Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

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.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

NT Canuck wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>
>> We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the
>> internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away
>> they go. It was a nurse who found this
>
> and if some don't know...
> you can use IE (or any browser) as a file manager.
> Thankfully with wuac enabled IE asked before going to c:/
>
> Please tell me that the system mentioned has wuac enabled
> and that she had to ok a warning popup...
>
>> I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a
>> modern OS is not a good idea...
>
> There are a few problems with the Vista system inheriting
> IE7 problems that need tending, hopefully folks will give
> useful info/links so that they can be replicated.
>
> NT Canuck
> 'Seek and ye shall find'
>


The server is W2003 and managed from elsewhere, I only cover dire
emergencies so I don't know or influence security policy. Access is from
Winterm thin clients mostly via RDP although there are a couple of XP
PCs using it.

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

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.
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.
And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.
Too bad!
Try harder.
Frank

Oh, and one other thing.
You have no idea who I am either!

 

[kevpan815@hotmail.com]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

You Just Violated The Microsoft Connect TOS (Terms Of Service), Just FYI.

P.S. You Are Not Supposed To Post Your Beta ID In The Public Newsgroups,
Just FYI.

"Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" <Kevin.Brunt@MSproducts.com> wrote in message
news:46E9A183.14926934@NEWSGROUPS.COM...
>
> This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any
> systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!!
>
>
> 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.
>

 

[norm]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

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?
> 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.
> And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.
> Too bad!
> Try harder.
Don't need to.
> 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.


--
norm

 

[NT Canuck]

Re: 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/2007-09/13/content_6105229.htm

Hopefully we don't need to start installing packet monitors
w/ block words/info.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[caver1]

Re: 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

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:eGpmsZK%23HHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "...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

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

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.
>
> "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".
>
> You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time.
> Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP.

JJ don't confuse honesty on Charlie's part with insults.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh3VogM%23HHA.6008@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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

 

[Frank]

Re: 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.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eh3VogM%23HHA.6008@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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.

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:40:40 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> 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.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eh3VogM%23HHA.6008@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: 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" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:uMebWFM%23HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> 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.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

No confusion.
The need to attack others instead of dealing with the issue is a
characteristic of those insecure with a need to prop their views...and it
fails.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fckmqr$q6n$4@aioe.org...
> JJ don't confuse honesty on Charlie's part with insults.
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: 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" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:e7elUFM%23HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> 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.

 

[norm]

Re: 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

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: 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" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:0F4FCE46-B63C-471B-B474-E701FAD0BE56@microsoft.com...
> 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

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:40:40 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> 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