ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Microsoft to push another Windows Update to users ... whether you want it or not

By | August 14, 2008, 8:35am PDT

Summary: According to Microsoft, there’s another update to the Windows Update mechanism ready to be unleashed. The difference between this update and the stealth update from back in 2007 is that Microsoft is being more open about this update and actually talking about it before it hits the download servers and starts getting installed on systems.

Back in September of 2007 Microsoft carried out what I and many others at the time considered to be a pretty big breach of trust and pushed a stealth update for the Windows Update mechanism. What’s wrong with that, you might ask? Well, as it turned out the update disrupted some Windows XP users ability to repair their installation. Not good, and precisely the reason why there are some people who like to know exactly what is being installed on their systems, and control when that happens.

Well, according to Microsoft, there’s another update to the Windows Update mechanism ready to be unleashed. The difference between this update and the stealth update from back in 2007 is that Microsoft is being more open about this update and actually talking about it before it hits the download servers and starts getting installed on systems.

Why update Windows Update?

Here’s the reason given by Microsoft:

So what are we doing this time? Well, this particular update won’t really change the way the client looks or feels to you, but you may notice some improvements in the length of time it takes Windows Update to scan for updates and how quickly you’ll receive signature updates.  For example, in this update, we’ve invested heavily in reducing the amount of time it takes the Windows Update agent to scan to see if new updates are available.  In this case, we’ve seen some instances of the scan times on some machines decreasing almost 20 percent.

Who will get this update automatically?

It depends on your Windows Update settings. Under Windows Vista there are four possible settings for Windows Update:

  • Install updates 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)

Similarly, under Windows XP there are four settings:

  • Automatic (recommended)
  • Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them
  • Notify me but don’t automatically download or install them
  • Turn off Automatic Updates

This update to the Windows Update agent will be updated automatically on both Windows Vista and Windows XP systems unless Windows Update has been switched off. That is, set to Never check for updates (not recommended) under Vista or Turn off Automatic Updates under XP. All tghe other settings will be taken by Microsoft has an indication that you want these updates to the Windows Update mechanism to come in and be installed.

If you don’t want this update to come in, you need to make these changes soon.

My thoughts …

My take on this is that the way that Windows Update updates itself is still flawed if updates are pushed to users who have explicitly stated that they don’t want updates to be installed without permission, or don’t want updates downloaded or installed without their consent. After all, if you don’t feel that way, why bother setting it up that way? It’s a very weak argument to suggest that Windows Update is on unless it is switched off and to override what seem to me like clear choices that users have set to allow them to have control over what comes in and is installed. If the wording on these settings wasn’t clear enough or there were exceptions, Microsoft should have taken Vista SP1/XP SP3 as an opportunity to clarify things.

I just can’t understand why Download updates but let me choose whether to install them or Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them doesn’t mean what it says it means and why Microsoft can’t accept that. As they stand, these settings are misleading at best.

That said, I’ve installed this update on a couple of systems and so far haven’t come across any negative side effects.

Which operating systems will get the update?

This update will apply to:

  • Windows Vista 32-bit/64-bit
  • Windows Server 2003
  • Windows XP 32-bit/64-bit
  • Windows 2000 Advanced Server/Datacenter Server

More information

Further details about this update can be found here.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

58
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

While we're out there trusting...
oshea00 25th Aug 2008
We ought to put our faith in companies like Enron and Worldcom while we're at it.

The point is that updates, however well-intentioned, can potentially disrupt operations.

Is your everyday home system critical?
0 Votes
+ -
I agree completely
Badgered 14th Aug 2008
I just can?t understand why Download updates but let me choose whether to install them or Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them doesn?t mean what it says it means and why Microsoft can?t accept that. As they stand, these settings are misleading at best.

Microsoft installing ANY update, when you have specifically told it not to install them unless you approve them is just plain wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
Adrain Gets It Right, Again!
chessmen 14th Aug 2008
Microsoft's selection should mean what it says. If I want to be notified BEFORE installing an update, then that is exactly what I want.
I don't see a problem with it. If Windows Update needs to be updated then let it install the update. Its not like its going to hurt anything. If you think about it this is the mechanism for updating Windows systems. Its working as it claims, if you have automatic updates on then this should be updated, if its off then it won't.
0 Votes
+ -
Last time it happened...
jasonp@... 14th Aug 2008
it did hurt some people. You'd have caught that if you had read the article. It's not working as it claims. If I have selected "download but don't install", that means I don't want any bits installed into my production environment. Period.
0 Votes
+ -
Ok
Loverock Davidson 14th Aug 2008
That small handful of people who did have a minor problem had it resolved very quickly. Microsoft will ensure that doesn't happen this time. If you select "Download but don't install" then why are you downloading them at all? The whole point is to download them to install them. And thats why you are not an admin.
0 Votes
+ -
OMG
thelivo 14th Aug 2008
I have just started reading a few posts here and you really take the "fanboy" thing to a whole new level.
If critical thinking is a sign of evolution then you are a massive backwards step!!

I use Microsoft, Apple and Linux stuff - they ALL have flaws. Apple tie you in to things the most, but their stuff tends to work right. Microsoft tie you into things, and their stuff tends to break. A lot.
Linux doesn't generally charge or tie you into anything, but things can still be a touch experimental.

In this case, Microsoft have allowed you a config option, they should honor it all the time, not just when it suits them.
0 Votes
+ -
OMG OMG OMG!
Loverock Davidson 14th Aug 2008
Did you not understand the part where Microsoft did allow you the option to install this or not? I'll make it simple for you... if autoupdate is on then you will get the update, if autoupdate is off then you do not get the update. Reevaluate yourself and take a look at who's making the step backwards!
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm
daengbo 15th Aug 2008
So you missed the part of the article where Adrian said that the update will happen when you have automatic updates off, then? If you have chosen to confirm each update individually before it is applied (such as in a corporate environment), the Windows Update patch will still be downloaded and applied without your approval.
0 Votes
+ -
..caused problems to users
tulsatech 15th Aug 2008
Mission critical software that is running and a restart of a computer by a reboot can can have serious consequences. Several of our systems have software that would need to be restarted and valuable data is lost because of a reboot. Because of this, we choose when to do updates when it suits our schedule, not when it suits the update server schedule. A forced update could cause serious repercussions for our company and clients who depend on a continuous data stream from our software.

Microsoft needs to honor the choices made by their end users. End user preferences regarding automatic or manual updates are there for a reason and chosen by end users for a reason. Microsoft needs to honor those reasons.
0 Votes
+ -
....
Linux User 147560 17th Aug 2008
Then you may want to consider moving from Windows to Linux for your back end. Then you will have 100% control over your systems and the need to reboot all but eliminated. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Quit crying...
dwr50 14th Aug 2008
If you don't trust MS$... buy an Apple or switch to Linux. Just be glad you have choices.
0 Votes
+ -
How asinine...
zenotek 14th Aug 2008
O RLY? Entire companies are supposed to switch to Apple or Linux because Microsoft can't respect user's privacy rights?
0 Votes
+ -
They don't get it...
storm14k 14th Aug 2008
They have become so defensive of people talking about MS that they support their own rights being violated. MS is loving this right now.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux yes, Apple no
beoz 14th Aug 2008
Apple? Google "iPod kill switch". They're hardly guiltless.

'True' Open Source gets the big win here.
0 Votes
+ -
While we're out there trusting...
oshea00 25th Aug 2008
We ought to put our faith in companies like Enron and Worldcom while we're at it.

The point is that updates, however well-intentioned, can potentially disrupt operations.

Is your everyday home system critical?
0 Votes
+ -
Simply respect the user choice and if its set to "download but dont install w/o permission", do just that. However, feel free to bar access to Windows Update until its installed. MS has done this in the past and from what I recall there wasnt any issues over it. Its a required update to the mechanisim and if you want to keep on using it install the update.

Now yes i do see the "oh but what about security of everyone" issue and thats true - however end users need to take more responsibilty on themselves for their actions. Also for the most part only the "technical savvy" users will have modified the setting (or I would hope..but then again we are talking about users.. happy ) so it would for the most part be a non-issue.

I have my updates set for automatic. I just dont want to be bothered and I really dont have any worry that my PC would stop working because of an update. I dont trust MS blindly, but give them a little more credit.
0 Votes
+ -
Those 4 settings are for standard updates.
osreinstall 14th Aug 2008
They do not mean anything if MS insists on an update so there is another process involved.

Turn off Automatic Updates in the panel.

Go to Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services and open up the panel.

Disable "Automatic Updates" and turn off the service.

Disable "Background Intelligence Transfer Service" and turn off the service.

Yes the thought of losing control over anything you own to another entity is quite annoying and this seems to be happening in more than just computing. Everyone out there just wants to help us because they are so concerned. Funny how when you ask for help those same folks can never be reached.
0 Votes
+ -
RE ...
n0neXn0ne Updated - 14th Aug 2008
"Yes the thought of losing control over anything you own to another entity is quite annoying..."



Have you ever read the EULA? "Only Microsoft owns Windows"!!!


0 Votes
+ -
What's different
laura.b 14th Aug 2008
for other software? You don't OWN them either.

Don't be so purposefully inflammatory.
0 Votes
+ -
re: What's different
none none 14th Aug 2008
for other software? You don't OWN them either.

Yeah I do, Any GPL software I use, I own. It's not licensed to me - I own it.





happy
0 Votes
+ -
Are you sure about that?
ye 14th Aug 2008
I believe the L in GPL stands for "license" which, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge about the GPL, does not transfer ownership.
0 Votes
+ -
No
beoz 14th Aug 2008
The GPL doesn't give you ownership.
The code must remain free, and if you modify it you have to provide all code you've modified to end-users.

Ownership implies if it's yours to do with what you want. You can make all the money you want delivering pizzas in your car, that you own. The only possibly way to make money off of and still honour GPL software directly is by providing services (support, packaging for the lazy, etc).

"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free."

You have a license.
0 Votes
+ -
Partially correct...
Linux User 147560 17th Aug 2008
"The code must remain free, and if you modify it you have to provide all code you've modified to end-users."

ONLY if you re-distribute outside your company. If you customize something in house and it is not for general public consumption then you keep it and do not have to give it away unless you want too. This is a common misunderstanding with people not familiar with OOS. devil
0 Votes
+ -
No you don't
osreinstall 14th Aug 2008
Unless you wrote it yourself and only the modifications if you used other's work to build on.
0 Votes
+ -
Um...NO
laura.b 15th Aug 2008
GPL = General Public License

license: 1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver's license.
3. permission to do or not to do something.
4. intentional deviation from rule, convention, or fact, as for the sake of literary or artistic effect: poetic license.
5. exceptional freedom allowed in a special situation.
6. excessive or undue freedom or liberty.
7. licentiousness.
8. the legal right to use a patent owned by another.

–verb (used with object) 9. to grant authoritative permission or license to."


Try again, man. You don't own it.
0 Votes
+ -
Regarded Wrong
osreinstall 14th Aug 2008
I was talking about your privacy and your work, not the code. No one owns the code except the copyright holder/owner.
This seems like a really stupid thing for Microsoft to be doing. I see no good reason for Microsoft to be using a different process.

Note to Microsoft: This is one reason why people distrust you. Do the right thing and make the update process honor the users wishes!
0 Votes
+ -
Must be the control freak in them.
osreinstall 14th Aug 2008
If they want you to get an update you are getting it. Yes, it is an abuse of trust but it isn't the only company that does it. Apple has a kill switch to remove third party software they don't approve of. Everything should be disclosed.
0 Votes
+ -
@ye
thungurknifur 14th Aug 2008
For the first time ever, I agree with you...
0 Votes
+ -
For those "disaffected"...
thx-1138_@... 16th Aug 2008
...XP users out there, that would like to 'avert' any clandestine, unwarranted changes to their systems. You need to do more than just disable the service if you wish to stop the "brute force affect" of the update engine. To anyone out there interested, try the following:


Go into the Local Security Policy (quick tip: RUN/gpedit.msc) and set these options:

Computer Configuration - Administrative Templates - Windows Components - Windows Update -
Configure Automatic Updates - Disabled

User Configuration - Administrative Templates - Windows Components - Windows Update -
Remove access to use all Windows Update features - Disabled

User Configuration - Administrative Templates - Windows Components - Start Menu and Taskbar -
Remove links and access to Windows Update - Enabled

Of course, MS may still try to circumvent this but it's worked like clock work for me over the last 3 years.

"There is no such thing as reality (per Se) - merely what each individual perceives to be real".
0 Votes
+ -
Only Microsoft owns Windows
ThePrairiePrankster Updated - 14th Aug 2008
Remember, you do not own the MS OS, you license it. MS, like Apple with their iPhone, can kill your installation whenever they want and there's nothing you can do about it. It's in the EULA.

As a few of the previous posters pointed out, you can turn updates off if this bothers you and do this manually at a later date if you prefer.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree...
mrdt 14th Aug 2008
Most people forget or don't realize that according to Microsoft, they do not own Windows or any MS software, therefore there isn't much they can do about this type of update. I don't know any of my coworkers or friends, besides myself that has actually read the entire MS EULA.
0 Votes
+ -
And Do not forget
GuidingLight 14th Aug 2008
you don't owm Linux either. You license it. It is in the EULA

can kill your installation whenever they want and there's nothing you can do about it. It's in the EULA.

Really? How? I would like to see that explained

And why would they? To get the government to sue them?
0 Votes
+ -
Linux doesn't have EULA
chemist109 14th Aug 2008
There are no use restrictions on Linux. There are only restrictions on copying (part of copyright) and only then if you make modifications and distribute them in binary form.

Stop spreading FUD.
0 Votes
+ -
You apparently didn't get it
laura.b 15th Aug 2008
He said you don't own Linux. And you don't. You license it. You may have more rights with it than others, but you still don't own it.

It's not FUD in any way, because it's true.
0 Votes
+ -
I believe...
storm14k 14th Aug 2008
that their use of "own" is talking about who has the right to do things to the software. In that sense the only thing you can't do with Linux is redistribute it without giving the original source code and the changes that you made. You Linux "license" can't be shut off or revoked nor can you be forced to accept changes to the system.
0 Votes
+ -
That doesn't equal ownership
laura.b 15th Aug 2008
It's just a freer license than others. I don't care how they are using the word "own," as there is a clear meaning to the word, and using it differently does not change that meaning, it makes them wrong. Being licensed to do something, and owning something aren't even close to the same thing, either in concept or legality.
0 Votes
+ -
Then get rid of the other "options"
jasonp@... 14th Aug 2008
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical. When you give someone options, they expect you to abide by the options you gave them whether you're legally required to or not. There's a little thing called trust that has almost no bearing on the law. Microsoft gives you the option to state clearly "download updates but don't install them". If they don't want to allow you to have that option, they shouldn't offer it up to you. Microsoft already has image problems, and this kind of stuff only adds fuel to the fire. So let's get past the legal ramifications of this kind of activity. I think the real complaint here is the loss of trust in Microsoft to honor its word. Loss of trust can break even the greatest of companies in the marketplace.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you 100%
ThePrairiePrankster 14th Aug 2008
It would be far better for MS to act in a trustworthy manner and honor the licensee's choice.
So are you saying you'd rather not have a faster update mechanism? Seems to be MS is screwed either way cuz we'll never be happy.
0 Votes
+ -
No, what he's saying is...
jasonp@... 14th Aug 2008
honor your word. Don't lie to your customers. Don't tell your customers one thing and then turn around and do something else. Is this concept really that difficult to understand?
0 Votes
+ -
For Microsoft and Its Apologists
Cardhu Updated - 16th Aug 2008
Re: "honor your word. Don't lie to your customers. Don't tell your customers one thing and then turn around and do something else. Is this concept really that difficult to understand?"

Yes, absolutely, for Microsoft and its apologists.

The extent to which Microsoft regards its customers is very well-documented:

http://forums.community.microsoft.com/en-US/genuinefeedback/thread/be23a646-8bf4-4655-86d6-9fddac5c48b3/

Ramone's comments above as "a Microsoft partner for over eight years" are especially illuminating and heartbreaking.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2006/07/24_a428.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=145

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=150

http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/windows/2006/11/28/wga-a-genuine-advantage/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=221

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=1004&SiteID=25

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=789

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=780

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=832&tag=nl.e622

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=871&tag=nl.e622

"Microsoft honor" is a very funny oxymoron.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen
WATKINS12@... 15th Aug 2008
These people are simpletons.

From the way the article reads, MS is pushing the download, not the installation, unless you select "automatic". So what's the problem?

As for problems with the previous update update (or any others, for that matter), I have never encountered a problem, so I can only surmise that the dolts who want to select and choose are making unwise and ill-advised choices and do not fully know what they are doing.
0 Votes
+ -
That is Not What The Article Says
Cardhu Updated - 16th Aug 2008
and before you go around calling people "simpletons" and "dolts," you'd better make sure you have read and understood the article under discussion.

Adrian explictly states:

"This update to the Windows Update agent will be updated automatically on both Windows Vista and Windows XP systems unless Windows Update has been switched off. That is, set to Never check for updates (not recommended) under Vista or Turn off Automatic Updates under XP."

That is "update," not "download."

This is not the first time that Microsoft has inflicted updates without regard for customer choices:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=789

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=780

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=832&tag=nl.e622

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=871&tag=nl.e622

As pointed out elsewhere in this forum:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=50857&messageID=955645&start=-9948

some customers are running mission-critical software whose configurations need to be carefully controlled by their IT departments. So this is yet another very serious violation of customer rights by Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Worse?
laura.b 15th Aug 2008
Neither is worse. Both are intruding on your system without your explicit permission, and both have 'fessed up to having the capability to do it.

Different results, similar means. And it is the means that many have taken issue with, so neither is better or worse, just wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
I Agree
Cardhu 16th Aug 2008
In both cases, customers have valid cause to file complaints.

There are readily available avenues online for filing complaints:

The Federal Trade Commission:

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

The Better Business Bureau online:

http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=ab12ce37-3680-42cc-9817-df71ecfda32e
0 Votes
+ -
No Text
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft inflictions on their customers:

Mis-validation with damages to small businesses:

http://forums.community.microsoft.com/en-US/genuinefeedback/thread/be23a646-8bf4-4655-86d6-9fddac5c48b3/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=113

http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2006/07/24_a428.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=150

http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/windows/2006/11/28/wga-a-genuine-advantage/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=145


More mis-validation cases:

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/default.aspx?ForumGroupID=125&SiteID=25

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=110

http://oncomputerstips.blogspot.com/2006/10/microsoft-keelhauls-customers-in-wga.html

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&entry=3337425127

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/107340.asp?source=rss

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=144

http://www.thetechlounge.com/news/10467/WGA+and+Activation+Failures+Dont+Faze+Redmond/

http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/microsoft-counters-windows-genuine-advantage-false-positive-identification-accusations/

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/technology/article_21227124.shtml

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=320&blogid=4

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=221

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=1004&SiteID=25

WGA?s inclusion in a book on software industry business mistakes:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590591046


Flirtation with kill switches:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3718

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-56084.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=286

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12554_22-56027-3.html


Restricted licensing:

http://www.vmware.com/solutions/whitepapers/msoft_licensing_wp.html

http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-restricts-free-fair-use.html

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?hhTest=1&forumID=133&threadID=244400&messageID=2467714


?Stealth updates,? Microsoft installing software on personal computers without user permission:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=774

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=780

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=789

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=832&tag=nl.e622

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=871&tag=nl.e622


Vista User Account Control (UAC) problems:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Microsoft-admits-Vista-UAC-prompts-need-work-/0,130061744,339289212,00.htm

http://tips.vlaurie.com/2007/02/23/will-vista-uac-be-successful-for-home-users/

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-user-account-control-uac-the-easy-way-on-windows-vista/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29

Other Posts on Microsoft Antics:

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/vista-upgrade-blog/

http://www.ojb.co.nz/owen/xuothercomp/microsofttricks.html

http://www.pcwelt.de/start/sicherheit/sonstiges/praxis/104830/gotcha_did_microsoft_use_warez_for_windows_xp/index.html
0 Votes
+ -
I think they handled it wrong last time, and I think they're handling it wrong, but a little better, this time. At least they've told people what is going to happen, so they can take active measures to prevent it if they wish.

When it comes down to it, most people won't care, because most people set up their OS "as recommended" and that makes updates automatic, so they won't even know it happened, nor will they care as long as it keeps working properly.

That doesn't make it right, ethically. But it's not a malicious sneak attack. The point is to fix something that needs fixing.

Has anyone bothered to ask why they are doing it this way again? Since the update is to the Updater itself, perhaps without this update, people won't be able to get further updates, thus making this one mandatory, and the additional steps to ensure everyone gets it (mistaken steps, imo) are a means to the right end.

I just don't really see why it can't be the same as other updates, and follow the preferences listed. If people choose to not install the update, and their system starts in with problems and errors, they only have themselves to blame, so I see no issue with letting them decide.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix