Microsoft Kills Autopatcher.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Greg House, Aug 29, 2007.

  1. Greg House

    Greg House Guest

    I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed
    to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.



    Autopatcher is the best way to update XP when you have to reinstall XP and you only have a Dial
    up connection or a backup a batch of PC to upgrade..



    http://www.autopatcher.com/134
    Greg House, Aug 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Greg House

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:43 +1200, Greg House
    < wrote:

    >
    >
    >I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed
    >to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.
    >
    >
    >
    >Autopatcher is the best way to update XP when you have to reinstall XP and you only have a Dial
    >up connection or a backup a batch of PC to upgrade..
    >
    >
    >
    >http://www.autopatcher.com/134


    MS is totally barking mad.
    Nighthawk, Aug 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Greg House

    Squiggle Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:43 +1200, Greg House
    > < wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed
    >> to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Autopatcher is the best way to update XP when you have to reinstall XP and you only have a Dial
    >> up connection or a backup a batch of PC to upgrade..
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.autopatcher.com/134

    >
    > MS is totally barking mad.
    >
    >


    Yep, if this is there attitude to a useful little program that helps
    keep all the updates in one place they need their heads read.

    Microsoft -1
    Alternatives 1
    Squiggle, Aug 30, 2007
    #3
  4. On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:50:54 +1200, Nighthawk <> wrote
    in <news:>:

    > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:43 +1200, Greg House
    > < wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed
    >>to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Autopatcher is the best way to update XP when you have to reinstall XP and you only have a Dial
    >>up connection or a backup a batch of PC to upgrade..
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>http://www.autopatcher.com/134

    >
    > MS is totally barking mad.


    Now, THAT is NOT news.

    --
    Nicolaas.


    .... Oh ... and a bottle of bandersnatch repellent, please.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Aug 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Greg House

    XPD Guest

    "Squiggle" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >>> http://www.autopatcher.com/134

    >>
    >> MS is totally barking mad.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yep, if this is there attitude to a useful little program that helps keep
    > all the updates in one place they need their heads read.
    >
    > Microsoft -1
    > Alternatives 1
    >


    Autopatcher has been a huge hekp to me in the past couple of years.
    Customer give me PC to reinstall
    Reinstall, then run auto patcher - done pretty quick and no bandwidth charge
    to the customer

    MS's way, will cost me and the customer more in bandwidth charges - also
    push me over my data usage.

    Cant win.
    XPD, Aug 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Greg House

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:43 +1200, Greg House
    < wrote:

    >
    >
    >I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed
    >to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.
    >
    >
    >
    >Autopatcher is the best way to update XP when you have to reinstall XP and you only have a Dial
    >up connection or a backup a batch of PC to upgrade..
    >
    >
    >
    >http://www.autopatcher.com/134



    So now, unless you have kept an autopatcher core file, you will have
    to go online after a fresh install with basically an unpatched PC?

    Given the quantity of patches since SP2, that is a lot of downloads, a
    big problem for those not on broadband. Autopatcher had additional
    peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    Nighthawk, Aug 30, 2007
    #6
  7. In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:

    > Autopatcher had additional
    > peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.


    In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    software.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:

    > MS is totally barking mad.


    Oh, you ungrateful Dimdows users. Microsoft deigns to share a few crumbs of
    its wonderful technology with you, and yet you're still not satisfied.
    Imagine if it were to take all its toys and go home, and you weren't able
    to use Dimdows any more. How would you feel then?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #8
  9. Greg House

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> Autopatcher had additional
    >> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.

    >
    >In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >software.


    If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.
    Nighthawk, Aug 31, 2007
    #9
  10. In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.

    >>
    >>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>software.

    >
    > If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    > Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    > Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.


    Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    copyright.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #10
  11. Greg House

    Greg House Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>
    >>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>software.

    >>
    >> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.

    >
    >Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >copyright.




    Utter Crap as they are not MS Products..
    Greg House, Aug 31, 2007
    #11
  12. In message <>, Greg House
    < wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>, Nighthawk
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>>
    >>>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>>software.
    >>>
    >>> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >>> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >>> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.

    >>
    >>Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >>copyright.

    >
    > Utter Crap as they are not MS Products..


    So what claim did Microsoft have on them, then?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #12
  13. Greg House

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>
    >>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>software.

    >>
    >> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.

    >
    >Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >copyright.


    Really? Does MS say this anywhere?
    Nighthawk, Aug 31, 2007
    #13
  14. In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>, Nighthawk
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>>
    >>>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>>software.
    >>>
    >>> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >>> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >>> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.

    >>
    >>Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >>copyright.

    >
    > Really? Does MS say this anywhere?


    I think it has now.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #14
  15. Greg House

    Greg House Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:39:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Greg House
    >< wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In message <>, Nighthawk
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>>>software.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >>>> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >>>> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >>>copyright.

    >>
    >> Utter Crap as they are not MS Products..

    >
    >So what claim did Microsoft have on them, then?




    I am referring to what you called tweaks, web sites are full of them and totally legal..
    Greg House, Aug 31, 2007
    #15
  16. Greg House

    Greg House Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:12:40 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:53 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In message <>, Nighthawk
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>>>>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>>>>software.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >>>> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >>>> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, but redistributing those tweaks becomes a violation of Microsoft's
    >>>copyright.

    >>
    >> Really? Does MS say this anywhere?

    >
    >I think it has now.




    From a Lunix chap that does know a thing about XP, why not stick to your Loony Lunix stuff and leave
    the real Brains to play with XP Alown..
    Greg House, Aug 31, 2007
    #16
  17. Greg House

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:51:25 +1200, Nighthawk <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    ><_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> Autopatcher had additional
    >>> peformance and security tweaks on top of Microsoft's patches.

    >>
    >>In other words, it was full of unauthorized modifications to Microsoft's
    >>software.

    >
    >If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.


    Ignore Lawrence. He lives in la la land, and likes to lie about
    Windows here.

    He's a moron.
    Fred Dagg, Aug 31, 2007
    #17
  18. Greg House

    peterwn Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    >> If you call applying tweaks 'unauthorised'. People have been tweaking
    >> Windows for many years, eg, making it use more of the RAM and less
    >> Swap file, closing unused network ports, changing themes.

    >
    > Ignore Lawrence. He lives in la la land, and likes to lie about
    > Windows here.


    I do not see any lies in his above statement.

    >
    > He's a moron.


    I think he is made of sterner stuff than to let such a childish comment
    get at him. Such a comment is more indicative of your general attitude
    to things.
    peterwn, Aug 31, 2007
    #18
  19. In message <>, Greg House
    < wrote:

    > From a Lunix chap that does know a thing about XP, why not stick to your
    > Loony Lunix stuff and leave the real Brains to play with XP Alown..


    Spoken by a true intellectual giant...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 1, 2007
    #19
  20. On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:07:04 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote in
    <news:fba6q3$vkr$>:

    > In message <>, Greg House
    > < wrote:
    >
    >> From a Lunix chap that does know a thing about XP, why not stick to your
    >> Loony Lunix stuff and leave the real Brains to play with XP Alown..

    >
    > Spoken by a true intellectual giant...


    Thou hast mis-spelled "gnat".

    --
    Nicolaas.


    .... Let no man scrute the inscrutable nor eff the ineffable.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Sep 1, 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. Ben

    Autopatcher and run time error

    Ben, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,087
  2. Dustbin Crook

    Re: AutoPatcher is no more...

    Dustbin Crook, Sep 4, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    411
    Dustbin Crook
    Sep 4, 2007
  3. Brian Tozer

    AutoPatcher XP help.

    Brian Tozer, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    442
    Brian Tozer
    Feb 18, 2004
  4. The GHOST of WOGER.

    Free Autopatcher XP

    The GHOST of WOGER., Apr 30, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    397
    splat
    May 5, 2004
  5. Greg House

    Microsoft Kills Autopatcher.

    Greg House, Aug 29, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    327
    Dave Taylor
    Sep 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page