Confirmation of stealth Windows Update

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Read the dialog carefully. When AU is enabled, updates for AU itself will be sent out automatically. It does not say you will be notified like it says for other updates. It's simply a case of reading comprehension.

Whether or not the dialog explains it or not AU shouldn't be a special case.

What would you suggest then?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I have to agree with Nothingman here in this discussion. MS screwed up, plain and simple, and violated the user's trust. MS needs to make right in this situation, and so far, they haven't. Not a good sign. As MS-DRM gets more intrusive, it's not out of the question that they might perhaps "auto-update" their DRM subsystems without a user's consent either. And of course the predictable response from the MS camp is that the user agreed to such steath updating in the EULA. But that doesn't make it any less wrong.

The user should be in control of the PC. Period.

Violations of this deserve a severe repremand, IMHO.


MS breaking users computers when doing a restore install from CD just compounds the problems.



Also, I have a technical curiousity - if the user, during the install of XP SP2, says "Not right now", when prompted to enable auto-updates, the default selection of the dialog-box is set to some "limbo value", that leads to NONE of the available listed selections being selected in the control panel auto-update dialog box. Given this limbo setting state, will the stealth updates be installed?

Edit: PS. I disable MS's various auto-update background services when doing an install. Call me paranoid if you like, but crap like MS just pulled, doesn't happen on my systems.

I have good news. Microsoft has bought a Time Machine (another one, I mean, not the old one that ran WindowsME and BSODed all the time), gone back in time to the year 2000, and added a Control Panel applet to the original release of WinXP which gives the user control over these "stealth" updates, including a plainly-stated notice that enabling AU may result in updates being downloaded automatically :thumbsup: Furthermore, they've added a screen during Windows Setup :camera: which will ask the user if he/she wants AU enabled or not. If the user chooses not to enable it, the "stealth" updates that maintain the updating software won't be done.

So I'm sure Microsoft must be grateful for the constructive criticism. If you take another look at your WinXP systems, you should now find these new features in place, giving you control over the "stealth" updates.

 

[Nothinman]

What would you suggest then?

I think I've already been over this in this thread, but AU should be treated just like any other piece of MS software and updates should be pushed out just like the rest. They show up in the list, you can decline them, etc.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

This is silly, it is Automatic Updates. WTF is the problem? Honestly!

AU shouldn't be an exception to the rule, exceptions are bad and should be avoided whenever possible. And for the tinfoil-hat people, if MS can push AU updates without confirmation what else can they updated without permission?

Turn it off all together then. AU is fine to be auto updated without confirmation. It needs to be updated to look for other features or deliver patches for newer products.

 

[Nothinman]

Turn it off all together then. AU is fine to be auto updated without confirmation. It needs to be updated to look for other features or deliver patches for newer products.

No it doesn't, every other OS treats their updater just like the rest of the packages on the system so what kind of crap design decisions did MS make that requires theirs be treated specially?

 

[Dravic]

Don?t look now, but the update experts appear to be at it again?.

How does a forcible reboot and turning on Automatic updates sound to you??

Windows Update automatically changing user settings

MS time and time again proves that they don?t know what they are doing when it comes to updating their own OS. Why do you think so many people have auto updates turn off (wait.. make that on since ?notify my? is actually on in MS?s World).

Hope these people didn?t have anything important running. What? They may have?

Awww too bad MS is not at fault read your EULA.

Nice logic there. I?m not at fault if my updates breaks your computer/applications, but I can update and reboot your computer as I see fit.

Now I know it probably wasn?t on purpose, and it must have been a glitch somewhere in the code. But that is what this whole trust issue is about. I don?t trust your ability to patch correctly (as you have shown me time and time again to be warranted), I choose no updates. You don?t respect my choice and update (even if just the updater itself) automatically. Now we get forcible reboots if we do choose to let you push my updates automatically..

More and more it?s looking like the only choice is going to be turning the service completely ?off?.


3...2...1... for the apologist

 

[Robor]

Hmmmm... I don't think the updater updating itself is that big of a deal but bouncing a system without notification is another story. I have a feeling there's some people @ Microsoft who are going to be walking the carpet - or the plank!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Thanks, Mech, I'll look into it. My plan B is my backup image, which is on 2 DVDs, containing my original XP load, drivers, and the handful of apps I use. I also have my data stored on a seperate drive that gets imaged nightly (onetouch auto-archiving, very simple). So, if Windows gets jacked, I'll just re-image my boot drive, and restore my data if necessary.

In today's world of keystroke loggers and such, that will not undo the damage. When you restore from your restoration discs, your stuff doesn't come back from Russia after it's been FTP'ed away. Your files don't become unencrypted after ransomware encrypts them and demands ransom for the decryption utility. Your eBay account doesn't de-fraud itself, your PayPal funds won't come back after being stolen, your World Of Warcraft stuff won't reappear after being stolen and auctioned, your game CD keys won't return after being blackmarketed. Maybe you just use Windows as an unimportant browsing terminal and never expose anything that would matter, of course.

So far, so good though, I have yet to see problem 1 on any of my boxes.

Using the typical keystroke logger as an example, what symptoms would you expect to see?

I run a PC shop, and it makes me sad how many people bring systems in with FULLY updated Norton or McAffee, but their system is crawling with viruses, spyware, and etc. I can't believe how bad those products are. They must survive on marketing alone, because their stuff is worse than useless. It downgrades your system, and then insults you by letting all the crap get on your system.

I can remark that McAfee seems to have lost the initiative really badly. I send them samples directly via Webimmune.net, and heck, at one point I had about 240 samples sitting there in the queue, all verified in-the-wild malware, and they were just dropping off the end of the queue because they were so old. Of course, what am I expecting them to do, analyze the malware? :roll: Oh dear, that would be difficult :roll: Right now they're busy ignoring a rootkit I submitted three times and a sizeable stack of Trojans and adware. If you can't get a vendor to detect malware by handing it to them on a silver platter... :frown: They need to either get it in gear or admit they don't belong in the home-user security market, IMHO.

/rant

Well, I don't have anything very critical on my systems that I don't already have on CD/DVD. In my experience, and probably because I don't go to very many sites and am a low-profile potential target, I have had zero spyware/virus/hacking problems personally, even with my very basic protection setup. I don't do WoW (or any games these days), I only do Ebay/Paypal from a linux boot CD, I just don't have much to worry about. If someone came in and physically stole all of my PCs, I'd just bring some discs from home, build some new boxes, and be where I was in a couple of hours.

Agreed on the pathetic state of McAfee/Norton, and I'm continually impressed and grateful for your knowledge and open attitude. This goes for Stash/Smilin/Bsobel as well, I am much more indifferent towards many things in comparison to you guys, but respect your viewpoints nonetheless.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: stash

Originally posted by: DasFox
As long as XP has been out I've never done any updates other then installing service packs, and I've never had problems.

Most of the Windows updates are a waste.

That's some twisted logic you've got there. Hopefully nobody will follow your lead.

Well, I do the same now, and am problem-free. Of course I keep a decent AV/Firewall setup, and keep physical backups of anything remotely important, but in my experience, WU has never done anything but bloat my install for me. So, I've become one that just switches it off on my personal boxes (I leave it on customer units of course).

Of course, this is anecdotal, and I don't advertise this in any way that would suggest others to follow my lead on this. I am a tech who can rebuild a box from scratch in a matter of minutes (custom dvd image + flash drive with drivers/apps), but can see that even the *potential* of major problems exposed by a lack of updates (or using garbage security software like Norton/McAfee) would be much more inconvenient to the average person. For my boxes, I'm indifferent bordering on lazy, I've been working on computers since the early 80s, so I just can't be bothered. Sort of like the mechanics that drive beaters

 

[Maximilian]

I had my vista x64 ultimate set to "check for updates but let me choose when to download and install them" and the other day it somehow got set to "install updates automatically". Dunno if that would come under the "stealth update" thing but i didnt change it, i blamed it on me installing and uninstalling several different video drivers and windows for some reason defaulting the update settings.

 

[stash]

It looks like so far, this is not as a result of a bug or otherwise in AU. But the WU team needs logs find root cause.

http://blogs.technet.com/mu/ar...-recent-web-posts.aspx

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Dravic
Now we get forcible reboots if we do choose to let you push my updates automatically..

Not sure if you're aware of this, but again, it's under your control, at least on versions of Windows that feature local group policy. If it bugs you, fire up Group Policy Editor and twiddle with the Windows Update behavior: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/m...on/No_Auto_Restart.GIF Tons of great stuff in gpedit :thumbsup:

I regret to say that you don't get to play with the cool toys if you have a home version of Windows, but most home users of WinXP run Admin accounts, where you'd be asked if you want to restart to complete the updates, and on Vista I've only seen it auto-propose updating when you're ready to shut down (so far). Have you actually had any of these problems yourself, or are you just trying to be a victim-by-proxy based on the fact that someone, somewhere, had Windows systems reboot unexpectedly? Because at that rate, you could easily achieve victimhood based on the fact that a lot of RAM doesn't run stable at default JEDEC memory voltages

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Dravic
Now we get forcible reboots if we do choose to let you push my updates automatically..

Not sure if you're aware of this, but again, it's under your control, at least on versions of Windows that feature local group policy. If it bugs you, fire up Group Policy Editor and twiddle with the Windows Update behavior: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/m...on/No_Auto_Restart.GIF Tons of great stuff in gpedit :thumbsup:

I regret to say that you don't get to play with the cool toys if you have a home version of Windows, but most home users of WinXP run Admin accounts, where you'd be asked if you want to restart to complete the updates, and on Vista I've only seen it auto-propose updating when you're ready to shut down (so far). Have you actually had any of these problems yourself, or are you just trying to be a victim-by-proxy based on the fact that someone, somewhere, had Windows systems reboot unexpectedly? Because at that rate, you could easily achieve victimhood based on the fact that a lot of RAM doesn't run stable at default JEDEC memory voltages

Who's playing the victim card??? I mean correct me if i'm wrong but this is a discussion forum, and i did post it in the operating system forum. My options when a company I do business with acts in a manner I do not agree with is 2 fold. Stop buying their products and/or raise awareness of the issue. I think posting the infomarion I found relevant on Anandtech counts for the later, and i haven't bought Vista yet...

There have been three confirmed "issues" brought up in this topic.

1. Auto update of the WU client without notification. - documented by MS, but still rubbing people the wrong way.
2. repair installs now failing becase the auto WU updates cause the other 80 odd updates to fail. Looked to be a bug in AU, but you would think that a repair install would have been tested in qa with the auto WU push.
3. Now users who use auto updates are having there PC's forcible rebooted, not 'someone, somewhere" as if this is some kind of pebkac issue.

I dont trust their ability to patch correctly, expecially not the first time through. Their track record bares this out.

Maybe you should go read up on the actual issues if you dont know what your taking about. You solution entails using tools not readily available to the home user. I have enough audit and Incident handling certifications to understand how to keep this from happening in a business environment using group policies and local patch servers (wsus)

Shall i go through your post history and see if you dicuss any issue you are not directly affected by? no.. didnt think so. victim-by-proxy how cute.

I'll quote myself from another duplicate thread on the issue As your post seems to thnk i'm some forum junky trying to make a name for myself, or something similar though "victomhood".

I do run Linux on my network server/workstation. I run win 2k on my office machine with office 2003, I run win xp 64 on my gaming box, I run win 2k on my photo/video editing/secondary gamer box( may try out ubuntu studio soon).. run win xp professional on my laptop. and thats just at home.

13 years Unix experience at work, 11 as a Unix admin and security engineer.

I run the proper OS when and where needed. Heck my OS of choice as far as production goes is Solaris first, Linux second.

With that out of the way?..

I would expect better from a moderator.

 

[stash]

3. Now users who use auto updates are having there PC's forcible rebooted, not 'someone, somewhere" as if this is some kind of pebkac issue.

Sure, this is a confirmed issue, but as I posted above, there has been no evidence that this is caused by AU. If you have evidence otherwise, submit your windowsupdate.log file.

Otherwise, you are just contributing to the sensationalism, which helps no one. People are always quick to blame updates from Microsoft for any number of problems. I know, because I used to get calls like that from Fortune 500 companies every single day. 99% of those issues were unrelated to updates. The reason why people immediately blames update is that is usually the first time they have rebooted the box in awhile, and any changes they have made in the past hours/days/weeks will start causing them issues on reboot.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Dravic

There have been three confirmed "issues" brought up in this topic.

etc etc

Basically, until I arrived with some screenshots, you were happily riding the "stealth updates" bandwagon without checking your facts. Now you're looking for other issues that you can use to save your thread.

News flash: there are lots of Windows systems in the world. With an endless array of hardware, software and histories, in the hands of everyone under the sun, there are bound to be problems. If I find an issue that I consider a major problem worthy of hyping, I'll let you know. Your initial "issue" is pretty much dead, aside from some wrangling about semantics and "well why was it designed THAT way", and the two remaining "issues" you've posted don't merit a hype job. In my opinion.

I would expect better from a moderator.

Moderators generally have a choice: either moderate a thread, or participate in it, but not both (except in dire situations). In this case, you're dealing with mechBgon classic, not a Moderator And mechBgon does not approve of hysterical bandwagon riding.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What would you suggest then?

I think I've already been over this in this thread, but AU should be treated just like any other piece of MS software and updates should be pushed out just like the rest. They show up in the list, you can decline them, etc.

You can't treat it like any other update. It updates the updater.

What about a scenario such as:
1. You have automatic update set to "notify".
2. A new version of AU comes out. You decline this update.
3. The AU server is updated and becomes version or protocol incompatible with your AU client.
4. You get no further updates even though you did #1.

How about they change #2 to then turn automatic updates completely OFF (with big red letters) at that moment so users don't inadvertently think it's on so you won't run into #4.

??

meh. damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.

This argument could go on for days. We should just break up into two tribes:
1. We think M$ is teh evil and won't have our minds changed.
2. We think you're a bunch of whiny bitches and won't have our minds changed.

 

[Nothinman]

You can't treat it like any other update. It updates the updater.

Every other OS that I know doesn't have any problem handling it like that.

What about a scenario such as:
1. You have automatic update set to "notify".
2. A new version of AU comes out. You decline this update.
3. The AU server is updated and becomes version or protocol incompatible with your AU client.
4. You get no further updates even though you did #1.

Step 3 should never happen since MS should leave the protocol alone. Hell every other OS's updaters get by just fine with standard protocols like HTTP and FTP.

This argument could go on for days. We should just break up into two tribes:
1. We think M$ is teh evil and won't have our minds changed.
2. We think you're a bunch of whiny bitches and won't have our minds changed.

I'd like to be part of tribe 3. We think MS royally f'd up the design of their automatic updater.

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Dravic

There have been three confirmed "issues" brought up in this topic.

etc etc

Basically, until I arrived with some screenshots, you were happily riding the "stealth updates" bandwagon without checking your facts. Now you're looking for other issues that you can use to save your thread.

News flash: there are lots of Windows systems in the world. With an endless array of hardware, software and histories, in the hands of everyone under the sun, there are bound to be problems. If I find an issue that I consider a major problem worthy of hyping, I'll let you know. Your initial "issue" is pretty much dead, aside from some wrangling about semantics and "well why was it designed THAT way", and the two remaining "issues" you've posted don't merit a hype job. In my opinion.

I would expect better from a moderator.

Moderators generally have a choice: either moderate a thread, or participate in it, but not both (except in dire situations). In this case, you're dealing with mechBgon classic, not a Moderator And mechBgon does not approve of hysterical bandwagon riding.

Hey genius.. the stealth updates were confirmed by microsoft, and there are screen shots in the linked article IN THE VERY FIRST POST. This has alredy been cleared up. MS, as i've already acknowledged but like many other dont agree with, warns the users that the that auto update may occur when choosing the setting in question "Notify me".


Did you just skip to the end of the thread??

The second update is directly related to repair installs failing because their own AU update from a fresh install fails to take into account the possibilty of the auto WU update occurunng before the first AU.

Seriously, join the discussion or leave the thread...


The third issue may or may not be related, that is still being determined. This may not be a stealth update, but the changing of user setting to fully on and the forcible reboot seem right inline with the current discussion. There is an additional entry in Mary Jo Foley?s blog about how MS is requesting user logs from anyone this is happening to.

New update about the issue of the forcible reboot and settings change

 

[stash]

More proof that Mary Jo is a moron. Rather than do any sort of investigate reporting, she just blathers about unsubstantiated rumors in order to increase click counts to her site.

Like I said before, everytime something goes wrong around Patch Tuesday, people blame the updates or the updating process rather than do any sort of valid troubleshooting. It's pure laziness and doesn't help anyone resolve the issue. People make huge assumptions like this:

but the changing of user setting to fully on and the forcible reboot seem right inline with the current discussion.

 

[mechBgon]

Hey genius.. the stealth updates were confirmed by microsoft, and there are screen shots in the linked article IN THE VERY FIRST POST. This has alredy been cleared up. MS, as i've already acknowledged but like many other dont agree with, warns the users that the that auto update may occur when choosing the setting in question "Notify me".

Glad we are all in agreement on that, then.

The second update is directly related to repair installs failing because their own AU update from a fresh install fails to take into account the possibilty of the auto WU update occurunng before the first AU.

We have another Forum member who's known for shifting his thread to new topics when his first one falls through. It's not an endearing trait; I know another Mod who would probably like to dish out vacations for it :evil: At any rate, yes, I heard about the problem with repair installs, and being Reality+ certified, I frankly don't expect repair installs to function normally anyway I think you noticed that Microsoft does have a KB on the topic.

The third issue may or may not be related, that is still being determined. This may not be a stealth update, but the changing of user setting to fully on and the forcible reboot seem right inline with the current discussion. There is an additional entry in Mary Jo Foley?s blog about how MS is requesting user logs from anyone this is happening to.

New update about the issue of the forcible reboot and settings change

[/quote]

Automatic reboots are a designed behavior of Automatic Updates, and actually quite beneficial in my experience as a sysadmin. Leave the 'puters on overnight, and presto, they're updated when the crew arrives in the morning, since they rebooted themselves after patching at 3AM :thumbsup:

Why they're occasionally switching to full auto will probably be discovered in time, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. We might as well lie awake at night worrying that our RAM might go bad and start causing BSODs, and post a big exposé thread in General Hardware about poor-quality RAM, since plenty of people have had that happen to them too. Eh?

As Arkaign said... tempest in a teapot. If you want to update manually because there are sometimes buggy updates, that's great, go for it :thumbsup: but keep the big picture in view here.

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: stash
More proof that Mary Jo is a moron. Rather than do any sort of investigate reporting, she just blathers about unsubstantiated rumors in order to increase click counts to her site.

Like I said before, everytime something goes wrong around Patch Tuesday, people blame the updates or the updating process rather than do any sort of valid troubleshooting. It's pure laziness and doesn't help anyone resolve the issue. People make huge assumptions like this:

but the changing of user setting to fully on and the forcible reboot seem right inline with the current discussion.

..

who is making an assumptions? The first sentence of what you quote says "The third issue may or may not be related", and mentions MS looking at user logs to determine the issue, seems like valid troubleshooting.

Those are the symptoms being presented, the cause is yet to be determined.

MS is not known for their attention to detail when it comes to their patching. These are more then likely do to the sheer size of the user base and the huge number of combinations possible with all the applications available on a windows PC.

I'm well aware of this. This is why I DONT want them to patch my system automatically. This may just be a third party app conflict with the latest AU push. I don?t know, hence the post about the new information. If it?s a third party app, that can?t bee good, can it? A third party app has the ability to change user AU settings and forcibly reboot the PC all without a prompt?

From he blog posts it looks like both vista and xp users.

 

[stash]

Those are the symptoms being presented, the cause is yet to be determined.

Right. Yet to you that somehow means this issue is inline with the current discussion, namely that Microsoft pushed a "stealth update"

MS is not known for their attention to detail when it comes to their patching

:roll:

A third party app has the ability to change user AU settings and forcibly reboot the PC all without a prompt?

Given that most people run XP as Admin, that's not so far-fetched. And it is possible that the Vista users that are affected disabled UAC. The point is, nobody knows yet. There is no evidence that the problem was caused by Microsoft code, so I don't see how it belongs in an already FUD-filled discussion about confirmed "issues" caused by MS code.

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Hey genius.. the stealth updates were confirmed by microsoft, and there are screen shots in the linked article IN THE VERY FIRST POST. This has alredy been cleared up. MS, as i've already acknowledged but like many other dont agree with, warns the users that the that auto update may occur when choosing the setting in question "Notify me".

Glad we are all in agreement on that, then.

The second update is directly related to repair installs failing because their own AU update from a fresh install fails to take into account the possibilty of the auto WU update occurunng before the first AU.

We have another Forum member who's known for shifting his thread to new topics when his first one falls through. It's not an endearing trait; I know another Mod who would probably like to dish out vacations for it :evil: At any rate, yes, I heard about the problem with repair installs, and being Reality+ certified, I frankly don't expect repair installs to function normally anyway I think you noticed that Microsoft does have a KB on the topic.

The third issue may or may not be related, that is still being determined. This may not be a stealth update, but the changing of user setting to fully on and the forcible reboot seem right inline with the current discussion. There is an additional entry in Mary Jo Foley?s blog about how MS is requesting user logs from anyone this is happening to.

New update about the issue of the forcible reboot and settings change

Automatic reboots are a designed behavior of Automatic Updates, and actually quite beneficial in my experience as a sysadmin. Leave the 'puters on overnight, and presto, they're updated when the crew arrives in the morning, since they rebooted themselves after patching at 3AM :thumbsup:

Why they're occasionally switching to full auto will probably be discovered in time, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. We might as well lie awake at night worrying that our RAM might go bad and start causing BSODs, and post a big exposé thread in General Hardware about poor-quality RAM, since plenty of people have had that happen to them too. Eh?

As Arkaign said... tempest in a teapot. If you want to update manually because there are sometimes buggy updates, that's great, go for it :thumbsup: but keep the big picture in view here.[/quote]



What is that some kind of ?not so veiled? threat? I?m not shifting topics, the first two issues are directly related whether you personally would use a repair install or not. The third, while not coming from a stealth update, is still a stealthy issue to change user settings from download but don?t install to fully on AU.

Reality+ certified.. lol? wait that was funny.. lol?. Ok ?. Whew?. No wait .. lol??.

I get it, I mention my certifications to lend credence to my feelings of corporate policies not being a viable alternative to home user issues and you turn it into a A+ cert poke..

Automatic reboots are a designed behavior of Automatic Updates, and actually quite beneficial in my experience as a sysadmin. Leave the 'puters on overnight, and presto, they're updated when the crew arrives in the morning, since they rebooted themselves after patching at 3AM

Again what does this have to do with these changes happening on home machines that didn?t have auto updates fully turned on? Isn?t this exactly why WSUS was created in the first place? Corporations wanted to dictate their own update timelines and do regression testing first. What does this have to do with the topic at hand, did I mess the memo where if there is a corporate fix for the issue it should no long be posted in Anandtech?

Look? It may very well be do to a security app installed and set up as admin, setting the user to a ?most protected? mode after an update makes some changes/modification to closely monitored files. It could be from 1 of MANY different possibilities. But why don?t we wait to see?

And I?m not losing sleep over it. I think I had 4 post in a month in this thread before the thread cluttering started occurring.

 

[stash]

Look? It may very well be do to a security app installed and set up as admin, setting the user to a ?most protected? mode after an update makes some changes/modification to closely monitored files. It could be from 1 of MANY different possibilities. But why don?t we wait to see?

That's quite a different tune you're singing now. You should've followed your own advice to begin with instead of posting tripe like this:

Don?t look now, but the update experts appear to be at it again?.

How does a forcible reboot and turning on Automatic updates sound to you??

Windows Update automatically changing user settings

MS time and time again proves that they don?t know what they are doing when it comes to updating their own OS. Why do you think so many people have auto updates turn off (wait.. make that on since ?notify my? is actually on in MS?s World).

Hope these people didn?t have anything important running. What? They may have?

Awww too bad MS is not at fault read your EULA.

Nice logic there. I?m not at fault if my updates breaks your computer/applications, but I can update and reboot your computer as I see fit.

Now I know it probably wasn?t on purpose, and it must have been a glitch somewhere in the code. But that is what this whole trust issue is about. I don?t trust your ability to patch correctly (as you have shown me time and time again to be warranted), I choose no updates. You don?t respect my choice and update (even if just the updater itself) automatically. Now we get forcible reboots if we do choose to let you push my updates automatically..

More and more it?s looking like the only choice is going to be turning the service completely ?off?.


3...2...1... for the apologist

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: stash

Look? It may very well be do to a security app installed and set up as admin, setting the user to a ?most protected? mode after an update makes some changes/modification to closely monitored files. It could be from 1 of MANY different possibilities. But why don?t we wait to see?

That's quite a different tune you're singing now. You should've followed your own advice to begin with instead of posting tripe like this:

Don?t look now, but the update experts appear to be at it again?.

How does a forcible reboot and turning on Automatic updates sound to you??

Windows Update automatically changing user settings

MS time and time again proves that they don?t know what they are doing when it comes to updating their own OS. Why do you think so many people have auto updates turn off (wait.. make that on since ?notify my? is actually on in MS?s World).

Hope these people didn?t have anything important running. What? They may have?

Awww too bad MS is not at fault read your EULA.

Nice logic there. I?m not at fault if my updates breaks your computer/applications, but I can update and reboot your computer as I see fit.

Now I know it probably wasn?t on purpose, and it must have been a glitch somewhere in the code. But that is what this whole trust issue is about. I don?t trust your ability to patch correctly (as you have shown me time and time again to be warranted), I choose no updates. You don?t respect my choice and update (even if just the updater itself) automatically. Now we get forcible reboots if we do choose to let you push my updates automatically..

More and more it?s looking like the only choice is going to be turning the service completely ?off?.


3...2...1... for the apologist

Its not a different tune, that statement in the first quote was in regards to the valididty of having the third issue in this particular thread. Dont take it out of context. Right now nobody knows what is causing it. It could be a third part app. If i was a betting man, I would take the odds it isn't. MS has shown over the course of time that thay are not the best when it comes to patching their code.

Are you guys mad that i'm picking on little O' Microsoft? Is that the issue?

The second part was me being a little fiesty with the all out apologist who thought this was no big deal, and quite ordinary. I posted again about the issue when the repair install problems surfaced. I guess it wasnt so ordinary of an update that QA just "missed" the fact that it hoses AU on repairs installs.

Now a new issue surfaces with a AU update changing AU settings and causing foricble reboots.

Let just sum up my whole postion nice and tidy for you guys.

I didnt like MS pushing a WU update even if it was just to the client code, and mildly documented. Its an odd out of band update that strikes more then a few of us as an odd way to do an update.

As this thread bares out, MS has not had the best track record when it comes to their patching system. The list is LONG and plentyful of hickups, 3rd party and their own included. This thread just servers as my protest about the issue, and a place to get some information on the issues caused by it.

I'm really hoping that nothing comes of the third issue, because that would be a complete breakdown of trust between MS and its users. And at that point i would have to re-evaulate some of my current OS allocations.