Microsoft doing secret Dimdows updates

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 14, 2007.

  1. Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so
    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_sneaky_updates.html>,
    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_perception_problem.html>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.


    Rubbish. This is false.

    Bad news drives eyeballs to websites and generates ad revenue

    Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx

    "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."

    Cheers
    Nathan
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so
    >

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_sneaky_updates.html>,
    >

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_perception_problem.html>.

    from Nick White, Vista Product Manager at Microsoft ...
    "This self-updating is done regardless of whether the user has enabled
    automatic checking, download and/or installation of updates."
    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...tion-of-windows-update-automatic-updates.aspx

    and from Bruce Simpson ...
    "And, if Microsoft is effectively using a "silent back door" to your
    computer, what happens when some "evil little sod" (ELS) cracks the
    protection such a system (hopefully) has built into it. ...
    So, given that it's been proven MS has (and is willing to use) a back-door
    into your PC, how on earth can we be sure that this isn't being used for
    whatever purpose suits those who have access to such a system? We all know
    that power and abuse of power go hand in hand - and the chances of the
    later are almost directly proportional to the level of the former."
    http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2007/0914.shtml
    Peter, Sep 14, 2007
    #3
  4. In message <>, Nathan
    Mercer wrote:

    > On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so
    >>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    >>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >
    > Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:


    Only if it is completely turned off.

    >

    http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx
    >
    > "...this only happens when the customer
    > is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    > updates."


    In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be _notified_
    of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    The explanation given is that, for some reason, Dimdows Update seems unable
    to keep track of new updates unless it is itself updated. Why is this? It
    seems to suggest that there are ongoing, backward-incompatible updates
    being made to the Dimdows Update protocol itself.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 14, 2007
    #4
  5. On Sep 14, 11:11 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so

    >
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >
    > > Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    >
    > Only if it is completely turned off.


    Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?
    Thank you for restating what I already said.

    The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    the service debuted several years ago.

    > http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "...this only happens when the customer
    > > is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    > > updates."

    >
    > In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be _notified_
    > of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.


    Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)

    > The explanation given is that, for some reason, Dimdows Update seems unable
    > to keep track of new updates unless it is itself updated. Why is this? It


    >From time to time Microsoft must also update and enhance the Windows

    Update service itself and, as part of this process, we need to update
    the client side code. These upgrades are important if we are to
    maintain the quality of the service. It would be very difficult to
    support multiple versions of the client code, so it is important that
    all Windows Update customers receive these particular updates.

    > seems to suggest that there are ongoing, backward-incompatible updates
    > being made to the Dimdows Update protocol itself.


    Microsoft is confident that the choice to use Automatic Updating
    continues to be the best decision.
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 14, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: Microsoft doing secret Windows updates

    In article <1189759736.25369@ftpsrv1>, says...
    > from Nick White, Vista Product Manager at Microsoft ...
    > "This self-updating is done regardless of whether the user has enabled
    > automatic checking, download and/or installation of updates."
    > http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...tion-of-windows-update-automatic-updates.aspx


    Yes, and then he further gives a link to the Update Product Team Blog:
    http://blogs.technet.com/mu/

    Where, if/when you read the full document you will come across the following:
    Begin quote >>
    The point of this explanation is not to suggest that we were as transparent as
    we could have been; to the contrary, people have told us that we should have
    been clearer on how Windows Update behaves when it updates itself. This is
    helpful and important feedback, and we are now looking at the best way to
    clarify WU=3Fs behavior to customers so that they can more clearly understand how
    WU works.
    << end quote

    and just below you can read:
    Begin quote>>
    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.
    << end quote.

    In other words: if you turn it off, it's OFF. If you have it on any other
    setting, it will update itself to maintain functionality. When it's OFF it will
    NOT go online and update itself.

    Fair enough. Hell, they even say that they should have made the functionality
    of the thing more transparent. What more can you ask for?

    This is one conspiracy theory that doesn't wash.

    >
    > and from Bruce Simpson ...
    > "And, if Microsoft is effectively using a "silent back door" to your
    > computer, what happens when some "evil little sod" (ELS) cracks the
    > protection such a system (hopefully) has built into it. ...
    > So, given that it's been proven MS has (and is willing to use) a back-door
    > into your PC, how on earth can we be sure that this isn't being used for
    > whatever purpose suits those who have access to such a system? We all know
    > that power and abuse of power go hand in hand - and the chances of the
    > later are almost directly proportional to the level of the former."
    > http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2007/0914.shtml


    Exactly. This is why I keep Windows Update turned OFF. I don't need unwatched
    backdoors into my system. I control what updates I want and what gets
    installed. The issue Bruce raises is one reason why I was so horrified by the
    whole rootkit saga. Any backdoor, any stealthing can potentially be exploited
    by ELSs. Imagine the botnet one could create by slipping a fraudulent dns
    record used by such software into one of the backbone servers for a mere 15
    minutes ... how secure is WU handshaking/authentication I wonder? There are
    some very very capable hackers working out of Russia and Romania (among other
    places) some of whom are black hats working for syndicates with lots of
    resources.

    Co-incidentally:
    One of my first experiences after installing XP was, literally seconds after I
    went online with it the first time, and before I had had/taken the opportunity
    to batten down the hatches (well,I was about to _get_ an up-to-date firewall),
    my system was hacked, either via Windows Update or by spoofing it somehow, &
    very well. It started downloading and installing automatically (I was not using
    IE, and whatever it was did not come from MS). After gaping at the screen for a
    couple seconds like a stunned mullet I hit the hard reset switch. It didn't
    finish doing whatever ...

    It never happened again :)

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
    Peter Huebner, Sep 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:52:44 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > On Sep 14, 11:11 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does so

    >>
    >> <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    >> <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >>
    >>> Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    >>
    >> Only if it is completely turned off.

    >
    > Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?
    > Thank you for restating what I already said.
    >
    > The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    > itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    > to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    > can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    > available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    > the service debuted several years ago.
    >
    >> http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> "...this only happens when the customer
    >>> is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    >>> updates."

    >>
    >> In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be _notified_
    >> of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    >
    > Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)


    So what's going on Lawrence, have you now been reduced to telling fibs and
    porkies about Dimdows in order to gain support for your second rate OS? Is
    this what it's come down to after all these years?

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    Will Spencer wrote:

    > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:52:44 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> On Sep 14, 11:11 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does
    >>>>> so
    >>>
    >>>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    >>>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >>>
    >>>> Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:
    >>>
    >>> Only if it is completely turned off.

    >>
    >> Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?
    >> Thank you for restating what I already said.
    >>
    >> The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    >> itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    >> to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    >> can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    >> available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    >> the service debuted several years ago.
    >>
    >>> http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "...this only happens when the customer
    >>>> is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    >>>> updates."
    >>>
    >>> In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be
    >>> _notified_ of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    >>
    >> Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)

    >
    > So what's going on Lawrence, have you now been reduced to telling fibs and
    > porkies about Dimdows in order to gain support for your second rate OS? Is
    > this what it's come down to after all these years?
    >
    > -ws


    As opposed to staff from Microsoft doing just that?
    --
    Q: What does a mathematician present to his fiancée when he wants to
    propose?
    A: A polynomial ring!
    Shane, Sep 15, 2007
    #8
  9. In message <>, Nathan
    Mercer wrote:

    > On Sep 14, 11:11 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> >> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does
    >> >> so

    >>
    >>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    >>

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >>
    >> > Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    >>
    >> Only if it is completely turned off.

    >
    > Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?


    Yes. "Disabled" simply means you don't get automatic updates. Or at least,
    you're asking not to get them--it appears Dimdows Update has a different
    interpretation of this, but only applying to itself, not to other updates.

    > The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    > itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    > to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    > can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    > available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    > the service debuted several years ago.
    >
    >> http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...
    >>
    >> > "...this only happens when the customer
    >> > is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    >> > updates."

    >>
    >> In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be
    >> _notified_ of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    >
    > Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)


    No it does not. All the reports are quite clear on that. And you yourself
    admit as much:

    > From time to time Microsoft must also update and enhance the Windows
    > Update service itself and, as part of this process, we need to update
    > the client side code. These upgrades are important if we are to
    > maintain the quality of the service. It would be very difficult to
    > support multiple versions of the client code, so it is important that
    > all Windows Update customers receive these particular updates.


    Even if they don't ask for them? And why are they not notified about these
    updates, even if they ask to be notified? That is the question that you're
    not answering.

    >> The explanation given is that, for some reason, Dimdows Update seems
    >> unable to keep track of new updates unless it is itself updated. Why is
    >> this? It seems to suggest that there are ongoing, backward-incompatible
    >> updates being made to the Dimdows Update protocol itself.

    >
    > Microsoft is confident that the choice to use Automatic Updating
    > continues to be the best decision.


    Which is not answering the point I made--why does Dimdows Update insist on
    automatic, silent updates to itself, even when you disable automatic,
    silent updates?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2007
    #9
  10. In message <taxzgi89iaqy$>, Will Spencer wrote:

    > ... Dimdows ...


    Gotcha.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Re: Microsoft doing secret Windows updates

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:46:15 +1200, Peter Huebner wrote:

    > Exactly. This is why I keep Windows Update turned OFF. I don't need unwatched
    > backdoors into my system. I control what updates I want and what gets
    > installed.


    The only problem with that is... you don't know what M$ actually installs
    when you install an "update".


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Sep 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    Re: Microsoft doing secret Windows updates

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:46:15 +1200, Peter Huebner wrote:

    > In other words: if you turn it off, it's OFF. If you have it on any other
    > setting, it will update itself to maintain functionality. When it's OFF it will
    > NOT go online and update itself.
    >
    > Fair enough. Hell, they even say that they should have made the functionality
    > of the thing more transparent. What more can you ask for?
    >
    > This is one conspiracy theory that doesn't wash.


    This yet another example of the Linux nerds contempt of the average home
    computer users intelligence. They think we are all morons being secretly
    exploited and they are here to save us and the owrld from big bad
    microsoft. Their arrogance and their contempt for the average home user is
    their downfall. I think Linux nerds are just a bunch of scare mongering
    wankers and the public has realised this and rejected Linux as a result.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 16, 2007
    #12
  13. On Sep 15, 4:41 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> >> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does
    > >> >> so

    >
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    >
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    >
    > >> > Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    >
    > >> Only if it is completely turned off.

    >
    > > Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?

    >
    > Yes. "Disabled" simply means you don't get automatic updates. Or at least,
    > you're asking not to get them--it appears Dimdows Update has a different
    > interpretation of this, but only applying to itself, not to other updates.


    If you turn off or disable Automatic Updates, you get no updates
    period. Either to Windows or to Automatic Updates itself

    Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this concept?


    > > The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    > > itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    > > to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    > > can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    > > available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    > > the service debuted several years ago.

    >
    > >>http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...

    >
    > >> > "...this only happens when the customer
    > >> > is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    > >> > updates."

    >
    > >> In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be
    > >> _notified_ of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    >
    > > Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)

    >
    > No it does not. All the reports are quite clear on that. And you yourself


    Yes it does so, I just built a fresh new Windows machine and used
    Windows Upate - I get notified that a new Windows Upate client is
    available and I can choose to install it if I wish to receive updates.

    These are the same "clear" reports that state that Windows Update
    updates itself even if it is switched off

    I presume you haven't even used it, else you would've seen the
    notification. Updates to the Windows Update agent are even logged in
    your Add/Remove programs control panel applet.


    > admit as much:


    Pray tell, where do I admit that in the paragraph below?

    > > From time to time Microsoft must also update and enhance the Windows
    > > Update service itself and, as part of this process, we need to update
    > > the client side code. These upgrades are important if we are to
    > > maintain the quality of the service. It would be very difficult to
    > > support multiple versions of the client code, so it is important that
    > > all Windows Update customers receive these particular updates.

    >
    > Even if they don't ask for them? And why are they not notified about these


    If you don't want Windows Updates don't visit the Windows Update site
    and don't turn on Automatic Updates.


    > updates, even if they ask to be notified? That is the question that you're
    > not answering.


    See above.

    > >> The explanation given is that, for some reason, Dimdows Update seems
    > >> unable to keep track of new updates unless it is itself updated. Why is
    > >> this? It seems to suggest that there are ongoing, backward-incompatible
    > >> updates being made to the Dimdows Update protocol itself.

    >
    > > Microsoft is confident that the choice to use Automatic Updating
    > > continues to be the best decision.

    >
    > Which is not answering the point I made--why does Dimdows Update insist on
    > automatic, silent updates to itself, even when you disable automatic,
    > silent updates?


    If you disable Automatic Updates you get no updates. Read that
    sentence again.

    There are 2 settings for Automatic Updates
    1. On
    2. Off

    If it's off, then it's off. Period.

    If it's on, then you have settings you can choose from which govern
    the updates that the AU client downloads:
    1. Download/install right away.
    2. Download/install at this time.
    3. Download, don't install: let me decide when to install.

    To maintain robustness, and best protect users, when you turn AU on it
    will update as new client pieces are available.

    Cheers
    Nathan
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Re: Microsoft doing secret Windows updates

    In article <>, lid says...
    > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:46:15 +1200, Peter Huebner wrote:
    >
    > > Exactly. This is why I keep Windows Update turned OFF. I don't need unwatched
    > > backdoors into my system. I control what updates I want and what gets
    > > installed.

    >
    > The only problem with that is... you don't know what M$ actually installs
    > when you install an "update".


    I can look at the documentation of every hotfix that I decide might be useful
    to me and download and install it. If I don't trust them enough to assume that
    the thing is what it purports to be, then I would be better off 1)either not
    using Windows or 2)not using a computer or maybe 3)getting myself committed.

    By the same token, if I leave it up to WU it may install things that I
    explicitely do NOT wish to have on my system.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
    Peter Huebner, Sep 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sep 15, 4:41 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > > >> >> Even if you tell it not to update your Dimdows system, it still does
    > > >> >> so

    > >
    > > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>,
    > >
    > > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>.
    > >
    > > >> > Windows Update will not update itself if it is disabled:

    > >
    > > >> Only if it is completely turned off.

    > >
    > > > Is there a difference between disabled and completely turned off?

    > >
    > > Yes. "Disabled" simply means you don't get automatic updates. Or at least,
    > > you're asking not to get them--it appears Dimdows Update has a different
    > > interpretation of this, but only applying to itself, not to other updates.

    >
    > If you turn off or disable Automatic Updates, you get no updates
    > period. Either to Windows or to Automatic Updates itself
    >
    > Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this concept?
    >
    >
    > > > The files that are being updated are part of the Windows Update client
    > > > itself. Windows Update automatically updates itself from time to time
    > > > to ensure that it is running the most current technology, so that it
    > > > can check for updates and notify customers that new updates are
    > > > available. This is normal behavior, and it has worked this way since
    > > > the service debuted several years ago.

    > >
    > > >>http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-kee...

    > >
    > > >> > "...this only happens when the customer
    > > >> > is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
    > > >> > updates."

    > >
    > > >> In other words, it still silently updates itself if you ask to be
    > > >> _notified_ of updates. It will not notify you, it will simply do it.

    > >
    > > > Yes it will notify you - you are incorrect (again)

    > >
    > > No it does not. All the reports are quite clear on that. And you yourself

    >
    > Yes it does so, I just built a fresh new Windows machine and used
    > Windows Upate - I get notified that a new Windows Upate client is
    > available and I can choose to install it if I wish to receive updates.


    Presumably you installed XPP SP1.

    Just wondering then, how long did it take to install to a full updated
    XP - given: motherboard support (maybe onboard video, sound, lan), and
    the Windows updates (about 94?). And how many reboots were required?

    Kinda begs the question, when is SP2 due out? I heard it wouldn't be
    until 2008.

    Installing XP H or P, SP1 and bringing it fully up to date (including
    optional updates like the Media Player, which then requires further
    updates, same with the dotnet framework), is a real PITA!

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Sep 17, 2007
    #15
  16. In message <>, Peter Huebner
    wrote:

    > I can look at the documentation of every hotfix that I decide might be
    > useful to me and download and install it.


    What about aspects of the hotfix that are not documented?

    Can you diff the source to see what the patch _really_ does?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2007
    #16
  17. In message <>, Nathan
    Mercer wrote:

    > There are 2 settings for Automatic Updates
    > 1. On
    > 2. Off
    >
    > If it's off, then it's off. Period.


    Wrong. As a Microsoft employee, perhaps you should get your story straight,
    since Microsoft seems truly unable to explain the situation in any clear
    fashion <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42348>.

    There are in fact four settings
    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_sneaky_updates.html>:

    * update automatically without notification
    * download updates without installing
    * notify the user about updates, but let them choose whether to install
    * completely off

    It turns out that, if Dimdows Update is in any setting other than the last
    one, it will act as though it is in the first setting with regard to
    itself, and update itself silently and automatically. This is the
    fundamental problem: it is disregarding your setting, and treating itself
    as a special case. The question is: why?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:38:24 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> exclaimed:

    >In message <>, Nathan
    >Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> There are 2 settings for Automatic Updates
    >> 1. On
    >> 2. Off
    >>
    >> If it's off, then it's off. Period.

    >
    >Wrong. As a Microsoft employee, perhaps you should get your story straight,
    >since Microsoft seems truly unable to explain the situation in any clear
    >fashion <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42348>.
    >
    >There are in fact four settings
    ><http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_updates_sneaky_updates.html>:
    >
    > * update automatically without notification
    > * download updates without installing
    > * notify the user about updates, but let them choose whether to install
    > * completely off
    >
    >It turns out that, if Dimdows Update is in any setting other than the last
    >one, it will act as though it is in the first setting with regard to
    >itself, and update itself silently and automatically. This is the
    >fundamental problem: it is disregarding your setting, and treating itself
    >as a special case. The question is: why?


    I don't understand what your beef is here, Lawrence.

    If it's turned off, it's turned off. If it's turned on, it keeps
    itself up-to-date so as to be able to keep getting notifications of
    other updates.

    What is wrong with this behaviour exactly, or is this just another one
    of your senseless and moronic crusades?
    Fred Dagg, Sep 17, 2007
    #18
  19. In article <fckhl3$qk0$>, _zealand
    says...
    > In message <>, Peter Huebner
    > wrote:
    >
    > > I can look at the documentation of every hotfix that I decide might be
    > > useful to me and download and install it.

    >
    > What about aspects of the hotfix that are not documented?
    >
    > Can you diff the source to see what the patch _really_ does?
    >


    I answered that question. Option 2 or 3 would apply. Take your pick.

    B.t.w. have you worked through the source of the core of the operating system
    of YOUR choice? Followed through on every branch in the code?

    Ye gods, I think you need to get out more, meet some women, maybe? Or
    supplement your hobby with something else. I can recommend woodwork. Although
    that is no longer open source either, at least when it comes to native timber.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
    Peter Huebner, Sep 17, 2007
    #19
  20. On Sep 17, 12:38 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Nathan
    >
    > Mercer wrote:
    > > There are 2 settings for Automatic Updates
    > > 1. On
    > > 2. Off

    >
    > > If it's off, then it's off. Period.

    >
    > Wrong. As a Microsoft employee, perhaps you should get your story straight,


    I have my story straight - I am not wrong. You are incorrect, I am
    right. If Automatic Updates are off, then it's off. Period.


    > since Microsoft seems truly unable to explain the situation in any clear
    > fashion <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42348>.
    >
    > There are in fact four settings
    > <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_upda...>:
    >
    > * update automatically without notification
    > * download updates without installing
    > * notify the user about updates, but let them choose whether to install
    > * completely off
    >
    > It turns out that, if Dimdows Update is in any setting other than the last
    > one, it will act as though it is in the first setting with regard to
    > itself, and update itself silently and automatically. This is the
    > fundamental problem: it is disregarding your setting, and treating itself
    > as a special case. The question is: why?
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Psychometrically Validated
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,016
    Psychometrically Validated
    Feb 22, 2006
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Re: Microsoft doing secret Dimdows updates

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    295
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 29, 2007
  3. Brian Adams
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    316
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 30, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    No easy way to centralize Dimdows updates?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 26, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    519
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 26, 2007
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Microsoft Abandoning Dimdows?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 26, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    297
Loading...

Share This Page