A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old September 17th 07, 02:15 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
NT Canuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 02:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
caver1[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 02:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 851
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 02:54 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 851
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:18 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Charlie Tame
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Adam Albright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Charlie Tame
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:31 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
norm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 03:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 04:15 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
NT Canuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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  
Old September 17th 07, 04:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Adam Albright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.