Various Topics on Windows Vista

....

Frank wrote:
> norm wrote:
>
>>
>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
>> such in this group.
>
> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?
One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
Christian. Stay on task.
>
> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>
> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public ng,
> huh?
Pitiful need for attention, I take it?
>
> The
>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>
> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such a
> thing?
If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the
course of your "arguments"? Or could it be that you will use any
"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need? Then again, why bother to
ask anything of you? There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
anyway. Enjoy.

> Frank


--
norm

.... ..

Silicon neuron wrote:
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users


Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels
on August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but
not install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU
software, and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for
permission, when according to the article, not one else was?

Dave T.

--
Thought for the day...Life is ***ually transmitted.

..rkra..

I have Automatic Updates turned off always. I read a couple of articles that
showed how to find out if you had WU updated by stealth, and as far as I can
see no file changes were made on or about August 23 on my machine. Has
anyone in this newsgroup actually seen evidence that their computer was
updated with Automatic Updates turned off.


"Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
news:zC_Gi.8242$z_5.2453@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Silicon neuron wrote:
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>>
>> By Scott Dunn
>>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>
>> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely
>> installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth
>> patching.
>>
>>
>> Files changed with no notice to users
>
>
> Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels on
> August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but not
> install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU software,
> and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for permission,
> when according to the article, not one else was?
>
> Dave T.
>
> --
> Thought for the day...Life is ***ually transmitted.

..drÃ.. ..rg..

The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

Atte:
A proud GNU software user.
FreeBSD System Administrator.

"Frank" wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:
>
> >
> > Explain to us how Microsoft KNOWS who c****ed their mouse agreeing to
> > the EULA which is the ONLY so-called "proof" anyone agreed to the
> > terms of the license.
>
> Uhhh...how about the owner of the computer the software is installed on?
>
> Damn, Frank I know you're a real dim bulb, but
> > even you should see the fatal flaw in such half-*** reasoning and to
> > try to claim it becomes legally binding is laughable.
>
> Try running that bs line by any Municipal, County, State or Federal
> Court Judge.
>
> >
> > Worse, Microsoft doesn't provide any written version of the EULA in
> > the packaging Vista comes in and the only way you get to see it is if
> > you begin the install process THEN nobody that sold Vista to you will
> > take it back claiming it is "opened" software. Sounds like a catch 22
> > to me.
>
> Tell that to the Judge!
> >
> > Of course you being nothing but a moronic fanboy you probably wait on
> > your porch every evening hoping you see a pig fly past. Lots of luck
> > with that.
>
> For a supposed "genius, you're very good at doing stupid!
> Frank
>
>

.... ..brig..

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
<AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
legal or factual. That is always damn funny.