Turning XP users off so they'll buy Vista

Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

I don't think that has ever been any different, once you activate Automatic
Update (without any manual check of downloads, which is an option) you
surrender control over what is installed on your computer to Redmond.

I do think that a better policy whould be to not install updated versions
unless the package was in-use before the update. The update itself may
contain a security flaw (in the nature of things you can guarantee that they
almost always do!) so adding software which isn't needed only reduces
security.

"Alain Dekker" wrote:

Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

"Alain Dekker" wrote in message
...
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain




XP is still a great OS.

But your example about the new Windows search is a good example of some
*bad* "upgrades".

I removed it at once...it's terrible,
but otherwise all Windows updates for XP have been good ones

Yes, Windows Search 4.0 is a DOG!!! I only do manual custom update so that I
know what's being installed (to a point...)

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
http://www.rndem.com/installerproblems.html
http://www.randem.com/vistainstalls.html
http://www.financialtrainingservices.org


"Alain Dekker" wrote in message
...
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

Now pull the other one! WS 4.0 wouldn't be offered if you didn't have WDS
3.x install already, Alain.

Alain Dekker wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

How do you see whether WS 4.0 or 3.x is installed? Neither appear in the
Add/Remove program list.

What bugs me is that these MS updates, which I generally think are a great
idea and religiously seek out, are not telling me what they're doing except
in long technical articles which seldom tell me what going to change for me
in day-to-day use. There have been several occasions in the recent past
where MS has had to re-issue updates because of bugs with the updates
themselves. I still have an issue with my one computer (XP, SP3, Acer
laptop) where the first time I try to Copy/Paste a file, Explorer hangs. I
have to load the command prompt, manually run "dir *.*", close the command
prompt before it works.

I'd like to see some additional control granted to MS customers (I am after
all, a MS customer - I paid good money for my OS and have bought many MS
OSes for years now). I even write software for Windows which generates even
more revenue for MS.

The feature I want is something like this:

* A new tab on the update which tells me why this update is being done in
easy-to-understand bullet points
* What this means for me in terms of changes in UI and other ways I may be
used to working
* What this means for me in terms of the way existing services work (Search,
the actual Services list, etc for example)
* What this means for me in terms of new Services (which will usually mean
my PC slows down)
* Any other changes in the way the computer will work
[THIS SHOULD APPLY TO NON-MS SOFTWARE AS WELL! though naturally that is not
MS's issue]

I'm then (partly) back in the driving seat making my own decisions over the
OS.

What is highly annoying is the way MS packages these updates into its'
Automatic Update facility and then basically implies you're just about a
virus-writer if you DON'T update for security reasons. And then, having
drummed that ridiculous idea into our heads, they proceed to dump all sorts
of useless (malicious?) crap on us (like Search 4.0) that I don't want and
is definitely NOT related to security.

This is a BAD way to treat their customers. I feel cheated. Sure, MS looks
after developers like myself with great documentation (MSDN) and a rich API,
but being steered towards Vista and having to constantly preen my Start
folder, the startup of Services and checking the "Run" folder in the
registry is tiresome.

MS must surely realise that they've built up a massive market share and
strong customer loyalty on the back of great OSes like Windows 98SE and XP
(Vista is sub-standard, sorry). When a customer has handed over their
hard-earned dollars to buy their product, they shouldn't screw that product
up in the name of "improvement". They risk eroding their own hard-earned
dominance in the OS market.

Thanks,
Alain

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Now pull the other one! WS 4.0 wouldn't be offered if you didn't have WDS
3.x install already, Alain.

Alain Dekker wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement
before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

"Alain Dekker" wrote in message
...
How do you see whether WS 4.0 or 3.x is installed? Neither appear in the
Add/Remove program list.

What bugs me is that these MS updates, which I generally think are a great
idea and religiously seek out, are not telling me what they're doing
except in long technical articles which seldom tell me what going to
change for me in day-to-day use. There have been several occasions in the
recent past where MS has had to re-issue updates because of bugs with the
updates themselves. I still have an issue with my one computer (XP, SP3,
Acer laptop) where the first time I try to Copy/Paste a file, Explorer
hangs. I have to load the command prompt, manually run "dir *.*", close
the command prompt before it works.

I'd like to see some additional control granted to MS customers (I am
after all, a MS customer - I paid good money for my OS and have bought
many MS OSes for years now). I even write software for Windows which
generates even more revenue for MS.

The feature I want is something like this:

* A new tab on the update which tells me why this update is being done in
easy-to-understand bullet points
* What this means for me in terms of changes in UI and other ways I may be
used to working
* What this means for me in terms of the way existing services work
(Search, the actual Services list, etc for example)
* What this means for me in terms of new Services (which will usually mean
my PC slows down)
* Any other changes in the way the computer will work
[THIS SHOULD APPLY TO NON-MS SOFTWARE AS WELL! though naturally that is
not MS's issue]

I'm then (partly) back in the driving seat making my own decisions over
the OS.

What is highly annoying is the way MS packages these updates into its'
Automatic Update facility and then basically implies you're just about a
virus-writer if you DON'T update for security reasons. And then, having
drummed that ridiculous idea into our heads, they proceed to dump all
sorts of useless (malicious?) crap on us (like Search 4.0) that I don't
want and is definitely NOT related to security.

This is a BAD way to treat their customers. I feel cheated. Sure, MS looks
after developers like myself with great documentation (MSDN) and a rich
API, but being steered towards Vista and having to constantly preen my
Start folder, the startup of Services and checking the "Run" folder in the
registry is tiresome.

MS must surely realise that they've built up a massive market share and
strong customer loyalty on the back of great OSes like Windows 98SE and XP
(Vista is sub-standard, sorry). When a customer has handed over their
hard-earned dollars to buy their product, they shouldn't screw that
product up in the name of "improvement". They risk eroding their own
hard-earned dominance in the OS market.

Thanks,
Alain

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Now pull the other one! WS 4.0 wouldn't be offered if you didn't have
WDS 3.x install already, Alain.

Alain Dekker wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement
before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain



Sorry, I don't think it is a good idea to publish details of a security
update to the whole world.
And, security updates are about the only thing happening these days.
Jim

On Dec 5, 7:24*pm, "Alain Dekker" wrote:
How do you see whether WS 4.0 or 3.x is installed? Neither appear in the
Add/Remove program list.

What bugs me is that these MS updates, which I generally think are a great
idea and religiously seek out, are not telling me what they're doing except
in long technical articles which seldom tell me what going to change for me
in day-to-day use. There have been several occasions in the recent past
where MS has had to re-issue updates because of bugs with the updates
themselves. I still have an issue with my one computer (XP, SP3, Acer
laptop) where the first time I try to Copy/Paste a file, Explorer hangs. I
have to load the command prompt, manually run "dir *.*", close the command
prompt before it works.

I'd like to see some additional control granted to MS customers (I am after
all, a MS customer - I paid good money for my OS and have bought many MS
OSes for years now). I even write software for Windows which generates even
more revenue for MS.

The feature I want is something like this:

* A new tab on the update which tells me why this update is being done in
easy-to-understand bullet points
* What this means for me in terms of changes in UI and other ways I may be
used to working
* What this means for me in terms of the way existing services work (Search,
the actual Services list, etc for example)
* What this means for me in terms of new Services (which will usually mean
my PC slows down)
* Any other changes in the way the computer will work
[THIS SHOULD APPLY TO NON-MS SOFTWARE AS WELL! though naturally that is not
MS's issue]

I'm then (partly) back in the driving seat making my own decisions over the
OS.

What is highly annoying is the way MS packages these updates into its'
Automatic Update facility and then basically implies you're just about a
virus-writer if you DON'T update for security reasons. And then, having
drummed that ridiculous idea into our heads, they proceed to dump all sorts
of useless (malicious?) crap on us (like Search 4.0) that I don't want and
is definitely NOT related to security.

This is a BAD way to treat their customers. I feel cheated. Sure, MS looks
after developers like myself with great documentation (MSDN) and a rich API,
but being steered towards Vista and having to constantly preen my Start
folder, the startup of Services and checking the "Run" folder in the
registry is tiresome.

MS must surely realise that they've built up a massive market share and
strong customer loyalty on the back of great OSes like Windows 98SE and XP
(Vista is sub-standard, sorry). When a customer has handed over their
hard-earned dollars to buy their product, they shouldn't screw that product
up in the name of "improvement". They risk eroding their own hard-earned
dominance in the OS market.

Thanks,
Alain

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in l...

Now pull the other one! *WS 4.0 wouldn't be offered if you didn't have WDS
3.x install already, Alain.

Alain Dekker wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with
Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement
before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will
be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be
highlighted
to the customer.

Thanks,
Alain

Windows Search 4 does show up in Add/Remove Program. It is really
known as Windows Desktop Search 4.0 I will never install it again.
Worthless and slows down PCs too much.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:36:21 -0000, Alain Dekker wrote:

Is there any truth to the rumour that Microsoft are putting bad code,
breaking features, etc into Windows XP updates so XP users will get
frustrated and either upgrade or turf their old computers and go with Vista?

I've noticed a lot of things being put into the updates that have no
business being there (Windows Search 4.0 is an example). This sort of
features should be optional and require specific customer agreement before
being installed. In addition, any service or Startup menu item that will be
installed (and this doesn't go for MS only, of course) should be highlighted
to the customer.

I removed Windows Desktop Search 3.0 in favor of the Copernic desktop search
application long before Microsoft updated WDS to 4.0. Even with Automatic
Updates I am not offered the update to WDS 4.0 automatically. I believe it
showed up as an optional update when I visited the site manually; but I hid
all the optional updates I did not want to take; I don't get offered, now.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum