If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Charlie Tame wrote:
You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we should know about?" umm, Jupiter is an MVP not an MS spokesperson or employee afaik. Most likely MVP's are just as interested in this as you are. As for what else is happening...this was unusual. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...nt_6105229.htm Hopefully we don't need to start installing packet monitors w/ block words/info. NT Canuck 'Seek and ye shall find' |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Charlie Tame wrote:
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: "despite old Jonesy using it in an attempt" These little snips by you are becoming more common. Your need to do so while selectively reading are more of a reflection on you. You're getting more pompous, so what? The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the world's leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns by choice in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair enough, nothing serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their sneaky software declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal, causing REAL loss of functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking? Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are "Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being the leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view. You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we should know about?" Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet. Combine the stealth updates with OS by subscription, which MS is moving towards with MS's patent- " for Privacy policy change notification, which describes how to threaten users will the loss of their account, access to web sites and services, and all of the content they provided should they refuse to consent to changes in privacy policy to allow personal information collected earlier with a promise of confidentiality to be shared in the future with third parties." http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/19324 Add all of these together and it doesn't smell good for the consumer. caver1 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message
... "...updates can be turned off which they cannot." But they can and you know it. Your conveniently ignoring that fact does nothing for your point. Turn off the service and it is done with the usual note it will need to be enabled before Windows Update can function. I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any. If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion. Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box that says to turn something off it is off. -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Shell/User http://www.vistahelp.ca |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
"NT Canuck" wrote in message
... Charlie Tame wrote: You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we should know about?" umm, Jupiter is an MVP not an MS spokesperson or employee afaik. Most likely MVP's are just as interested in this as you are. Yes we are. FWIW Charlie doesn't have it in his sig but he doesn't hide the fact that he is an MVP. This issue is causing a lot of controversy amongst everyone including MVPs. -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Shell/User http://www.vistahelp.ca |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
norm wrote:
Frank wrote: norm wrote: You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite. --------------------------------------------------------- Well norm, I don't think so. If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough. Good enough for what? You? Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for yourself, right? And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite by your's or anyone else's definition. Sure you are. hahaha...sorry norm, but that's just not true. Your opinion is owned only by you and it's totally meaningless especially to me, the person you're trying to hang it on. Try again And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does. Too bad! Try harder. Don't need to. Then you give up and concede that you're wrong, right? Otherwise your argument just fell completely apart. Frank Oh, and one other thing. You have no idea who I am either! Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition. Wrong again. You're the only one pushing the definition...and without any proof..other than you say so...so by "anyone's definition'...is simply not true is it? Try harder. Frank And you still have no idea who I am. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Kerry Brown wrote:
"NT Canuck" wrote in message ... Charlie Tame wrote: You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we should know about?" umm, Jupiter is an MVP not an MS spokesperson or employee afaik. Most likely MVP's are just as interested in this as you are. Yes we are. FWIW Charlie doesn't have it in his sig but he doesn't hide the fact that he is an MVP. This issue is causing a lot of controversy amongst everyone including MVPs. You are 100% correct Kerry, I am concerned about the way the whole industry is heading because on the whole I think Bill Gates and his early team at MS brought advances to the world in general and deserve respect for that. I am not accusing them of 100% honesty by the way, just that they were in the right place at the right time and largely made the right choices. I think most of us would confess to having some "Loyalty" to Microsoft despite some dubious decisions on their part in the past, but you hit the nail on the head with the issue of Trust. If people lose faith in MS being up front with details then it is a bad sign for the company, bad news for the industry and definitely won't help the users. MS have cornered the market and largely got what they wanted, it has to be treated with the respect it deserves or they will lose. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:40:40 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
wrote: "Certainly sounds like you don't consider it important." Your selective reading has led you to false assumptions before. You known the Emmy Awards are on tonight. Too bad you don't qualify or that they don't hand one out for pompous jerks. You would have run away with it hands down. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Kerry Brown wrote:
"NT Canuck" wrote in message ... Charlie Tame wrote: You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we should know about?" umm, Jupiter is an MVP not an MS spokesperson or employee afaik. Most likely MVP's are just as interested in this as you are. Yes we are. FWIW Charlie doesn't have it in his sig but he doesn't hide the fact that he is an MVP. This issue is causing a lot of controversy amongst everyone including MVPs. Oh BTW there is a simple reason it's not MVP in the sig. I am certainly NOT an "Expert" with every aspect of computing and did not want to appear to be an authority on something I'm not. I did help out with OE and IE but have lacked the time to contribute properly for quite a while... I think it is common to forget that a user who comes here may have just clicked a link and never used a newsreader before, or the awful CDO thing, and a lot probably feel a bit shy of asking questions. I don't think "Didn't you read the manual before you installed it?" is a terribly helpful reply This group and MS Access (Because the group name implies "Public Access to Microsoft") seem to be in a league of their own when it comes to talking down to folks If I'm wrong sometimes then I'm wrong, but I treat everyone the same be it George W Bush or Bill Gates, nobody I ever met had a halo or IMHO deserved one, including me |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
"you are again suggesting that an IT"
Again I will suggest you read my post...possibly for the first time. "you claim that it only comes from a mere handful" You have now passed selective reading to inventing. I never said any such thing. "but you make it sound like you half dozen posts have reached" I don't know how many times in the various threads and newsgroups. I also do not know any more than you how many people have seen and will seen the post. But you are free to assume again. "any of your pontificating" Red your own posts as well. "constantly edit others' statements to remove the context." You have FALSELY made that claim before and I will tell you the same as I have in the past. Your ENTIRE post is quoted by me for clarity. Your apparent inability to see is your own limitation. Now, for a change, help people with problems instead of simply bashing others with whom you disagree. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Charlie Tame" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: "more pompous" Your need to insult instead of dealing with the issues reflects on your own character and not on those you need to insult. "even a good IT Pro might miss it" Then the IT Pro clearly is not. Nonsense, you are again suggesting that an IT pro has to treat MS with distrust in order to do his job properly... "Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody" Your selective reading is getting old. Your inability or unwillingness to see that I have given the solution for users is solely your problem. You deal with it by insulting others and you call me "pompous". 1 I was referring to MS denying that there's a serious issue here and so what if you have given a (Workaround not a solution) to a handful of people who post here? When it comes to criticism you claim that it only comes from a mere handful who visit these forums but you make it sound like you half dozen posts have reached more of the Windows User base. You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time. Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP. Neither does any of your pontificating, and I don't know how you face yourself complaining about selective reading when you constantly edit others' statements to remove the context. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
NOTHING was removed.
Your ENTIRE post was quoted below. Read the post for a change. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Charlie Tame" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: If YOU had read what I wrote you would have seen that I clearly mentioned that their action may be legal, it probably is worded in that manner, however it remains deceptive to anyone reading the EULA without presupposing malicious intent. Once again you remove the context to make it look as if something different was said. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Frank wrote:
norm wrote: Frank wrote: norm wrote: You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite. --------------------------------------------------------- Well norm, I don't think so. If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough. Good enough for what? You? Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for yourself, right? "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As opposed to what from your quarter? You can attempt to walk this around in circles all you want. What is unsubstantiated? You stated (quite strongly) that you believe in God. With that belief comes responsibility for one's words and actions. Your words and actions belie such a belief. You are a hypocrite by definition. The other possibility is that you do not believe in God, even though you state that you do. In that case, you are simply a liar. And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite by your's or anyone else's definition. Sure you are. hahaha...sorry norm, but that's just not true. Your opinion is owned only by you and it's totally meaningless especially to me, the person you're trying to hang it on. Try again And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does. Too bad! Try harder. Don't need to. Then you give up and concede that you're wrong, right? Otherwise your argument just fell completely apart. Frank Oh, and one other thing. You have no idea who I am either! Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition. Wrong again. You're the only one pushing the definition...and without any proof..other than you say so...so by "anyone's definition'...is simply not true is it? Try harder. Frank And you still have no idea who I am. You are correct. I have no idea who you are. I know what you are. A hypocrite, and if not that, a liar. -- norm |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Kerry;
I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website. In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by myself and others, and it will be again. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message ... I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any. If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion. Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box that says to turn something off it is off. -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Shell/User http://www.vistahelp.ca |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Adam Albright wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:40:40 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote: "Certainly sounds like you don't consider it important." Your selective reading has led you to false assumptions before. You known the Emmy Awards are on tonight. Too bad you don't qualify or that they don't hand one out for pompous jerks. You would have run away with it hands down. What a complete unmitigated as*hole you are! Frank |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
Kerry; I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website. In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by myself and others, and it will be again. In most cases it's not so much a distrust of Microsoft as it is a shift in predictability..and if MS can do hidden file transfers (especially for such a long while) then it is most likely a tool with way too much power. What we have at the moment is a 'blind trust' between client units and microsoft servers...remote controlled. Not just a remote control but one with higher privileges than the client unit, that is the issue...imv As far as logs are concerned...if files can be transfered and run/replaced then logs and anything else is a trifle. Just making notes, since trust implies both parties have open hands, anything else could be considered *subservient. *characterized by extreme compliance or abject obedience NT Canuck 'Seek and ye shall find' |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:14:11 -0700, Frank wrote:
norm wrote: Frank wrote: norm wrote: You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite. --------------------------------------------------------- Well norm, I don't think so. If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough. Good enough for what? You? Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for yourself, right? The point is I haven't seen Norm or for that matter most posters attempt to speak for anyone but themselves. You and assorted other nut cases on the other hand frequently use 'we' as to imply the half-ass crap that so freely flows from your mouth and elsewhere represents anything but the wild rantings, endless raving and constant lying of the lunatic you've proved yourself to be. The conclusion is you're just a garden variety idiot Frank. Everybody gets it, but you. Imagine that. LOL! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|