Various Topics on Windows Vista

..r.. ..o..

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..

"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
>
>


"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

Have a nice day,
Saucy

..or..

I agree, I want to update what I choose, when I choose. The first time AVG
told me some of my core files had changed I nearly got a heart attack.
ThoraD
"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
>
>

..nap.. ..ndro..

"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?
>
>
>
> You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:
>
> - Install update automatically (recommended)
>
> - Download updates but let me choose whether to install them
>
> - Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them
>
> - Never check for updates (not recommended)
>
> That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?


No.

ss.

..m ....

> You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:
>
> - Install update automatically (recommended)
>
> - Download updates but let me choose whether to install them
>
> - Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them
>
> - Never check for updates (not recommended)

Even if you do all that, certain files are still upgraded automatically.

Tom Lake

..CHA..

* Kerry Brown:
> 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.

Bravo!!

I agree, Kerry.


-Michael

..r.. ..o..

"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?
>
>
>
> You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:
>
> - Install update automatically (recommended)
>
> - Download updates but let me choose whether to install them
>
> - Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them
>
> - Never check for updates (not recommended)
>
> That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?
>

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

..w.. ..ll..

Saucy wrote:
> "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
>>
>>
>
>
> "Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?
>
>
>
> You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:
>
> - Install update automatically (recommended)
>
> - Download updates but let me choose whether to install them
>
> - Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them
>
> - Never check for updates (not recommended)
>
> That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

No,

I am afraid you missed the point in the discussion.
Windows Update WILL update (that is downloading AND installing a bunch
of files WITHOUT your approaval), whatever you choose from the above....
Please read around a little in this group to find many posts addressing
this behaviour.

Regards,
Erwin Moller


>
> Have a nice day,
> Saucy

..w.. ..ll..

Kerry Brown wrote:
> 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.
>

Short answer: It is wrong.

I do have automatic updates on, but this is a matter of principle.

What would be acceptable is this:
--> WU NEVER updates itself, unless the owner of the PC has given
his/her permission to do so.
If you choose to have 'automatic updates' on, WU should be able to
update itself.

When your OS starts downloading and changing the system all by itself,
be it legal of not in some countries via EULA, is simply bad behaviour,
not to mention possible system instability.

While I cannot imagine it, but suppose a nuclear plant runs on M$
software: then that software starts updating itself without permission
of the plantowners.
This is farfetched, I admit, because no owner of a nuclear plant, in
his/her right state of mind, would pick Vista as their controlling OS.


Regards,
Erwin Moller

..nap.. ..ndro..

"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.


I think it's great!! LOL

ss.