Critical Updates and Decreasing System Stability

In article .com, randau
says...

I've been faithfully installing Windows'ME Critical Updates
for some time now and my system seems to be getting more and
more unstable. I now get a blue screen crash almost every
day and sometimes more than one a day. They are randomly
erratic having no particular pattern or cause.

Critical Updates appear to consist of an endless number of
security updates to protect against hackers or deviant web
sites accessing your computer. I'm not aware of there ever
being an attempt to hack into my computer nor am I aware of
anyone I know having had that experience. With the millions
of web sites and hundreds of millions of users online
everyday, the probability of getting hacked must be pretty
low (especially for an on and off dial-up connection).

Hmmm. Watching my router logs, normally a useless exercise, I see numerous
attempts at infecting my computer; even when I use a dial-up connection
instead of my DSL connection. It only takes a few seconds before the probes
start coming in for assorted nasties that attack vulnerable system ports.
Consider these entries from a Level3 dial-up session for an SBC customer
(me):

2004-12-22 10:38:22 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.48.209:1388]-localhost:445,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:38:22 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.201.50:2165]-localhost:135,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:38:28 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.108.174:3233]-
localhost:445, Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:38:28 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.108.174:3233]-
localhost:445, Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:38:39 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.126.85:1054]-localhost:445,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:38:43 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.126.85:1054]-localhost:445,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:39:03 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.237.75:3350]-localhost:135,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:39:06 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.237.75:3350]-localhost:135,
Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:44:14 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.105.214:3531]-
localhost:135, Owner: no owner
2004-12-22 10:44:17 Local7.Debug 192.168.102.100 Rule 'Block Common
Ports (Logged)': Blocked: In TCP, (null) [4.246.105.214:3531]-
localhost:135, Owner: no owner

The "localhost:port#" lines are the destination; my computer. The IP
address is the source of the probe. Port 135 probes are likely messenger
spam. The Sasser worm is one of the common Windows infectors which attacks
port 445.

The endless succession of Critical Updates never seem to
offer fixes for known system bugs, which I would appreciate.

Most Critical Upadates patch security problems. If you have never had a site
attempt a drive-by download, you haven't been around the Internet block.
I've seen numerous attempts at sleazy, underhanded system takeover. I don't
normally use MSIE, but I have tested it against such a site, on occasion,
when I find it; so far, with the latest Critical Updates, and proper
security settings for the "Internet zone" of MSIE, nothing bad has happened.
But who knows, if I hadn't kept MSIE current.

I'm wondering if there isn't a connection between the
endless procession of Critical Update patches and the
increasing instability of the operating system. Might I be
and have been better off ignoring the Critical Updates?

Definitely not! I have no stability problems with Windows Me, except for
some random flakiness that seems to be a result of overheating the RAM when
a P.S. fan died. I figure the hardware was seriously cooked and I am running
on borrowed time.

Symantec products are notorious for causing problems. I have learned which
ones don't affect Windows Me, and avoid the ones which do. When I had paid
for a year of NAV, I never let it scan my email. Much flakiness seems to
attend to either Norton Anti Virus, or McAfee Anti Virus, scanning email.
Another Norton utility created problems, and never really did anything. I
find a handful which are useful, though.

-randau
Oregon, USA

You need to use a proper signature separator; dash-dash-endline. Doesn't
Google Groups provide one in the compose window?

I read and post from the Google Groups web site...

My condolences. A proper news client is much superior. Even MS Outlook
Express is better than any web access to news groups. The only web-to-news
interface worse than Google Groups is "Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000",
commonly used by posters in these groups because they stumble on the groups
while searching the MSFT web site for assistance.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint