| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
How Windows Update Keeps Itself Up-to-Date | |
|
||
| Time: 15:23 EST/20:23 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
There have been some questions raised about how we service the Windows Update components and concerns expressed about software installing silently. I want to clarify the issue so that everyone can better understand why the self-updating of Windows Update acts the way it does. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:57:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 9/13/2007 4:32:50 PM |
| wow. how ever will the haters find an angle of attack on that explanation? c'mon guys, BE CREATIVE! |
| #2 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/13/2007 5:48:27 PM |
|
A reasonable and sober explanation.
So, when people updated manually, WU components were also updated, leading some to believe that their systems were accessed w/o permission and where automatic updating was declined. That is vastly different from what was reported earlier today. |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/13/2007 6:45:04 PM |
| Yea, yea. But why does it take so freakin' long to update manually? |
| #4 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/13/2007 9:16:44 PM |
| #3, I dunno, exactly, and believe me, we've tried to figure out all it is looking at with an eye toward speeding it up. Vista used to be largely painless, but lately, it seems to have slowed to a crawl, too. XP SP2's search for what requires an update is just ridiculous on many systems. I do suspect they are running a portion of the the malicious SW removal tool first, and then MS and Windows WGA validations - for the OS and Office where office is installed and then the scans to see what patches a system might need. It would probably be a lot longer if they didn't use a hash table to look for what was scanned during previous update sessions and had nothing to base them on. |
| #5 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2007 10:24:38 AM |
|
So why can't Windows Update simply tell me there is an update to Windows Update software, and give me an option to update it or not. Rather, it forces it on you, without telling you it is doing it, and you folks seems to think this is okay. I understand the need to update it, but they should still let you know if it needs to be updated, ESPECIALLY when you have your system set to not allow updates to install automatically. And just because they have been doing this for years is not a valid excuse for continuing to do it. I guess since they have done predatory monopolistic things in the past, they should be allowed to continue doing them? How about WGA? They have been using that for years too. Should they therefore be allowed to continue using it too? The same excuse could be used for that too.
I disagree with ANY product updating my system without my knowledge. And saying that others do it too is not an excuse. And them being Microsoft is not an excuse either. If I have to dig through months of event logs to find out about it, I was not sufficiently notified about it. I want to know BEFORE it happens, not sometime after the fact when I happen to trip over it in an event log. However, it is nothing new for the apologist crowd here to grab their ankles every time Microsoft tells them to bend over. |
| #6 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 9/14/2007 10:50:28 AM |
| It's a no win situation for MS, but in the end, MOST of the consumers won't care, and I am confident they made the right decision. |
| #7 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 9/14/2007 11:05:37 AM |
|
#1: "BE CREATIVE" Why? The supposed explanation does not make any sense to me; as #5 correctly stated if I do not want updates to be automatically installed WU should inform me that there are updates for WU itself available and I will decide what to do.
It is also interesting that this so called explanation has been made available only after MS was caught doing this and not before. Btw I cannot care less about who is snooping and or manipulating my items, my data etc.. it is just plain wrong! |
| #8 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2007 11:45:24 AM |
| I should also add that when I do a fresh OS install, say of XP, and then go to the Windows Update site, it clearly informs me that it is checking for the latest Windows Update software, and then it will notify me that a new version is available and required in order to access Windows Update Service, so I give it the go ahead to install the update, and then continue to the update site. I have no problem with being informed that I need to update WU before it can check for new updates. A simple process of asking me if I want the update, allowing me the option to install it, and then telling me I need to perform the WU check again for the latest updates is quite acceptable. Doing it behind my back "because it is required in order to check Windows Update" is unacceptable. |
| #9 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/14/2007 11:52:03 AM |
|
I think the larger issue is about how software is sold and licensed.
What is not widely understood is that no matter what we think we're buying and owning, when it comes to software, we don't own anything and I think that runs contrary to how we all think. We assume that when we buy software, it is ours to use and that which we install it into, is also ours to control. The software companies, Microsoft among them, see it very differently. Language. Lots of it, attempts to explain in many ways and with many examples, that we don't own a thing - that the physical object in our hands is not ours and that if and when we use it, we may do so only according to very specific and limited terms [kinda punts the entire personal computer part of it, don't you think...]. Since we don't own anything, the SW companies feel free to do as they like, when they like - up to and including using our data [to different degrees], for their own purposes - all protected by the language they use - which always ends with the same loaded gun to our heads.... don't like it, don't use it - but.... don't try and return it, either, because, well, you bought it and opened it... So that thing we bought, that box and CD/DVD - well... it has value sure and apparently the cardboard and polymers they use are pretty special, because we can't return them - but don't forget, absent one's agreement to the terms, whatever value they offer can't be accessed. So who owns what - that is the better question and how should it change? What of products liability? Why is SW so protected and those that use it so exposed. Does that apply to other products? Not hardly. So here's my take - fine, leave it as it all is, but... if we are injured, or damaged by a product, open a path whereby the manufacturer may be held to account. If it's faulty, and causes harm, then there should be a way to recover damages. Same is true of privacy, or slander/libel - accuse me of a crime and hurt me WGA, and I prove that I am honest, then be prepared to answer for that. In other and veyr simple terms - let's make this a two-way street where MS and others have rules, too - where they have to answer to us where appropriate. I think that would wake a few companies up.... and OSS/FOSS, IMO it is worse... "all your all belong to us" is not an answer I am looking for.... I want accountability and where it matters. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2007 12:21:19 PM |
|
#9: How do you propose we hold MS and others to account? The XP EULA is something like 14 pages of how they aren't liable for anything in perpetuity throughout the Universe.
and OSS/FOSS, IMO it is worse... "all your all belong to us" is not an answer I am looking for.... Care to explain what you actually mean by this? "all your all belong to us"?? |
| #11 By 16797 (142.46.227.65) at 9/14/2007 1:43:05 PM |
| #10: You'd need to take MS to the court. The court would have the final word, not EULA. MS can put pretty much anything there, it does not mean the court would automatically approve it. I think. |
| #12 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/14/2007 4:18:36 PM |
|
#8, Well said.
#10, The economics with supported OSS don't work - it is just too high and exactly whom would one call to account for unsupported versions? |
| #13 By 32132 (64.180.200.185) at 9/14/2007 11:01:28 PM |
|
"A simple process of asking me if I want the update, allowing me the option to install it, and then telling me I need to perform the WU check again for the latest updates is quite acceptable. "
But what if you just turn Automatic Updates on after say ... 6 months of it being off. Or, what if Group Policy is used to turn Automatic Updates on and there is no actual person around to answer yes to the prompt asking if you want to update the WU components? |
| #14 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 9/15/2007 7:26:16 PM |
| I failed to read if SP1 and non-SP versions of Windows XP were "updated" also. I presume not. Does anyone know with certainty? |
| #15 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 9/15/2007 9:55:47 PM |
| #13: Simple. In that sort of scenario, like a remotely located server, set the WU to download and install automatically. Situation solved. We are talking about stuff being automatically updated when the server is NOT set to automatically update. Have you been following the conversation, or are you really that clueless? |
| #16 By 32132 (64.180.200.185) at 9/16/2007 11:15:20 AM |
|
"set the WU to download and install automatically."
You obviously weren't paying attention to what I wrote. |
| #17 By 4994 (58.174.107.58) at 9/17/2007 5:14:00 AM |
|
Why are people getting upset. Symantec updates itself do you complain about that....no because people never really knew that it does. If you have any problem with WU updating itself then you must own a pirated copy of windows.
Well they have to protect their property since thieving rogues like to take things for free and then start to moan about how it doesn't work..the nerver some people have. On a server basis you should not turn WU at all. You're meant to do it yourself manually. The lazy people take note, you're going to have to work hard for the money being thrown your way. There's no need to fuss or cry like babies. Imagine : It works you complain, It doesn't work you complain, See something better you complain. If the update was deemed necessary and you got it, it only means you activated it yourself. The reason for WU was to update your computer silently (Average user), If you can format a disk then you don't fit into that category. It's plain and simple, i don't like MS but please commom sense has to used here if you activated WU/MU then your machine will get updated. If you plan properly like some people do you will not be affected by this. In otherwords the average consumer will get this for they need the protection. Well as for the wizards are among us get over it it's just an update and nothing more. Got skeletons in your cupboard??? A corporate enviroment managed properly will not get this problem. They will approve all updates via WSUS if they use it. To sign off if you're not happy with windows go and get the alternatives. |
| #18 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/17/2007 7:49:58 AM |
| #17: It is not the update itself that people are upset about. It is that the update happened behind people's backs, with no checking of permissions from the user, even when automatic update was in a disabled or reduced functionality mode, such as download without installing or simply notify without download. And the notification that the work had been performed was not very overt either. A notification in the event log was all that the user got, if the user happened to look at the right place in the event logs to find the entry. And how many users would know where to look, and what to look for, or even that they should look for it? That is what the Windows community is up in arms about. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:57:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
