«

"Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:

> use at your own peril.

How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
http://www.autopatcher.com/

--
Ciao, Dave

no opinion.
the site furnishes no info about the product.
why should anyone download it?
ok the site is really rich in the no BS arena, but lacking in info.
do they really expect people to trust forums?

i have heard of the product before.... but.....

is it any good?
why use it?
why not use windows update?





"Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
news:Xns96C5D3BDBBEE6daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.3 7.6...
> "Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:
>
>> use at your own peril.
>
> How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
> http://www.autopatcher.com/
>
> --
> Ciao, Dave

In article <df97er$5bh$>, says...

> "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns96C5D3BDBBEE6daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.3 7.6...
> > "Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:
> >
> >> use at your own peril.
> >
> > How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
> > http://www.autopatcher.com/
> >
> > --
> > Ciao, Dave

> no opinion.
> the site furnishes no info about the product.
> why should anyone download it?
> ok the site is really rich in the no BS arena, but lacking in info.
> do they really expect people to trust forums?
>
> i have heard of the product before.... but.....
>
> is it any good?
> why use it?
> why not use windows update?

I used to recommend Shavlik Technologies NetChkPro - haven't used it for
a long time now though. These folk were involved in the development of
the Windows Update process and Baseline Security Analyser. I think MS
do their own thing thesedays.

http://www.shavlik.com

--
Duncan

I've used that & its good, but it gets expensive on large sites.




"Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
news:. nz...
> In article <df97er$5bh$>, says...
>
>> "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96C5D3BDBBEE6daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.3 7.6...
>> > "Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:
>> >
>> >> use at your own peril.
>> >
>> > How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
>> > http://www.autopatcher.com/
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ciao, Dave
>
>> no opinion.
>> the site furnishes no info about the product.
>> why should anyone download it?
>> ok the site is really rich in the no BS arena, but lacking in info.
>> do they really expect people to trust forums?
>>
>> i have heard of the product before.... but.....
>>
>> is it any good?
>> why use it?
>> why not use windows update?
>
> I used to recommend Shavlik Technologies NetChkPro - haven't used it for
> a long time now though. These folk were involved in the development of
> the Windows Update process and Baseline Security Analyser. I think MS
> do their own thing thesedays.
>
> http://www.shavlik.com
>
> --
> Duncan

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:37:27 +1200, Dave Doe <> wrote:

>In article <df97er$5bh$>, says...
>
>> "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96C5D3BDBBEE6daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.3 7.6...
>> > "Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:
>> >
>> >> use at your own peril.
>> >
>> > How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
>> > http://www.autopatcher.com/
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ciao, Dave
>
>> no opinion.
>> the site furnishes no info about the product.
>> why should anyone download it?
>> ok the site is really rich in the no BS arena, but lacking in info.
>> do they really expect people to trust forums?
>>
>> i have heard of the product before.... but.....
>>
>> is it any good?
>> why use it?
>> why not use windows update?
>
>I used to recommend Shavlik Technologies NetChkPro - haven't used it for
>a long time now though. These folk were involved in the development of
>the Windows Update process and Baseline Security Analyser. I think MS
>do their own thing thesedays.
>
>http://www.shavlik.com

MSBA is very good. I use it to help support a network running on a
Linux server with Ghost to send the updates to the machines.

Dave Taylor stubbed out the damp squib on 2/09/2005 8:48 p.m.and tried
to bring to our attention, this pearl of wisdom:
> "Mercury" <> wrote in news:df6oc4$ee8$:
>
>
>>use at your own peril.
>
>
> How do you feel about the Autopatcher series?
> http://www.autopatcher.com/
>
I've used autopatcher 5.1.0.9 for about a month now. Works well, hasn't
presented any problems apart from being a bt slow, and it keeps copies
of everything it d/ls.

Rob

In article <df6oc4$ee8$>, "Mercury" <>
wrote:

>ms does not issue hotfixes in a manner that supports hosting for download.
>ie, the files issued self-expire.

That means you can't even pass along copies to others, such as those who
might not have ready Internet access.

That seems bloody stupid. Why does Microsoft do such a thing?

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:25:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> That seems bloody stupid. Why does Microsoft do such a thing?

Because there are some persons out there which would take those files and
tamper with them and then pass them off as being good files when they're
infested with worms et c.


Bling Bling

--
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack
perspective.

In article <>,
Bling-Bling <> wrote:

>>In article <df6oc4$ee8$>, "Mercury" <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>ms does not issue hotfixes in a manner that supports hosting for download.
>>>ie, the files issued self-expire.
>>
>>That means you can't even pass along copies to others, such as those who
>>might not have ready Internet access.
>>
>>That seems bloody stupid. Why does Microsoft do such a thing?
>
>Because there are some persons out there which would take those files and
>tamper with them and then pass them off as being good files when they're
>infested with worms et c.

The answer to that is obvious, especially to Microsoft. It already ships
a digital-signing API in Windows, why not use that to digitally sign
updates? Then they can be freely redistributed, without fear of
corruption creeping in.