Microsoft Upgrades! Vista And Xp Involved!

October 18, 2007

It looks like that Ms isn't aware about it's customers wishes.

The last few weeks there was several reports that MS bypasses the settings for the udates of Windows Vista and not only that but although changes the settings back to Automatic without to ask for User Permission. Although many reports about the automatic re-booting of vista after (unwishes) upgrade occours!

As you and me knows, if an Upgrade fro Vista needs an Reboot, you've the choice to decline for a short time and after a few times delaying the reboot the system just re-boots without to ask you more! This can result in loss of work which you need to be finish before the reboot should be done because Vista was upgrade against your wish and NOT forced from yourself! There wasn't any possibility for you to avoid that upgrades because MS started it without your knowledge!

Reports from MS Official's that this "bug" was solved are NOT true!

Ms was going on just to bypass user settings and change them the the MS "Requierement"!

According to speeches of MS Officials there are not any "faultys" in the upgarde procedure of Vista.

Read an article at Softpedia which you'll find HERE.

If that is true why MS carry on to deliver upgrades which intend to bypass all user settings and change the setting for automatic updated from the User Settings back to full automatic?

But that isn't all! Today I was reading an Blog named: The mystery continues: Why are Windows machines automatically updating themselves? (You should although read this Blog)

This all Users of Vista and even XP should read because it's maybe not only Vista affected but XP as well! Interest the speech from an MS Official about why that's happens!

It would be interested to get to know if there Members of Thaivisa affected as well.

I was getting those "upgrades" several times on my systems and eachtime the system was rebooting without my permission. I even have disabled on 2 computers the upgrade completly but MS bypasses this setting and changed the settings back to Automatic at 3.00 am!!

Several weeks ago I was getting some PM's from one of the Members of Thaivisa which frankly asked me to stop any post about MS! He was claiming that I'm "pro" Mac and "contra" MS.

This guy didn't realize that informations about every- and anything are neccessary to get knowledge. This is very importand in todays computer time! It's not money only which is involved, for those users who's using original Software, but for to save the work and the data as well. This has nothing to do with "PRO" and "Contra"!

He may although didn't realize that others didn't has the same "knowledge" as himself and that other may like what he do NOT like! In psychological terms this behavior is called Egoism and/or Egocentric!

Why I pin point this here is very easy: I'm NOT against MS and NOT Pro Mac! I like both of them but have to work mainly with MS Software. I found Vista is an exellent system but it need alot knowledge and although "Tweaks" to get it to work as you need!

But I do NOT like actions like the above mentioned from MS!

If I've to pay alot of money for something, I would design what and how to work with it and NOT let other's choose what they want!

If someone make alot money with some products, MS at this point, they should give for what they paid for and NOT play with the money of the customers around! As MS doing!

Ok, enough at this point. Your comments and infos about the MS behavior would be very interesting not for me only but for the whole community of Thaivisa!

Cheers!

October 18, 2007

By the way, there is an other article about Vista ob Softpedia: Microsoft: We Are Selling Windows Vista! Yes, We Are!

Here you'll fnd that the sale of Vista is't that MS show! Everywhere just even not to reach 1% on the corporate sector is something what could tell alot!

But read by yourself

Cheers!

Edited October 18, 2007 by Reimar

Veazer · October 18, 2007

I don't trust MS with updates because we can't seem to agree what constitutes a critical upgrade (ie WGA).

This is why I disable Auto Update and related services rather than just turning them off and avoid this ordeals like this.

October 18, 2007

I don't trust MS with updates because we can't seem to agree what constitutes a critical upgrade (ie WGA).
This is why I disable Auto Update and related services rather than just turning them off and avoid this ordeals like this.

Fine if you disabled Autupdate! But what's happen about the bypass of MS, I mean the bypass of the User Settings?

That's the point of my post and the articles I pin point too!

Veazer · October 18, 2007

But what's happen about the bypass of MS, I mean the bypass of the User Settings?
That's the point of my post and the articles I pin point too!

So you just want opinions about how we feel regarding a company's action that ignores a user's preferences and makes decisions for him/her? I think it's imposing and arrogant. I doubt you'll get too many people who feel otherwise.

Fine if you disabled Autupdate!

And that was my point. It is avoidable.

October 18, 2007

But what's happen about the bypass of MS, I mean the bypass of the User Settings?
That's the point of my post and the articles I pin point too!

So you just want opinions about how we feel regarding a company's action that ignores a user's preferences and makes decisions for him/her? I think it's imposing and arrogant. I doubt you'll get too many people who feel otherwise.

Fine if you disabled Autupdate!

And that was my point. It is avoidable.

It's not because of feeling! It's because of action! Actions done without permission from the owner of the computer! Feelings, I wouldn't talk about!!

And you're wrong: until right now it isn't avoidable otherwise the Researches wasn't a need, the articles wasn't need to wrote and so on!

The only way to avoid right now is to disable the access from MS to your computer at all and that means that you'll even not able to download anything from MS because the incoming traffis from MS to your computer is blocked!

I blocked the total acces from MS to my File Server and I've to do all updates via an other computer with same OS and download all updates from MS via that computer for to install on my Server! That is because I've very confidential Data on my server and I don't want any access from other sites than i gave the permission too!

And you shouldn't see this thing just from and for your personell but for everybody!

RKASA · October 18, 2007

I posted in this forum the first day this happened. I had updates off and got an update anyway. Some responed like I was crazy. Twice now this has happened in three months. The second time it happened I had a bad cluster on the drive and hang them up or I would have never found out about it at all, their download failed to install and kept tring evertime I started the PC. Yes it is avoidable. Do as I did and install Linux. I have not booted a MS product in several weeks, and I am not missing a thing, in fact its been a free upgrade. The reason I don't boot anything else is I never have to shut this thing down, even to install software and updates from the WGA free update site. No reboot or disrupted downloads just keep on truck'en. PClinuxOS 2007

Veazer · October 19, 2007

It's not because of feeling! It's because of action! Actions done without permission from the owner of the computer! Feelings, I wouldn't talk about!!

If it's not about feelings, why have you used no less than 32 exclamation points? Reimar, you asked for "Your comments and infos about the MS behavior". I mentioned ways to avoid the problem and a you weren't happy with that. I told my opinion about their action (yes, they were my feelings) and you weren't content with that either. What do you want?

And you're wrong: until right now it isn't avoidable otherwise the Researches wasn't a need, the articles wasn't need to wrote and so on!
The only way to avoid right now is to disable the access from MS to your computer at all and that means that you'll even not able to download anything from MS because the incoming traffis from MS to your computer is blocked!

I blocked the total acces from MS to my File Server and I've to do all updates via an other computer with same OS and download all updates from MS via that computer for to install on my Server! That is because I've very confidential Data on my server and I don't want any access from other sites than i gave the permission too!

First, the articles were not written because the update could not be prevented, they were highlighting the fact that the OS is updating components even when configured not to. Understandably, most people didn’t like that.

Second, I don’t think I’m wrong about being able to prevent the update. I think you are not understanding the difference between turning Automatic Updates off and disabling the service. Turning Auto Updates off, as you have experienced, doesn’t prevent the problem but disabling the Automatic Updates service off will. Unfortunately many of the articles about this are interchanging the terms 'off' and 'disabled' adding confusion to the problem. None of my machines have ever installed the update despite being connected 24/7, they've all got the service disabled. If you have evidence or legitimate information indicating that Microsoft can updates machines with the service fully disabled, please share it with us. I wouldn't put it past them, but i've yet to see anything that proves this is occurring.

Nate Clinton, program manager in the WU group, explained it quite simply:

“The Windows Update client is configured to automatically check for updates

anytime a system uses the WU service, independent of the selected settings for handling updates

. This has been the case since we introduced the Automatic Update feature in Windows XP. In fact, WU has autoupdated itself many times in the past.”

As for the explanation as to why it works this way:

“Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications." The result, he said, would be to leave users at risk to attack via vulnerabilities Microsoft has patched. "That would lead users to believe that they were secure, even though there was no installation and/or notification of upgrades.”

This explanation is questionable in my opinion, since the update site would simply need to make sure the updater itself was up to date. In addition, it rather than making sure all users were updated, their stated intention, it had the opposite effect for some users. The update caused WinXP installations which had used the ‘repair’ option to be fail when trying to update.

I don’t agree with Microsoft’s stance regarding these updates (sorry, more feelings!), nor do I agree, or fully believe, their response as to why it must be done this way. I think the settings for WU should be absolute, and the update to the WU service should be treated as any other update. No updates should mean no updates. Users have a right to decide what is done to their OS, even if it means their decision will make their system more vulnerable. Users have a right to let the masses be the guinea pigs for updates and apply the update themselves after they feel it is appropriate and safe.

I have found one post by a user calling himself “Charles Wolf” claiming he had the service disabled but that is started itself and performed all these updates just like the users who had automatic updates off. I just don’t buy it. There’s things about the post that sound too fishy. He claims to have all thing monitoring software in place that microsoft supposedly bypassed, but he doesn’t name any of the software used. He goes on to declare:

“I'm downloading a Linux distro as I type this. Nope, I'm not a fanboy. In fact, I'm way too old a dog to be learning new tricks. But getting used to Linux can't be any harder than trying to secure Windows, can it?”

IMHO, it just reeks of someone doing their best to frighten Windows users. Again. Read the post yourselves and come to your own conclusion. HERE

From the the link at the bottom of this post:

Clinton also disputed user accounts of stealth updates to WU even when they had completely disabled the automatic update feature in the operating system.

"WU does not automatically update itself when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of updates.”

I tend to believe MS on this one, they’ve got far more to lose than some anonymous poster. If the service didn’t function as they reported, someone would eventually disprove their statements and open a whole new can of worms.

And you shouldn't see this thing just from and for your personell but for everybody!

I never saw it that way. If I didn't care how it impacted others I wouldn't take the time to tell people how to stop the problem. Don't tell me how I view the world.

Statements by Nate Clinton from Microsoft are taken from this article.

October 19, 2007

Veazer:

OK, thanks for your answer!

Just for you to know, I had the services for Windows Update disabled since January and in the past this service was 3 times turned on over night! Could you tell me who did? The only other action was that Updates from MS done at the same time (3 am) and nothing else! While updated the Computer although restatred that 3 time too!

I do believe that members of MS, special if they in Management, will never ever give infos about "secrets" of their company, there products or what ever!

Reimar, you asked for "Your comments and infos about the MS behavior". I mentioned ways to avoid the problem and a you weren't happy with that. I told my opinion about their action (yes, they were my feelings) and you weren't content with that either. What do you want?

The comments and infos I asked for was mainly not for me but for others who read about it as I wrote in the OP (Your comments and infos about the MS behavior would be very interesting not for me only but for the whole community of Thaivisa!)! You wrote your meaning and opinion (feeling), fine but I don't need to agree with that!

------------------

As I wrote in a post before, I blocked the whole access from any MS sites to my File Server! Why I did that? Microsoft was trying to get access to my server from hundreds of diffents IP's from differents IP groups ever few hour! I have all the log files of my server which showing that actions!

I do not think that some one sit at Redmond and try manually to get into my systems, that is an full automated process. But nevertheless you and me don't know the search criteria in case they get access and what's happen from that moment onward!

All my computers which are connected to the Internet, using original software only!

every day I check the log file of my File Server and any of the IP's, last with Whois and if I found any addresses related to MS or even without Owner info, I'll block that addresses or address range total!

It's just a question of security.

-------------------

For many thing I don't mind. But if I had the same maybe bad experiences as others on my system, I'll mind about it. And if I've to find out that some or all of the infos I got are true, I'll try to find out to avoid that for the future.

But I think that I should share my experiences with others because others may having the same problems or even suffer more than me.

I'm not perfect but I'm very imperfect and I like to be so! My knowledge is maybe good or not, I wouldn't classify myself, but until today I was able to solve about 90-99% of my computer problems by myself. And if you check the history of mine on TV, you'll find out that I not asked many time for infos for help just a very few times!

-------------------

If you want to dicuss with me about personell things, please use a private channel but keep it out from here. One thing you and even me should nbe keeped in mind: we should never exspect that other have the some knowledge, informations or others as we have!

And jus for to clear, I attach a schreenshot from the settings of the WU which is in all of my computers the same.

Cheers!

Veazer · October 19, 2007

I didn't think I was discussing personal things at all, I felt like my discussion was regarding the Automatic Update issue. I'm sorry if you felt otherwise.

If you had the service disabled, like you have shown, then this is disturbing because it means something else is running that triggers the service to start. I'd be interested to try to find what that is. I'd also like to be able to reproduce the situation and take a look at the network traffic.

This also means that MS has violated the terms of the Windows EULA, specifically:

2. AUTOMATIC INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. The Software features described below are enabled by default to connect via the Internet to Microsoft computer systems automatically, without separate notice to you. You consent to the operation of these features,

unless you choose to switch them off or not use them

. Microsoft does not obtain personal information through any of these features. For more information about these features, please see your Software documentation, the Microsoft online support site, or the privacy statement at

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=25243

.

Since we have chosen to disable the service, isn't their behavior illegal according the their own agreement?

But I do have one more trick up for disabling services that should help to keep them out. Remove/disable the service from the hardware profile. If it's disabled from there, it *should* be totally unable to start, regardless of what MS changes the startup type to. Then again, maybe they are clever enough to enable it again in the hardware profile as well.

Run 'services.msc' and choose Automatic Updates service. Go to the 'Log On' tab and disable the service in the hardware profile you're using, or all. Might be worthwhile to do this for the BITS service as well. If it's been disable properly in the profile, even a service set to Automatic should be unable to start.

Like I mentioned before, there must be something else that triggers the updates service to restart itself. I'm very interested to know what that is. Let me know if you find any information along these lines.

It's important to keep in mind that ultimately we both agree about the subject - we don't like anyone poking around our computers & files and making changes.

Cheers!

nikster · October 19, 2007

I don't trust MS with updates because we can't seem to agree what constitutes a critical upgrade (ie WGA).
This is why I disable Auto Update and related services rather than just turning them off and avoid this ordeals like this.

The funny thing was that Microsoft silently updated some file even on machines that had auto update disabled!

There is two things wrong with this, the former more than the latter:

1 - That this is even possible. I am flabbergasted - there must be some function in Windows that updates even though auto updates are off. Evil or stupid, either way it's deplorable.

2 - That they used this functionality.

You can't trust Microsoft. It's a fact now. I am glad I switched to Mac in time. Mac isn't perfect but it's also not sleazy like that.

Edit: Of course, there's some articles to back this up - it's a widely known fact now

http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Mi...t-users-consent

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/ope...ky_updates.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779

And that's just the first 3 Google hits...

Edited October 19, 2007 by nikster

October 19, 2007

If you had the service disabled, like you have shown, then this is disturbing because it means something else is running that triggers the service to start. I'd be interested to try to find what that is. I'd also like to be able to reproduce the situation and take a look at the network traffic.
This also means that MS has violated the terms of the Windows EULA, specifically:

2. AUTOMATIC INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. The Software features described below are enabled by default to connect via the Internet to Microsoft computer systems automatically, without separate notice to you. You consent to the operation of these features,
unless you choose to switch them off or not use them
. Microsoft does not obtain personal information through any of these features. For more information about these features, please see your Software documentation, the Microsoft online support site, or the privacy statement at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=25243
.

Since we have chosen to disable the service, isn't their behavior illegal according the their own agreement?

Unfortunatly MS can do what they want.

Some few years ago I had similar problems with an other OS and had a legal discussion with several Laywers.

Fact is that we are NOT the owner of the software, we are just licensees! It is the Right of the owner to choose what rights they want to give to the licensee. It is although the right of the owner to choose to change any and all right without prior notice!

The EULA did not show all paragraphs, that is just the main sentences. If you want to know what rights the Owner and which the Licensee has, you need to read a series of books.

In the real, the owner has all rights and the licensee nothing! The owner even has the right to sue you in case you change any standard procedures if they not statet otherwise in the EULA!

So, now read the EULA and you know exactly what you can do and which rights you have! Have Fun!!

Cheers.

PS.: I am in the computer business for quite alot years. If I found out that someone breach a contract with me, I am the first to start an action but only if the Law tells that I am right and that I have the right for to do what I have done! But in an Copyright case all rights on the site of the Owner of the copyright! In this case every rights on the site of MS!

Veazer · October 19, 2007

Just curious, what version do you guys see on your machines?

On XP Pro, I have the following:

elkangorito · October 19, 2007

Firstly, I would like to thank Reimar for his tireless & unbiased assistance. He has been factual & to some, he has seemed to be "emotive". In the engineering profession, "factual" & "truthful" reports are often accused of being one-sided or "emotive", when this is clearly not the case.

As for Reimar being "harrassed" by somebody (by PM), my assumption is that this person could be a Microsoft shareholder.

After hearing this latest information about the unauthorised Microsoft updates, I will expedite my move toward Linux, of which I'm already familiar.

Lastly, Reimar is obviously NOT a "native English speaker" & as such, it would be sensible & prudent to ask for clarification BEFORE shooting him down in flames.

In my experience, many people on forums who actually & truly "know" what they are talking about, are seldom ever found. Reimar is someone who "knows" about computers. I, for one, will listen to him.

Edited October 19, 2007 by elkangorito

October 19, 2007

Firstly, I would like to thank Reimar for his tireless & unbiased assistance. He has been factual & to some, he has seemed to be "emotive". In the engineering profession, "factual" & "truthful" reports are often accused of being one-sided, when this is clearly not the case.
As for Reimar being "harrassed" by somebody (by PM), my assumption is that this person could be a Microsoft shareholder.

After hearing this latest information about the unauthorised Microsoft updates, I will expedite my move toward Linux, of which I'm already familiar.

Lastly, Reimar is obviously NOT a "native English speaker" & as such, it would be sensible & prudent to ask for clarification BEFORE shooting him down in flames.

In my experience, many people on forums who actually & truly "know" what they are talking about, are seldom ever found. Reimar is someone who "knows" about computers. I, for one, will listen to him.

Thanks alot for your post!

You're very right, I'm NOT a native english speaker but a german! Nevertheless most people understand what I'm talking about incl. native english people. I know myself very well, hopefully, and as long as critics not getting to personell I don't mind. But I although know very well that sometimes others even NOT try to understand what's the meaning from something they listen or read because it is from someone who didn't speak the native language. There although people out there who like to critisize everything, who like to find everything which they claims to be negative but ignore the poritive parts! Even if I don't like this behavior I try every time in my answers to be polite and try to explain what I really mean.

As I wrote sometimes before, my intention for to post and submitt information is to let others get the maybe importand infos about the good and the bad in the world of computer, hardware and software. I'm not Pro or Contra to any Brand or Company. If I post or submitt infos from my own experiences or so, I'll cleary mark them as my own. And for any of such infos from my own I'll have the prove and the evidence!

All my OP's or other post are computer related except those answers to post which getting to personell!

elkangorito: Thanks again for your answer and understanding.

For all: Hopefully you all understand what I'm talking about and what's the meaning of what I wrote above.

Cheers!

cdnvic · October 19, 2007

You can't trust Microsoft. It's a fact now. I am glad I switched to Mac in time. Mac isn't perfect but it's also not sleazy like that.

You mean Apple, the company that just intentionally killed thousands of it's customer phones in order to pander to AT&T?

nikster · October 19, 2007

You can't trust Microsoft. It's a fact now. I am glad I switched to Mac in time. Mac isn't perfect but it's also not sleazy like that.

You mean Apple, the company that just intentionally killed thousands of it's customer phones in order to pander to AT&T?

Exactly, and just this incident is a good example - because even though they killed the hacks, they also honor my "no automatic updates" settings, hence my iPhone is safe.

You could say "pander to AT&T" or you could say "honor their contract with AT&T". Ever seen a company that would guarantee that updates won't break hacked versions of their software? I haven't...

I find the exclusive-contract-locking scheme as stupid as anyone but it's not like they haven't been upfront about it.

cdnvic · October 19, 2007

Just pointing out that Apple are no angels. Even many of the rabid fanboys were pissed about the bricking of the phones. Not condoning MS's forced updates but in the big scheme of things, they seem pretty benign.

elkangorito · October 19, 2007

...which is why I will be changing to Linux ASAP.

RKASA · October 20, 2007

PClinuxOS 2007 has been great for me. If your new to linux like I am its the easest to use. Ubunto and others get alot of press, but little PClinuxOS is now rated like number 5 and climbing. Just get the livecd and plug it in and use it for awhile like I did,

then I put it on a USB drive, now its going into the main

drive and overwriting XP which I have no use for at all. Not sure I would use this in a biz app. I don't use that kind of software anymore and have not run them. If your a big time gamer you might not care for Linux but its free to try out VMware and Wine. As a sound, video, and surf type I am better off with linux then windows. I had to replace my printer because Lexmark not supported, but that was like hundreds cheaper then a PC to run vista on, which I would have to do in near future as XP dies. They can kill XP and force exspense upgrades and I won't care. I did that with 98se hardly got used to XP and now its going.

cdnvic · October 20, 2007

I would have to do in near future as XP dies. They can kill XP and force exspense upgrades and I won't care.

Mainstream support for XP continues until 2009, with extended support and security upgrades available until 2014.

nikster · October 20, 2007

Just pointing out that Apple are no angels. Even many of the rabid fanboys were pissed about the bricking of the phones. Not condoning MS's forced updates but in the big scheme of things, they seem pretty benign.

So if an upgrade breaks hacked versions of a software it's bad, but if a company sneakily updates files even though I said I don't want it to, that's benign? I am not agreeing with that one bit, but - each to his own!

Besides, I find it somewhat silly to bring a discussion about Apple in this thread - what does that have to do with MS's secret updates? Nothing.

I just pointed out that competitors do honor the user's settings and wishes, and they do not cross certain lines. Unlike Microsoft.

Edited October 20, 2007 by nikster

higgy88 · October 20, 2007

I would have to do in near future as XP dies. They can kill XP and force exspense upgrades and I won't care.

Mainstream support for XP continues until 2009, with extended support and security upgrades available until 2014.

Yea, right! I believe this the same as I believe that MS supported my Windows 98 with extended security updates until I think last year but I really don't rememeber what they had claimed. What I do remember was the last security update I was able to get from MS for my legal Windows 98 was in 2002. Unfortunately, I bought my Compaq in Thailand with Windows 98 pre-installed at the factory by Compaq, and when I tried to use windows update all I got was a window saying they no longer supported the Thai, Hebrew, Arabic, Slovakian, and a few other editions I really don't remember the whole list. The reasult was simply no more security updates for me because I was being punished by MS for the actions of others. I now also have an HP with Windows XP, also pre-installed at the factory which I also bought in Thailand, and I have no reason not to think that they won't do exactly the same thing to me again. Will I actually get security updates until 2014? I have no idea. They have shown me that they can and will do anything they want anytime they want. I am now in the market for a new computer to replace my 10 year old Compaq, and I decided to say goodbye to MS. It's time for me to move on. What others will do is completely up to them.

cdnvic · October 20, 2007

I would have to do in near future as XP dies. They can kill XP and force exspense upgrades and I won't care.

Mainstream support for XP continues until 2009, with extended support and security upgrades available until 2014.

Yea, right! I believe this the same as I believe that MS supported my Windows 98 with extended security updates until I think last year but I really don't rememeber what they had claimed. What I do remember was the last security update I was able to get from MS for my legal Windows 98 was in 2002.

Security updates for Windows 98 were produced up to July 2006. Windows 98 and ME were horribly flawed operating systems that had to be put to sleep. XP was garbage until SP2, but it's matured into a half decent platform, and is stable and secure enough to warrant the extended support.

I installed security updates to Windows 98 systems in 2006. Don't know what you were doing wrong but if your system was unpatched from 2002 on I'm surprised it lasted.

toptuan · October 20, 2007

I don't trust MS with updates because we can't seem to agree what constitutes a critical upgrade (ie WGA).
This is why I disable Auto Update and related services rather than just turning them off and avoid this ordeals like this.

Nearly seven years ago, an automatic MS update totally screwed up my HP laptop computer used for business. It wouldn't boot to windows normally. After dozens of phone calls, MS pointed fingers at HP, and HP pointed back to MS. No one would take responsibility. I spent several hundred dollars in technician fees to right things again. At that time, I swore I would never accept updates from MS again.

Fine if you disabled Autupdate! But what's happen about the bypass of MS, I mean the bypass of the User Settings? That's the point of my post and the articles I pin point too!

Yes, in light of my own experience (above), this becomes a very troubling revelation.

RKASA · October 20, 2007

I would have to do in near future as XP dies. They can kill XP and force exspense upgrades and I won't care.

Mainstream support for XP continues until 2009, with extended support and security upgrades available until 2014.

Yea , but why wait? I don't need xp and the hassels and I will never get or use vista, and already talk of the next version to replace it. I have found this Linux thing works and I am really having fun with it.

October 21, 2007

The latest news from MS say's that all upgrades from MS was done WITH user permission.

OK read the news:

Microsoft: We Didn’t Change Automatic Updates

Software giant says users are responsible for the modifications that generated claims of unauthorized patch installs.

Microsoft Corp. Wednesday denied that its software had arbitrarily changed Windows Vista’s update settings, saying that users were responsible for the modifications that generated claims of unauthorized patch installs.

Reacting to reports that first surfaced last Friday, a program manager for Windows Update said today that an investigation had turned up no evidence the Oct. 9 security fixes had switched settings in Vista’s Automatic Updates (AU).

“From the customer logs that we received, we found that none of the updates released as part of the October security release have made any changes to users’ AU settings,” said Nate Clinton in a post to a company blog. “In fact, in the logs we reviewed, AU in all cases was set to ‘install updates automatically’ prior to the October security release.”

Vista allows users to turn off AU entirely; tell the operating system to check for, but neither download or install, any fixes; instruct the mechanism to download files but not install them; or accept all patches without any additional approval.

The claims that AU settings had mysteriously reverted to the “install automatically” setting began to trickle into a message forum on the AeroXperience Web site soon after the release last Tuesday of six security updates. Several users said that AU downloaded and installed patches even though they had specifically instructed Vista not to do so.

But unlike last month, when a Windows newsletter revealed that Microsoft had updated users’ PCs contrary to their instructions, the newest charges were limited to AeroXperience members. No similar reports, for example, were posted to the Windows Update support newsgroup hosted by Microsoft. During September’s brouhaha, that newsgroup was thick with messages about the stealth updating.

Certain that AU had not run amok and changed its own settings, Clinton fingered users for the altered state of AU. “I want to stress that the Windows Update client does not change AU settings without users’ consent. However, AU settings can be set or changed in the following scenarios,” he said, and then listed five; all require the user to take action or accept one option from several offered.

“During the installation of Windows Vista, the user chooses one of the first two recommended options in the ‘Out of Box Experience’ and elects to get updates automatically from Windows,” Clinton said was one possibility. Another: “The user chooses to opt in to Microsoft Update during the installation or the first run experience of another Microsoft application such as Office 2007.”

Earlier, a Microsoft spokeswoman had been more blunt. “It may be more a case of someone clicking to change their AU settings but not realizing /remembering doing so,” she said in an e-mail sent Tuesday.

Users on AeroXperience writing to the forum after Microsoft wrapped up its investigation accepted Clinton’s explanation. “The disparity between the Windows Update control panel applet and the OOBE [Out of Box Experience] update settings page (when first running Windows Vista) seems to be what’s causing the confusion,” said a member identified as Bryant.

source: computerworld.com

-----------------------------------------

Question for me is how the updates was done WITHOUT the User's Permission as in my own experiences by even disabling the Service totally?

I'll copy all log files to a new location and analyze them one by one! I wouldnow really know what the he*l is going on!

October 21, 2007