Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[Bob I]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for
EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.
Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except
for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it
differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

John John wrote:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain
> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no
> law.
>
> John
>
> Bob I wrote:
>
>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>
>> John John wrote:
>>
>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>
>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you
>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and
>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were
>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted
>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>>>> have been what customers want.
>>>>
>>

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:39:49 -0500, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for
>EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.
>Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except
>for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it
>differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

Actually it depends only on how the law in interrupted BY the court
system, IF it ever gets that far. Of course parties having legal
disputes may and often do settle contractual disputes out of court.

Limiting the discussion just to United States interpretation there are
three broad standards. Criminal law, Civil law and Common law.
Criminal law sets up a bunch of "laws", look at them as "rules" that
state what a "crime" is and the punishment for it IF the accused is
found guilty. Those found guilty of some criminal offense may be
subject to incarceration, meaning some length of time is generally
served for their offense within either the federal system if a federal
law is broken or in the state system if some state law is broken.

Read slowly: Common law tends to draw abstract rules from specific
cases, which becomes case law, whereas civil law starts with abstract
rules which judges must then apply to the various cases before them.
Punishment, if found guilty rarely results in prison time and usually
results in some monetary punishment in the form of fines.

Some may be shocked to learn much of present day's civil law is based
on ancient Egyptian law from many thousands of years ago which the
ancient Romans adopted and modified that were further adopted
throughout Europe and pretty much remained unchanged through the 18th
century.

Then a process call Codification began to change the legal landscape.
This new process is where some enity, ie a Government in a democracy
restates and refines the "law" resulting as in the United States as
some act of Congress, creating some federal statutes. The official
codification of Federal statutes is called the United States Code.
This "code" is divided into "titles" numbered 1 through 50. Title 18
for example contains many of the Federal criminal statutes. This
process is based on The Corpus Juris Civilis a collection of
fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued during the years 529 to 534
by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor.

The US Code is very complex and lengthy:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html

Another difference between common and civil law is civil law is
historically common law developed by custom, beginning before there
were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after
there were written laws, whereas civil law developed out of Roman law.

The difference between civil law and common law isn't limited to
codification, but in the approach taken to codes and statutes. In
civil law countries like the United States, legislation is always
written by some governmental body, (at the federal level, Congress)
which is seen as the primary source of federal law while each state
legislature has the same task for writing state laws. Ditto for local
governments where some governmental body proposes and creates "law"
more commonly called an ordinance; some authoritative decree or
direction, again having roots in Roman times.

By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of
codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be
derived. Courts therefore have to reason extensively on the basis of
general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from
statutory provisions to fill in the blanks and to achieve coherence.
By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of
law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law
and thus interpreted narrowly.

My point of all this long winded flowerily language is to remind those
that think anything in any "legal" written document such as a contract
or Microsoft's EULA is absolute and binding are sadly mistaken and in
for a rude shock IF any provision is tested within the court system.
Often many contractual clauses fail to pass the smell test and will
accordingly be thrown out by the courts. I've seen it happen many
times, so sorry, I must snicker when I see the fanboy crowd making
reference to the EULA and pretending it trumps everything else. Not
even close.












>
>John John wrote:
>
>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
>> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain
>> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
>> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no
>> law.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Bob I wrote:
>>
>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
>>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
>>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
>>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>
>>> John John wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>
>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you
>>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and
>>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were
>>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted
>>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>>>>> have been what customers want.
>>>>>
>>>

 

[PA Bear]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

~greg wrote:
> "PA Bear" >
>> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our
>> time less valuable than yours?
> definitely.

Take a hike. <plonk>

 

[quiettechblue@yahoo.com]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
> were
> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
> would in fact be no law.
>
> John
>
> Bob I wrote:
>
>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>
>> John John wrote:
>>
>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>> on
>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>
>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>> illegal
>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>> I were to take you
>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>
>>

Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?

 

[Asher_N]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in
news:xn0fbbb1ka0s0s001ceedsaid@news.individual.net:

> Frank wrote:
>
>|ceed wrote:
>|
>|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>||
>|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more
>|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.
>||
>|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
>|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But
>||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I
>||would have wanted to deny that also..
>||
>|| Take a look here:
>||
>||
>||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-
>||line/
>||
>|
>|
>|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:
>|
>|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.
>|
>|Which is vastly different from saying:
>|
>|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
>|640kb memory".
>|
>|Frank
>
> If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right?
>
>

The first is in context with the design and expectations at the time.
Given the 8086 proc, and IBM's prediction that they would sell about
250,000 of those new compuyers, the first quote is accurate.

 

[Kerry]

RE: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

I am unable to open .msi & .msu files. I do not have a secretly update
version of windows\system32
i would like to know what to install so as to open these files. (I have
registry booster 2. no help)

"Silicon neuron" wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users
>
> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems
> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that
> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and
> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files
> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.
>
> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's
> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be set
> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with
> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be
> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.
>
> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the
> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's
> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU
> wasn't authorized to install anything.
>
> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who
> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another
> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update, as
> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,
> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had to
> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a
> notice never appears.
>
> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue
> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it
> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set
> your preferences to require it.
>
> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet
>
> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no
> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you were,
> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a
> stealth install or nothing.
>
> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which
> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft
> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
>
> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself.
> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is
> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked
> until this update is installed."
>
> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
>
>
> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues
> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows
> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
> available."
>
> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began
> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any
> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.
>
> System logs confirm stealth installs
>
> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP and
> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
> according to the post.
>
> In Vista, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. wuapi.dll
> 2. wuapp.exe
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaueng.dll
> 5. wucltux.dll
> 6. wudriver.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuwebv.dll
>
> In XP, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. cdm.dll
> 2. wuapi.dll
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaucpl.cpl
> 5. wuaueng.dll
> 6. wucltui.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuweb.dll
>
> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's
> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"
>
> How to check which version your PC has
>
> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables in
> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374,
> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version tab
> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)
>
> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:
>
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll
>
> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event
> Log:
>
> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.
>
> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.
>
> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.
>
> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them. Event
> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows
> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for system
> patches.
>
> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the Event
> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were stealth-updated
> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
> machines that received the patch on other dates.)
>
> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog
> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information at
> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU updates
> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic
> Updates."
>
> No need to roll back the updated files
>
> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the updated
> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason
> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the latest
> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform
> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant in
> the future.
>
> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.
>
> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information on
> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send me
> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.
>
> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also
> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly
> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.
>
>
>

 

[Marsha]

RE: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Hello,
I have read this post and I am concerned that this Microsoft Stealth
update is the reason I can not get my two software video editing programs to
burn onto disks.
I use Photo Show and Pinnacle video editing software. Neither one will
burn onto disks since this Stealth update occured.
I spoke with a gentleman that has used Pinnacle since it's infancy and
the software has always worked. He can not burn either. The program will
create projects but will not burn. Is this Microsofts way of controlling
what we do in our homes? I do not resell these projects. I want to be able
to use this software. There are others using Pinnacle that have the same
problem. How can Pinnacle stay in business with this happening?
Is there some way to resolve this issue?
Thank you.

"Silicon neuron" wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users
>
> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems
> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that
> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and
> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files
> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.
>
> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's
> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be set
> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with
> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be
> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.
>
> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the
> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's
> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU
> wasn't authorized to install anything.
>
> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who
> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another
> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update, as
> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,
> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had to
> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a
> notice never appears.
>
> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue
> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it
> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set
> your preferences to require it.
>
> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet
>
> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no
> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you were,
> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a
> stealth install or nothing.
>
> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which
> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft
> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
>
> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself.
> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is
> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked
> until this update is installed."
>
> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
>
>
> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues
> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows
> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
> available."
>
> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began
> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any
> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.
>
> System logs confirm stealth installs
>
> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP and
> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
> according to the post.
>
> In Vista, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. wuapi.dll
> 2. wuapp.exe
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaueng.dll
> 5. wucltux.dll
> 6. wudriver.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuwebv.dll
>
> In XP, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. cdm.dll
> 2. wuapi.dll
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaucpl.cpl
> 5. wuaueng.dll
> 6. wucltui.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuweb.dll
>
> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's
> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"
>
> How to check which version your PC has
>
> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables in
> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374,
> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version tab
> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)
>
> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:
>
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll
>
> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event
> Log:
>
> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.
>
> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.
>
> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.
>
> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them. Event
> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows
> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for system
> patches.
>
> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the Event
> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were stealth-updated
> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
> machines that received the patch on other dates.)
>
> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog
> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information at
> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU updates
> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic
> Updates."
>
> No need to roll back the updated files
>
> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the updated
> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason
> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the latest
> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform
> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant in
> the future.
>
> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.
>
> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information on
> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send me
> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.
>
> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also
> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly
> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.
>
>
>

 

[Holz]

RE: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Marsha wrote:

> Is there some way to resolve this issue?
No.
Microsoft is going towards a subscription model, they will control
everything in your PC.
--