Various Topics on Windows Vista

..cha.. ..b..

Updating Windows Update *via* Windows Update would be like trying to change
the oil in a car while driving it 65 MPH.

It just doesn't bother me at all.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:286728FE-0266-46B4-9FBA-1B04F62FBC5C@microsoft.com...
> After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
> blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
> the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here.
> I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice because
> of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option
> to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows
> Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The
> only thing that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please
> add your comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will
> help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
> anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
> think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
> Reasoned debate and comments are needed.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>

..a..

Adam Albright wrote:

My computer and all
> it contains is MINE to do with as I please.

-------------------------------------------------------
I agree with all you've said except the above statement is simply not
factually correct. I can understand an individual, such as yourself,
with only one install, making that claim albeit not true.
Companies, with volume license agreements (such as we are) are subject
to unannounced, on site, license audits as clearly stated in our agreements.
I know of no IP that is m*** produced for public consumption having a
license that grants the purchaser full ownership. Usage rights yes of
course, but not ownership.
The digital world we now live in has made that not possible.
Frank

.... ..nda..

"Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
news:e5NZTuu9HHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:E441F8AD-11A6-41F0-BB3D-5F238D9CD2CB@microsoft.com...
>> Microsoft admits this was done.
>>
>> http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx
>>
>> --
>> Kerry Brown
>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>>
>>
>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
>> news:u4YZoPu9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:0F43528C-A93A-46BF-A51E-4F95E5B59C22@microsoft.com...
>>>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23f2Du1t9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>< chop >
>>>>
>>>> This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for
>>>> sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows
>>>> update to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for
>>>> updates" this update was downloaded and installed without any
>>>> notification.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kerry Brown
>>>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>>>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically
>>> was 'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by
>>> Linux advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that
>>> there's been such a mystery update.
>>>
>>> Saucy
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the link. I read the blog.
>
> OK, the blog admits to the terrible crime. Maybe they shouldn't have done
> that, but in my estimate it is completely inconsequential. The updater
> fixed itself, no reboot required. And I think they are now aware they
> should have explained it. While I empathize with the concern for privacy,
> but I think there was no harm intended (quite the contrary) and this one
> should just be let go ..
>
> Saucy

If this one is just 'let go', isn't that an invitation for malware designers
to use and enhance the technique? Kind of like enabling malware or a
malware tutorial?

-Paul Randall

..nath.. ..rreau..

same here, that's why i sometimes think we should sue for compensation but
that just my opinion

--
Jonathan Perreault

Personnal Advice To You:
#1: Do Not Undermine Windows's Work, Or It'll Undermine You As A User.
#2: Torture Windows (Any) Now Before It Tortures You

Best Comments From Users:
No Matter The Problem Even With Linux, It's Microsoft's And Windows's Faults

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:1gdle35va6o62tn5ep0ivodvbhud461dr4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:57:30 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>>Microsoft admits this was done.
>>
>>http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx
>
> If I ever seen a statement cleared by a company's legal department,
> the above is it.
>
> Instead of dancing all around the issue Microsoft should SAY it
> updated whatever. Obviously the technology is already build into
> Windows with it needlessly popping up all kinds of annoying
> notification messages in the bottom right corner of the desktop like
> reporting unused icons on your desktop, do you want to delete them and
> nagging if your want to turn on UAC if it happens to be set to off.
>
> So updating ANYTHING on the sneak and not informing the user it
> happened is at best deceptive and worse something far more sinister.
> The bottom line is why does Microsoft always end up doing things
> behind user's backs and then sheepishly needing to trot out some
> half-*** excuse why they do it?
>
> As with everything else, Microsoft does NOT respect it's users, their
> privacy or property and yes, MY computer is MY property and it does
> not belong to Microsoft to do with as they please. My computer and all
> it contains is MINE to do with as I please. Wish the boys of Redmond
> would learn that.
>

..nap.. ..ndro..

"Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
news:eNM9Nhv9HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>
> My computer and all
>> it contains is MINE to do with as I please.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with all you've said except the above statement is simply not
> factually correct. I can understand an individual, such as yourself, with
> only one install, making that claim albeit not true.
> Companies, with volume license agreements (such as we are) are subject to
> unannounced, on site, license audits as clearly stated in our agreements.
> I know of no IP that is m*** produced for public consumption having a
> license that grants the purchaser full ownership. Usage rights yes of
> course, but not ownership.
> The digital world we now live in has made that not possible.


Oh my God. Frank. Are you feeling okay? Have you been taking drugs?

ss.

..a..

Synapse Syndrome wrote:
> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
> news:eNM9Nhv9HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>>Adam Albright wrote:
>>
>> My computer and all
>>
>>>it contains is MINE to do with as I please.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>I agree with all you've said except the above statement is simply not
>>factually correct. I can understand an individual, such as yourself, with
>>only one install, making that claim albeit not true.
>>Companies, with volume license agreements (such as we are) are subject to
>>unannounced, on site, license audits as clearly stated in our agreements.
>>I know of no IP that is m*** produced for public consumption having a
>>license that grants the purchaser full ownership. Usage rights yes of
>>course, but not ownership.
>>The digital world we now live in has made that not possible.
>
>
>
> Oh my God. Frank. Are you feeling okay? Have you been taking drugs?
>
> ss.
>
>

:-D
Frank

..yaya..

> I have come to the
> conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here. I
know
> they legally have the right to update files with out notice because of the
> EULA.

That's open to debate.

> The only thing
> that will make this clear to them is a public outcry.

In 1999 it was discovered that Microsoft was reading
Reg. info. from the Win98 Registry when people visited
Windows Update. After a public outcry, MS promised
to stop doing that. ....Things have changed quite a bit
since then.

If you look at Microsoft's actions from XP onward you
can see a very systematic and patient transition from a
software platform to what Mr. Ballmer calls "software AND
service". MS is attempting to turn Windows into a subscription
service, including music/TV rental, contextual ads displayed
onscreen, etc. And they're trying to transition their software
customers, by tiny, almost indiscernible steps, into service
customers. So eventually you'll pay to use your software,
via cash and/or ads.

According to your post header you're using Vista. XP and
Vista are both spyware in that they undertake remote
communication without permission or notification. XP and
Vista have already moved a long way toward the services
model of Windows. So why are you using Vista if you want
privacy?

What will make a difference is if you stop buying the product.
Your "public outcry" is like cows griping that the farmer is milking
them: Why should the farmer care, so long as the cows stay
in the barn?

I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:286728FE-0266-46B4-9FBA-1B04F62FBC5C@microsoft.com...
> After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
> blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
> the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here.
> I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice because
> of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option
> to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows
> Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The
> only thing that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please
> add your comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will
> help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
> anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
> think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
> Reasoned debate and comments are needed.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>

..u..

"Paul Randall" <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:ea1tclv9HHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> If this one is just 'let go', isn't that an invitation for malware
> designers to use and enhance the technique? Kind of like enabling malware
> or a malware tutorial?
>
> -Paul Randall
>

Hi .. many malware designers already know how "phone home". That's not the
issue, we already know malware can be designed to open your computer to the
manipulations of a third party. What the issue is .. is OK for Microsoft to
have updated Windows Update without explicit permission? The answer is no. A
Microsoft team commited a faux pas. But I say: they know better now (as
people complained) .. it was no big deal .. forget about it.

Saucy

..ristoph.. .. ..e

A slightly different aspect of this controversy is that when ou switch your
computer on, it's because you want to use it. In practice, you can't know
how long MS will take to download its stuff and let you work at a reasonable
speed . If you don't have a fast connection, this can take a long time, and
MS is obviously not aware that such a situation could exist.

Similarly, when you want to switch off, MS tells you not to, because it
needs to install updates. Safety- and economy-minded users want to switch
off at the mains. MS tells them that this is not allowed.

Regards


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> a écrit dans le message de
news:E441F8AD-11A6-41F0-BB3D-5F238D9CD2CB@microsoft.com...
> Microsoft admits this was done.
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
> news:u4YZoPu9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>> news:0F43528C-A93A-46BF-A51E-4F95E5B59C22@microsoft.com...
>>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23f2Du1t9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>< chop >
>>>
>>> This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for
>>> sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows
>>> update to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for
>>> updates" this update was downloaded and installed without any
>>> notification.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kerry Brown
>>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically was
>> 'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by
>> Linux advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that
>> there's been such a mystery update.
>>
>> Saucy
>