"S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote in message
news:H_aSj.45503$%15.3183@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk>
> wrote in message news:MPG.2282f3ac4885c79898970f@news.motzarella.or g...
>>> You ALWAYS have the option to not install updates.
>>
>> DING wrong answer.
>>
>> Microsoft can and do force updates when they feel like it.
>
>
> They may have that ability, but they wouldn't intentionally do that to
> major corporate customers.
>
> It would be suicide.
>
> Imagine a company with an install base well into the thousands of
> machines. MS has to leave the option(s) for businesses (and others with
> the proper WinUpdate settings) to opt out.
It's the Windows Update Service Program itself that silently updates without
notification regardless of user settings.
Microsoft spokesman spin on the matter here. http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...e.aspx#1950960
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:37:05 -0500, "S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com>
wrote:
>
>"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
>in message news:MPG.2282f37ca9ea47e398970e@news.motzarella.or g...
>>> Well, you can always turn off automagic updates... Ben Myers
>>
>> Ooh, you mean like the update they forced a couple of months ago,
>> whether automatic updates were switched on _or_ off ?
>>
>> I can find references if you like...
>
>
>So, if that is your understanding, you can explain why I'm still running IE6
>having never installed IE7?
>
>They attempted a forced "push" on IE7 most recently. I'd already
>de-selected the update months earlier.
>
>Not sure if it prompted me again during this latest MS forced "push", but I
>can tell you that IE7 still hasn't made it down to my machine.
>
>My update settings are configured to prompt me so as to allow a look at any
>files coming down before I actually download them.
>
>MS wouldn't dare shove SP3 down the throats of the corporates.
>
>No flame, btw.
>
>
>Stew
>
I made these up, no forced updates for me. I use these and
then go and manually choose from MS.
AllowUpdates.bat
NET START "Automatic Updates"
SC CONFIG wuauserv start= auto
NET START "Background Intelligent Transfer Service"
SC CONFIG bits start= auto
pause
exit
=======================================
BlockUpdates.bat
NET STOP "Automatic Updates"
SC CONFIG wuauserv start= demand
NET STOP "Background Intelligent Transfer Service"
SC CONFIG bits start= demand
pause
exit
> It's the Windows Update Service Program itself that silently updates without
> notification regardless of user settings.
That's the bugger, either way, the last time they did it, it caused
all manner of problems for sysadmins - besides, how do you KNOW it was
only the update service itself that was tweaked.
Colin Wilson wrote:
>> It's the Windows Update Service Program itself that silently updates without
>> notification regardless of user settings.
>
> That's the bugger, either way, the last time they did it, it caused
> all manner of problems for sysadmins - besides, how do you KNOW it was
> only the update service itself that was tweaked.
It can be disabled.
"Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I
have seen publically reported. WU does not automatically update itself
when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the
customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified
of updates."
Notice how it is ONLY updated if you use it? And that it CAN be turned off.
On May 1, 1:33*pm, "Steve W." <csr684...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Colin Wilson wrote:
> >> It's the Windows Update Service Program itself that silently updates without
> >> notification regardless of user settings.
>
> > That's the bugger, either way, the last time they did it, it caused
> > all manner of problems for sysadmins - besides, how do you KNOW it was
> > only the update service itself that was tweaked.
>
> It can be disabled.
>
> "Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I
> have seen publically reported. WU does not automatically update itself
> when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the
> customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified
> of updates."
>
> Notice how it is ONLY updated if you use it? And that it CAN be turned off..
>
> --
> Steve W.
Is this an entirely different issue to the svchost one from a few
months ago? The one where if you disabled automatic updates, svchost
hogged 100% of the cpu and made any machine unusable?
> > I can find references if you like...
> So, if that is your understanding, you can explain why I'm still running IE6
> having never installed IE7?
> They attempted a forced "push" on IE7 most recently. I'd already
> de-selected the update months earlier.
Nope, never had that forced on me - the one i'm talking about
completely ignored the users' settings.
> My update settings are configured to prompt me so as to allow a look at any
> files coming down before I actually download them.
Ditto, and very few of them make it onto my machine unless it has a
specific relevance to *my* security.
> MS wouldn't dare shove SP3 down the throats of the corporates.
"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.228565b332ec0420989718@news.motzarella.or g...
>> > I can find references if you like...
>> So, if that is your understanding, you can explain why I'm still running
>> IE6
>> having never installed IE7?
>> They attempted a forced "push" on IE7 most recently. I'd already
>> de-selected the update months earlier.
>
> Nope, never had that forced on me - the one i'm talking about
> completely ignored the users' settings.
>
>> My update settings are configured to prompt me so as to allow a look at
>> any
>> files coming down before I actually download them.
>
> Ditto, and very few of them make it onto my machine unless it has a
> specific relevance to *my* security.
>
>> MS wouldn't dare shove SP3 down the throats of the corporates.
>
> No doubt they'll fix it for vista first ;-)
>
>> No flame, btw.
>
> Not taken as one :-)
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...s_stealth_upda
> te_rumors/
Again, consider my former employer with a global install base of perhaps - I
dunno - 50,000+ workstations.
A stealth security (or utility, or whatever) patch is pushed out by MS w/o
notification. And let's say it breaks only 40% of the systems.
I wonder how sympathetic the courts would be to a lawsuit (against MS) for
(documentable) monetary losses in both sales and productivity for the
minutes/hours or beyond that those systems were down?
Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base and
patients die?
Could MS do it? Yeah, I'm sure they could. Would they do it and risk the
potential litigation and (further) PR damage? I really don't think so.
Because if they're breaking ONE company with a patch/service, then they're
potential breaking tens of thousands (or more) simultaneously.
> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base and
> patients die?
Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical
systems. Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale
systems with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same
for Vista, your point was... ?
"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.2285a512adcef58f989725@news.motzarella.or g...
>> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base and
>> patients die?
>
> Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical
> systems. Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
>
> So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale
> systems with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same
> for Vista, your point was... ?
My point is that you're essentially full of schitt. Of course, I say that
in the most respectful manner possible.
"...forced to halt automatic updates to Vista service pack one (SP1)
because of glitches with its Dynamics Retail Management System (RMS),
which has already laid waste to XP SP3"
> MS would be absolutely inundated with litigation.
Re: OT: XP sp3 
Linear Mode
