
> the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
> recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as opposed
> to WUD.
>
> As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic functionality
> generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
> provide.
>
> A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;
>
> "I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
> (fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."
>
> The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows Update.
Go
> to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain as
> driver there."
>
> --
> Doug
>
> I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
> I was just trying to help.
> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
> advice herein.
> No warranty is expressed or implied.
> Your mileage may vary.
> See store for details. :) 
>
> Remove shoes to E-mail.
>
>
June 10, 2005 11:31:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42a992f2.2039240@nntp.charter.net...
> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do
the
> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else
Microsoft
> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they
confuse
> themselves... Ben Myers

The competence level and political bent is finally exposed. Most folks want
good PC advice absent any non-technical agenda.
June 10, 2005 11:32:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42a993de.2274652@nntp.charter.net...
> " HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point and often that's
> before MS does." Huh? This gives me the impression that Microsoft has a
whole
> bunch of worker bees scrutinizing the drivers and fixing them up.

And that's excatly what MS has for certain stability, security etc.
purposes.

> And we are
> supposed to think that Microsoft is so gracious and caring that they would
do
> this? Sure! I'd like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge while we're at it, too.

Apparently you already did.

>
> First, to get hardware device drivers onto the Windows installation CD and
or to
> get the latest versions of drivers onto the Microsoft update site, the
chipset
> developers (e.g, Intel and VIA for motherboards; Intel, ATI and nVidia for
> graphics; Intel, 3com, Realtek for network cards; Conexant and PCTel for
modems;
> Creative and ADI for audio) first pay Microsoft for the privilege of
including
> the drivers on the install CD, then they pay to have each edition of
drivers
> tested in Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL), and they
probably
> pay by the megabyte for space on the update web site. WHQL DOES run some
> pretty extensive tests on the drivers before they are affixed with an
electronic
> WHQL certificate and made available as updates.

What a horrible nasty thing for MS to do to it's customer base.

> Why are updates even done by the hardware manufacturers? Three reasons.
The
> one most people should be concerned about is to fix defects. The next is
to fix
> glaring performance problems, such as those revealed recently by a 3rd
party
> company testing network drivers. The third, usually the case for ATI,
nVidia
> and Intel, is to incorporate new hardware into an omnibus driver, i.e. a
single
> driver set that supports a wide variety of chips. Examples are Intel's
> 800-series motherboard chipsets and nVidia's family of graphics chips.
>
> Many hardware manufacturers, especially those of low-volume devices such
as
> scanners and special purpose printers, often do not submit their drivers
to WHQL
> because it is too expensive to do so.
>
> Hardware manufacturers often augment their driver sets with additional
> utilities, which you will not find on the Microsoft update site.

OH so you mean size isn't important but what about the color of the banner
on their website?

> Examples might
> be better fine-tuning of graphics capabilities (ATI, nVidia, Matrox) and
> additional audio features (ADI and Creative).
>
> Now where is it that the supposed Microsoft hardware driver developers
enter
> into play in the above scenario??? ... Ben Myers

DUH...outside your narrow view and agenda.
June 10, 2005 11:32:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:079ja1lfdlhh29nb4gvgual9jt0f4rmk3g@4ax.com...
> axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Boy am I confused.
>
> Yeah, it's confusing. I've had some bad results with WinUp
> mis-identifying hardware and loading drivers that cause it to stop
> functioning, so I'm wareful of device drivers from M$. IMHO, the
> order of precedence is:
>
> Drivers from the device manufacturer (Intel, ATI, nVidia, etc). These
> will almost universally be the latest and greatest drivers, with all
> the current performance enhancements and bugfixes.
>
> Drivers from the computer manufacturer (Dell, etc). These are
> nessesary in some cases, where the device manufacturer's generic
> drivers aren't applicable to your custom hardware. For instance,
> laptop video drivers are in this category.
>
> Drivers from MicroSoft. These aren't always evil, BTW, I've had M$
> drivers automatically discover what type of video card I have and
> install a functional (if not optimal) set of drivers, so I can then
> know what vendor to check for the latest drivers. However, they
> should be either a last resort or a preliminary diagnostic tool.

How wonderful that there is actually someone here with a clue.
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 10, 2005 11:32:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install this
driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell, nothing
has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older one,
XP would have prevented this.
June 10, 2005 11:32:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:D eadnVDwotLmKzTfRVn-sg@scnresearch.com...
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> >Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
> >exactly what he's talking about.
>
> >Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
> >the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
> >recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
opposed
> >to WUD.
>
> Since it seems that everyone agrees with this, even those who many think
> don't have a clue and the Microsoft approved MVP's...

NOPE...only the clueless.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 12:55:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Oh? Are you a Micro$oft troll? I'm actually pretty competent at what I do,
otherwise I would be out of business. After nearly 20 years, I have learned not
to swallow the Microsoft propaganda, exactly like I do not accept 100% of what
any government says as the whole truth. Microsoft has a long history of
building software that is just about as complicated as it can be, going back as
far as the Windows 1.03 seminar I attended somewhere around 1986. As other
people posting to this thread have stated and as people posting to the various
Microsoft self-help NGs have stated, the Microsoft update does not always work,
and, worse yet, it does not give enough information to figure out why. This is
only stating the facts. It may be construed as political in a national climate
where the facts and non-facts are often interchanged with politics and science.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:31:41 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42a992f2.2039240@nntp.charter.net...
>> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do
>the
>> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else
>Microsoft
>> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they
>confuse
>> themselves... Ben Myers
>
>The competence level and political bent is finally exposed. Most folks want
>good PC advice absent any non-technical agenda.
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 1:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

An on point example of what I was referring to just posted in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Hi There

I was wondering if you could help me with the follow please?

I regularly run Windows Update on my PC and recently was told that I have a
sound card update.

I ran the update, C-Media AC97 Audio Device appeared so installed it and
then restarted the PC as per the instructions.

Now I have lost all sound on my PC, I have the above with a question mark
next to it and also when I try to select the details via the control panel,
it states I don't have a sound card installed.

If I restore the PC to an earlier date, the sound comes back.

Does anyone else have the same problem or suggest how I could fix this?

Thank you
Jason :o )

Answers:

Experienced users will *never* install driver updates offered at Windows
Update.

You can go to Windows Update > select Custom Install > select "Hide this
update" for this driver.

You can configure Automatic Updates to (1) automatically download updates
but not install them or (2) just notify you of available updates, allowing
you to select ones to download and install.

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Jason. This is the reason why it is never a good idea to install
drivers from Windows Update. Set your Automatic Updates to always
notify you before installing updates. Then always choose the "Custom"
installation instead of the "Express". This will give you the ability
to see what the updates are and to deselect any that are for drivers.
Unless you are a gamer trying to squeeze every last frame-rate out of
your video card or are having problems with a device, the best policy
with updating drivers is: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". And if you
*do* need to update a driver, get it from either the device mftr.'s
website or if you have an OEM computer (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) from the
OEM's website for your specific model machine.

Of course you want to install the security updates from Windows Update;
just not the drivers.

Malke
--
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 2:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

And that is where you are wrong. If the OEM has drivers available, *DO NOT*
use the updates on MSU. You seriously need to understand that you are
*WRONG*.
No amount of reposting your claim will make it correct.

Bobby

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
news:lUlqe.305399$cg1.276392@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Apparently the local NG thugs have a reading impairment. I said from the
> getgo that one should get their drivers from the mfg IF current. If WinUp
> has a more recent driver then use the one from WinUp.
>
> Is there anyone here with a clue? Go read what the experts in the
> microsoft.* NGs have to say in more detail. You'll get an education.
>
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:csfqe.25198$JX5.13319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> | > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for
> the
>> | > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers
>> "extended"
>> | > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by
> the
>> | > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm
>> drivers
>> | > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
>> | > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
>> | > footprint and still provide functionality.
>> |
>> | If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
>> |
>> | > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
>> | enhancements
>> | > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
>> | > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
>> | >
>> | > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
>> | don't
>> | > install it.
>> | > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to
>> your
>> | > HDD and don't install it.
>> | >
>> | > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
>> | >
>> | > Hmmm....
>> |
>> | WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim
>> that
>> the
>> | color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
>> |
>>
>> Fred,
>>
>> Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
>> exactly what he's talking about.
>>
>> Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
>> the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
>> recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
>> opposed
>> to WUD.
>>
>> As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic functionality
>> generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
>> provide.
>>
>> A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;
>>
>> "I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
>> (fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."
>>
>> The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows Update.
> Go
>> to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain as
>> driver there."
>>
>> --
>> Doug
>>
>> I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
>> I was just trying to help.
>> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
>> advice herein.
>> No warranty is expressed or implied.
>> Your mileage may vary.
>> See store for details. :) 
>>
>> Remove shoes to E-mail.
>>
>>
>
>
June 11, 2005 2:45:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Wacko!

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Vcoqe.167$yw4.88@trnddc09...
> And that is where you are wrong. If the OEM has drivers available, *DO
NOT*
> use the updates on MSU. You seriously need to understand that you are
> *WRONG*.
> No amount of reposting your claim will make it correct.
>
> Bobby
>
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
> news:lUlqe.305399$cg1.276392@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Apparently the local NG thugs have a reading impairment. I said from
the
> > getgo that one should get their drivers from the mfg IF current. If
WinUp
> > has a more recent driver then use the one from WinUp.
> >
> > Is there anyone here with a clue? Go read what the experts in the
> > microsoft.* NGs have to say in more detail. You'll get an education.
> >
> > "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:csfqe.25198$JX5.13319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >> | > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is
for
> > the
> >> | > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers
> >> "extended"
> >> | > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied
by
> > the
> >> | > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm
> >> drivers
> >> | > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are
baseline
> >> | > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a
minimum
> >> | > footprint and still provide functionality.
> >> |
> >> | If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
> >> |
> >> | > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
> >> | enhancements
> >> | > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
> >> | > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
> >> | >
> >> | > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD
but
> >> | don't
> >> | > install it.
> >> | > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it
to
> >> your
> >> | > HDD and don't install it.
> >> | >
> >> | > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
> >> | >
> >> | > Hmmm....
> >> |
> >> | WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim
> >> that
> >> the
> >> | color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
> >> |
> >>
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least :-)
> >> exactly what he's talking about.
> >>
> >> Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time
in
> >> the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft
MVPs
> >> recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
> >> opposed
> >> to WUD.
> >>
> >> As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic
functionality
> >> generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
> >> provide.
> >>
> >> A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;
> >>
> >> "I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
> >> (fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."
> >>
> >> The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows
Update.
> > Go
> >> to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain
as
> >> driver there."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Doug
> >>
> >> I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
> >> I was just trying to help.
> >> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions
or
> >> advice herein.
> >> No warranty is expressed or implied.
> >> Your mileage may vary.
> >> See store for details. :) 
> >>
> >> Remove shoes to E-mail.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
June 11, 2005 2:48:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
this
> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
nothing
> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
one,
> XP would have prevented this.

Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 5:45:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers and
home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic updates.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
>"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
>> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
>> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>this
>> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>nothing
>> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>one,
>> XP would have prevented this.
>
>Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
>Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>
>
June 11, 2005 6:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers
and
> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
updates.

Didn't I say that?

> ... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
> >
> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
suddenly
> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming
it
> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
> >this
> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
> >nothing
> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
> >one,
> >> XP would have prevented this.
> >
> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
initiative.
> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 2:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

No. Large IT organizations invest in automated tools to distribute updates
appropriately. They're smart enough and insecure enough to select which of the
M$ updates are required and distribute them automagically... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
>> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers
>and
>> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
>updates.
>
>Didn't I say that?
>
>> ... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
>suddenly
>> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming
>it
>> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>> >this
>> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>> >nothing
>> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>> >one,
>> >> XP would have prevented this.
>> >
>> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
>initiative.
>> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 2:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

my company does not even ditribute virus updates without first testing
them, just in case they cause a problem. We are just getting around to
distributing SP2 to our desktops

Wayne

Ben Myers wrote:

> No. Large IT organizations invest in automated tools to distribute
> updates appropriately. They're smart enough and insecure enough to
> select which of the M$ updates are required and distribute them
> automagically... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> > news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
> >> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of
> computers
> > and
> >> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
> > updates.
> >
> > Didn't I say that?
> >
> >> ... Ben Myers
> > >
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> > >
> >> >
> >> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> >> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
> > suddenly
> >> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm
> assuming
> > it
> >> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates
> install >> >this
> >> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can
> tell, >> >nothing
> >> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest
> Intel driver >> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried
> to install an older >> >one,
> >> >> XP would have prevented this.
> >> >
> >> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
> > initiative.
> >> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few
> insecure >> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual
> WinUp for folks. >> >
> >> >
> > >
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 3:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers and
> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic updates.

So do some computer savvy retired programmers with just a desktop & a
notebook. One of the *last* things I would ever do is to enable MS to
update my computer without any intervention from me. Seems a little like
giving Tony Soprano access to my checking account.

As always, YMMV

> ... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
>
>>"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>>news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>>
>>> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
>>>went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
>>>was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>>
>>this
>>
>>>driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>>
>>nothing
>>
>>>has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>>>installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>>
>>one,
>>
>>>XP would have prevented this.
>>
>>Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
>>Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>>sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 4:15:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
>Boy am I confused.

Join the crowd. Here's an example for those still following this
rather contentious thread:

Client machine, Dell Dimension 8250. nVidia GeForce4 MX 420 graphics

nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

Which one should I use and why, and how come WinUp is still
complaining about wanting 52.16 when I have 71.89 installed, and why
is a video driver a "High Priority Update"?
June 11, 2005 10:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in message
news:ryDqe.72953$NZ1.28872@fe09.lga...
> Ben Myers wrote:
> > Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of
computers and
> > home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
updates.
>
> So do some computer savvy retired programmers with just a desktop & a
> notebook. One of the *last* things I would ever do is to enable MS to
> update my computer without any intervention from me. Seems a little like
> giving Tony Soprano access to my checking account.

How many infected bot PCs owned by the unaware are all over the Inet causing
problems for everyone? The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
Automatic Updates. That improves the general security environment for all.
Any of you that end up with bot-s and disabled Automatic Updates shown be
drawn and quartered.

This kind of advice by alleged experts has been infecting the PC industry
for years. Just recently a real expert at MS finally got in public view
that one should write down their strong passwords and keep them in a
convenient and modestly secure location. Not doing so simply results in
weak and always the same passwords which is MUCH WORSE than the occasional
exposure of the password note.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 10:21:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
>Automatic Updates.

Can't agree with you there, Fred. That advice would have resulted in
about 10 percent of PCs becoming inoperative when XP SP2 came out.
I've got lots of examples of WinUp getting things wrong, where blindly
installing stuff breaks things.
June 11, 2005 10:23:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:003ma15f32d0of5ddf0ogib3ntfsm21sum@4ax.com...
> axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Boy am I confused.
>
> Join the crowd. Here's an example for those still following this
> rather contentious thread:
>
> Client machine, Dell Dimension 8250. nVidia GeForce4 MX 420 graphics
>
> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.

> Which one should I use and why, and how come WinUp is still
> complaining about wanting 52.16 when I have 71.89 installed, and why
> is a video driver a "High Priority Update"?
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 10:23:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.

nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 11, 2005 10:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yes they are. He's just wrong.

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
>>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
>>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
>
>>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
>
> nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
June 12, 2005 12:26:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
Version: 71.89
Release Date: April 14, 2005
WHQL Certified

>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
Release Date: 05/06/2003

>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

[Grrr, that machine is already in the 'return to client' pile, I'll
haul it out and put it back on the bench later...]
[Much later...]

"Date last published: 8/2/2004"

OK, now what?
June 12, 2005 2:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jqCdncW0TI01yzbfRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
> Yes they are. He's just wrong.

Without release dates they're meaningless.

> <William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> > "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> >><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> >>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> >>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> >>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
> >
> >>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
> >
> > nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?
> >
>
June 12, 2005 2:55:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:6fima1liaepoe3m748a7gmld7h46cpla6d@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> >The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
> >Automatic Updates.
>
> Can't agree with you there, Fred. That advice would have resulted in
> about 10 percent of PCs becoming inoperative when XP SP2 came out.

Utter nonsense. Over 99% of folks installed SP2 with no significant
problems.

> I've got lots of examples of WinUp getting things wrong, where blindly
> installing stuff breaks things.

I'm sure that's true in the systems around you where good procedure is in
doubt.
June 12, 2005 2:55:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> ><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> >> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> >> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> >> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
>
> >Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
>
> nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?

Not relevant. Versions PLUS release dates are always needed.
!