Login:
Password:

Experts Astonished to Learn Windows Update Updates Itself

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

September 14, 2007, 11:03 AM

A Microsoft program manager found himself conducting a tricky bit of PR yesterday, providing for his team's blog a lengthy explanation of a documented feature in Windows that independent researchers discovered only this week: the ability for the Windows Update service to update itself, even when the user's setting for Automatic Updates is "off." Researchers had charged the company with updating software on users' systems without their consent.

"Windows Update is a service that primarily delivers updates to Windows," the Update service's program manager Nate Clinton wrote yesterday. "To ensure on-going service reliability and operation, we must also update and enhance the Windows Update service itself, including its client side software. These upgrades are important if we are to maintain the quality of the service."

The discovery, which came as news to many, is that the Windows Update service (known internally as WSUS) updates itself through a separate channel, managed through Internet Information Services. While turning off Automatic Updates makes certain Windows doesn't receive any general update downloads without the user's consent or knowledge, WSUS still checks for updates, including those meant for itself. It can then - and typically will - update itself anyway.

"It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's knowledge," wrote Scott Dunn for WindowsSecrets.com earlier this week. "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."

As it turns out, Dunn may have been looking in the wrong place. A brief check of the table of contents on Microsoft's TechNet reveals a page entitled, "Automatic Updates Must Be Updated." Though there is no explicit sentence here that says, "By the way, the IIS-marshaled update channel still functions even when the option in this dialog box is set to 'Turn off Automatic Updates,"' a fairly knowledgeable person reading this page should be able to deduce that this self-update channel is separate and operative.

But should it be? Shouldn't there be a way for the user to say, "I don't want updates, and I mean I don't want updates!" As it turns out, there is. Using the Services panel in Computer Management, a user can very easily switch the active state of Automatic Updates from "Automatic" to "Stopped." A moderately skilled administrator - or certainly any administrator who legitimately received his or her certification - should also be able to disengage WSUS by stopping its service host from the command line.

An administrative guide to deploying and administering WSUS in networks appears on Microsoft TechNet. Although this may not be the most often accessed online documentation by general users, one will find there a page that existed well prior to this latest controversy. Under "Automatic Updates client self-update feature," there is the following: "Each time Automatic Updates checks the public Web site or internal server for updates, it also checks for updates to itself."

For larger configurations using Active Directory, there's also a group policy object for disengaging the self-updating feature. The use of GPOs for managing self-updating is fully documented in this white paper from TechNet.

The apparent abundance of information on the subject seemed to go unnoticed this week. As Scott Dunn wrote, "A search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no information at all on the stealth updates." Dunn went on to say that the files he discovered on his own system to have been updated without his knowledge - files which, incidentally, turn out to be the Windows Update service files themselves - were not listed on Windows Update and could not be downloaded manually by users.

As the TechNet documentation explains, this is because those files are updated via a separate channel. It would probably be as impossible for WSUS to update and replace itself as an automobile to tune itself, or the hero in "Terminator II" to self-terminate.

"The point of this explanation is not to suggest that we were as transparent as we could have been," wrote Microsoft's Nate Clinton yesterday. "To the contrary, people have told us that we should have been clearer on how Windows Update behaves when it updates itself. This is helpful and important feedback, and we are now looking at the best way to clarify WU's behavior to customers so that they can more clearly understand how WU works. At the same time, however, we wanted to explain the rationale for the product's behavior so our customers know what the service is doing: WU updates itself to make sure it continues to work properly."

Clinton went on to point out that the time in which WSUS updates itself is while the user is using Automatic Updates directly, whether it's set to automatic or manual. It does not pick some time out of the blue. That fact does appear to be missing from documentation we've seen.

One prominent blogger yesterday, in presenting what he described as evidence of stealth updates, inadvertently proved Clinton's point. He showed screenshots of his event logs, which recorded WSUS updating itself. Those logs show the WSUS service was started at 4:52:43 pm, and the self-update process recorded as complete at 4:52:48 pm. (Good connection.) Of course, as some have noted, if the event was clearly recorded in the logs...it isn't exactly stealth.

Microsoft security engineer Mark Russinovich offered no comment on the affair to BetaNews yesterday, except to confirm our assessments and to add, "There's nothing nefarious going on."

Add a Comment (51 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By StevieGl

edited Sep 17, 2007 - 11:49 AM

Just out of curiousity, has anyone encountered new problems with accessing the MS Webupdate site since this occurred? All I know is that earlier this summmer, an access issue occurred for those running Spybot S&D (the workaround for which was to turn it off so as to access updates). Now, since roughly the time this secret update occurred, myself and a co-worker, both running Spybot, are erroneously labelled as running WinXP on Mac systems and redirected to MS updates for Mac's. Anyone else?

Score: 0

By pforbes

posted Sep 17, 2007 - 2:39 AM

In october 2002 the writer Richard Stallman wrote this:

http://www.linux.com/articles/25842?tid=19

This article first appeared in his book, "Free Software, Free Society." Somewhere in it he talks about the double meaning of the words "security", "attack,", "malicious code", "spoofing", as well as "trusted." (You may find it better if you choose the "Print" option).

Even when I am sure many of you have already read it (it is 5 yrs old and even I myself have mentioned it before), I bring it back again because it makes you think when you talk about unwanted updates.

Score: 0

By mikeh3

edited Sep 16, 2007 - 6:27 PM

I documented how Windows XP users can protect themselves against Microsoft by turning off the Automatic Updates service. See
Defending yourself against Microsoft
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13554_1-9778871-33.html

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 17, 2007 - 4:28 AM

Yea you can turn it off but there is a way to forcefully turn it back on too that MS has documented in the past... Just from a MSN webpage. like hotmail or onecare ...

And god forbid you delete these files from the OS to prevent it from happening. nope then your a pirate and your OS is crippled by default... Even though its your product to modify any way you wish to enhance your product... Opps no I forgot that a DMCA nono too. Take what you get, or STFU so says MS god and their powerful voice in lobby...

OK many people say well then go to Linux. fine swell.. But I personally have used 4 flavors of Linux in the past and every one has had issues with compatibility. so till Linux is out there available for any joe blow to buy on a machine that has it preloaded on it with everything setup for it like MS does. well the common bloke is just not going to get it... Only those with the technical skill that is more common of a 4 year graduate of a university in the field of computer sciences. True this is dropping in threshold every few years as Linux starts becoming popular with the youth of the world, but as anyone can tell you its all about what they can do to get a job. not what they like to do... And in the end. the majority is still lockheld by MS clutches... unfortunately...

Score: 0

By rsx508

edited Sep 16, 2007 - 9:37 PM

Those are not "experts", they're regular idiots. Anyone who has administered SUS 1.0 up to WSUS 3.0 knows this. It's old news.

What cracks me up are those that are upset it actually updates itself. So back in 2005 when the wuauclt.exe client was causing a CPU lock due to a memory leak, they would rather have lived with that than have it fix itself? morons. f-ing morons.

Score: 0

By mo_mo

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 8:13 PM

this is interesting...i thought experts knew about this before..hmm...i guess not...
there are programs inside Microsoft OS that serectly communicate with Microsoft server even though you think you turn your update off

Score: 0

By Hellgod77

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 3:49 AM

Eventualy we will all pay a monthly subscription for the os and the OS will be free :(

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 17, 2007 - 4:15 AM

Actually the MS model has more in common with a MMORPG then the one you are describing. you will pay a set price for a stripped down OS on your machine (OEM) Windows Vista home basic

Then you pay the subscription for features and updates. The premium of which will be the Ultimate version...

Guess what. this very model is being tested RIGHT NOW in some countries in the world... So Be aware... this is MS ultimate plan for everyone...

So buy an OS then forced to pay a subscription or you go back to basic features...

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 16, 2007 - 2:37 AM

This has been true for some time for the people that are unaware. MS can at any time forcefully push an update of any kind into a Vista or XP SP2 machine. The ONLY way that this is not allowed is to not be connected to the Internet. But guess what? If your not, eventually the software starts complaining aggressively that you are not online...

The point is you pay A LOT of money for a product, NOT a service. I for one wish at some point the Windows PRODUCT would be completed and secure. But it never has been YET. This has not happened with a Windows OS! However MS does not see it that way, you are not in fact buying a book anymore to quote the ever popular Copyright example. So as such 1 person reading the same book at a time is not a valid point any more because you do not get a completed book. In deed this is now the "lack of" service model they adhere too. And that service requires a regular payment of large amounts of money to continue to get security updates on as yet Uncomplete and unsecure MS products... IE the High cost of Vista. However What about the now Abandonware that is Windows XP/2000 and worse 98? Guess what, very soon, MS will simply TURN YOU OFF. And if you do NOT get vista by then well too bad... Not their problem anymore. Books don't change the last chapter after you buy it. Read Harry Potter once Harry lives, all is well with the world, and book over. Next time through Harry dies the world falls into darkness and all is lost. That seems to be MS philosophy anymore.

THIS is why people have issues with MS having too much control. Not Privacy, or Piracy, or even national security... Simply and completly A purchasers Rights to continue to own and USE a product they have rightly and justly been using for years and procured legitimatly, SUDDENLY being told Nope no more.... With NO User choice left to them but to go to A: switch to Linux, or B: Mac OS, (Hopefully soon for all PCs) or C: Reroll for more of the same bull s*** with Microsoft on a new machine cause the latest flavor of more of the same will Never have a hope of running on your old one..

And guess what... Microsoft, thinks this is perfectly within their right to do, because your too stupid to object.

Score: 0

By pforbes

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 3:28 PM

An excellent description. I agree totally with you.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 2:09 AM

This is very natural behavior of any Web-based update tool. Sometimes its necessary to update software itself. This is exactly what MS coders does. I don't see any problem here. Its all PR and stupid users paranoia.

Please get it: If somebody really want to get inside your PC - he(she) will. And does not matter what u are using Mac, Linux, Firewalls etc... Most people just use weak passwords and all strong protection fall in a seconds :))

So don't be silly guys, its not a problem at all

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 3:59 AM

"not a problem at all"....

Really?

Explain how this meets SOX, ISO177999, CoBIT, and HiPAA security policy and procedure standards.
From an audit liability position, this is a big issue.

Why does one think that you probably found the Sony rootkit a 'natural' extension of their copyguard schema as well.

If one turns the service off, they assume responsibility for software that may be out of date, and they have a reasonable expectation that such controls actually do what they say - regardless of your "mother knows best" disregard for the meaning of words and the wishes of the machines' owners.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 16, 2007 - 12:04 PM

This is me and the rest of the world laughing our assess off at you.

Looking past the wording and intent of the above standards and s=certifications, do you honestly think for one second that this will affect *anyones* standing with the organizations that audit those standards and certifications?

Didn't think so...

So...

Your point?

(Go ahead, call me ignorant and tell me I don't get "the point". The irony would keep me entertained for many seconds...O)

Score: 0

By iceing

posted Sep 15, 2007 - 5:54 PM

I can tell you one thing, I had to turn my windows update on because the Services.exe will never let my hard drive sleep. as soon as I turn the updates back on the udates come if there are any and the services.exe goes away and my laptop can finally shut the hard disk off and conserve battery.. how lame =[

Score: 0

By goodguy4life

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 10:27 PM

Most people here says that It's been done years or so, but that is not the actual issue.
If you read the WindowsSecrets link you'll find out that this only occurs after users install the latest version of Windows Updates, version 7.0.6000.381 (and in the article Microsoft said that users can no longer update through Windows Update if they have older version).
In this particular version even if you turn off Automatic Updates from System Properties it's still updating.

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 5:14 PM

I understand that such updates are needed, but doing it the way Microsoft has chosen is completely wrong. It's like me buying some furniture and the company arrives to deliver without any notice so I'm not home. So they use a skeleton key (or something) open my house door and enter delivering the furniture. That's just wrong too, that's why they don't do it that way.

But I expect nothing less from Microsoft, a company I'm learning to fear.

Score: 0

By Average Joe User

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 5:40 PM

I would say it's more like the software you're using auto-updating itself. Like the Google toolbar for IE.

Furniture is a horrible analogy.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

edited Sep 14, 2007 - 5:02 PM

"and as usual the SAME people who _love_ M$ are present and again have no idea what they are talking about. "

fixed that for you...

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Sep 14, 2007 - 4:40 PM

ROFL! fixed it, huh?

Its an update to the update service, that is all. It affects the user in no way whatsoever and has been going on for years and years. so tell me again how I have no idea what I am talking about?

You on the other hand come on EVERY topic that deals with MS and say the exact same thing as every other linux/mac fanboy does. Sorry, to say but your OS isn't perfect, either. Keep dreaming though.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Sep 15, 2007 - 8:59 AM

Not perfect, just way more open and stable...and doesn't make your decisions for you. Lets the user make their own decisions. No spyware, no viruses and a lot better price!

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 3:58 PM

So, people are complaining because the service used to fix windows, is maintaining itself?

Why should a user be informed that an update to the update service is in progress, I personally don't need to see a pop-up window or notification. I am sure there is plenty of other programs that do the same thing as its not necessary to warn the user as the update affects them in no way. As someone else noted, this is nothing new it has been going on for 5-6 years now. This is nothing but flamebait.

and as usual the SAME people who complain about MS are present and again have no idea what they are talking about.

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 5:17 PM

"Why should a user be informed that an update to the update service is in progress"

It's common courtesy. SysAdmins who detect suspicious activity now have to waste their time figure out what's going on, even if it's to their benefit. When I detect suspicious activity on my computer I do the same, usually assuming a virus or spyware app, which in this case would end up wasting my time for nothing.

And I really do not share your view and being left blind. I want to know everything that is happening on my computer period. I'm security conscious.

Score: 0

By DaveBGisAFairy

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 9:51 PM

It displays on the event logs so if you are security conscious you would be looking there, and as noted system admins can disable it via group policy.

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

edited Sep 16, 2007 - 1:06 PM

There's so many things that have to be monitored and disabled, registry settings that have to be edited blah blah blah that it's a full time job. I have nightmares at the idea of a fresh or new Windows OS install.
It would be nice if the only security I was monitoring for was the work of virus, spyware writers. But having to monitor Microsoft and other software companies is just too much. A change is needed on how these companies view their customers.

Score: 0

By iceing

posted Sep 15, 2007 - 5:58 PM

sweet, this group policy thing should fix that services.exe activity problem im having

Score: 0

By spiked

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 3:14 PM

Factual corrections: WSUS stands for Windows Server Update Services, a feature of Windows Server which network administrators must intentionally download, install, and manage on their own networks. WSUS is the successor to SUS (System Update Services).

WSUS is NOT the same as Windows Update (a public web service), nor Automatic Updates (a Win32 service). Some client-side components are shared between all 3, but they work independently and are administered separately.

The so-called "news" is that the client-side components can be updated automatically and silently IF Automatic Updates is turned on (which the user MUST do; this is NOT the default in a clean install of any version of Windows). The supposed "scandal" is just that the automatic updating can still occur if Automatic Updates is set to "notify" before doing anything.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 2:08 PM

Ahhhh, its so nice to be on the GREEN side of the fence.

Good luck with all that tho.... "laughs"

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:56 PM

Who knows what risks this back door exposes people to. That is the price you pay for running closed proprietary software like M$ Windows.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Sep 15, 2007 - 1:13 AM

Zealots like you are the reason people don't take FOSS seriously. I like FOSS as much as the next guy and hate Microsoft with an intesity that only the sun can surpass but as long as you zealots keep roaming site such as this like a bunch of pissed off teens no one will ever take FOSS seriously. I mean really, just think about how that attitude reflects on the community if that is all other people see.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Sep 15, 2007 - 9:27 AM

OMG! Finally, a FOSS user that doesn't go on and on, you must not live in your parents basement, huh? :)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Sep 15, 2007 - 1:02 PM

Well the way I see it the whole idea is to point people in the right direction so they can learn more about FOSS. If it's right for them then great, if it's not then it's not the end of the world. there's no need for all this pointless poking and badgering that's going on. People should be allowed to switch or not of thier own will and in thier own time. The thing to remember is that FOSS isn't for everyone yet. It is key that some common sense is shown in these kind of things.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 3:32 PM

...and the price for running, what, FOSS is to be like you?

*laughs*

I'll take closed, proprietary software over that outcome *any* day.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 2:14 PM

Go home and stop trolling. Your beloved MAD is also a closed proprietary software.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:53 PM

The point I think most people complaining about this has been one I've had for a while: lack of communication about these updates. Microsoft has pushed updates to WSUS before without clear communication about doing so. forcing admins to scramble, and really was the whole reason for WSUS 3: proper classification of updates so admins can approve. Home users and other users out of the domain don't have suc a right. they get the push regardless. AND NO NOTIFICATION.

Scary stuff.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Sep 15, 2007 - 1:07 AM

....and just who the heck do you think you are? I mean really...thinking Microsoft should respect people enough to let them know about every little update.......oh the nerve of some people.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 3:30 PM

Home users and other users out of the domain don't have suc a right. they get the push regardless. AND NO NOTIFICATION.

Okay...woah there, boy.

Let's bring the FUD-wagon to a halt for now and try to be at least a *bit* less tinfoil-hatish about it.

It's a an update for the update system. It doesn't log your information. It doesn't interfere with the system. It doesn't transfer personal information, and it uses a minuscule amount of bandwidth. As far as a home-user is concerned, it is meaningless.

The *only* reason this is even an issue is because the tinfoil-hat crowd is making it one.

If this truly scares you, you are in dire need of some serious mental help.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 12:55 PM

This is really retarded, and I can't believe this is even an issue.

First of all, Automatic Updates has functioned this way for what-- 5 or 6 years now? And yet people are just noticing?

Second, it's the friggen AU engine updating itself so that it's capable of recognizing what updates are necessary.

If it were installing actual hotfixes, THEN and only then would I have some concerns. But running Windows Update from the web site does EXACTLY THE SAME FRIGGEN THING.

Get a damn clue people! Anyone who responds with me being a blind faith sort of person is just as retarded as those spreading this kind of FUD report.

Score: 0

By goodguy4life

edited Sep 14, 2007 - 4:17 PM

It's different you dumbas*, it's WSUS not AU,
do you even read the article?
While most users know they have the option to turn AU off, it's not the same with WSUS, it's undocumented, and to turn it off you have to be pretty advanced to figure it out your self (that is by opening services.msc). That's what the issue is about. I don't mind the automatic updating, but I mind that people might get the wrong information from your stupidity.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 7:52 PM

No, it's AU, not WSUS. The article got it wrong! And no, WU is *not* known internally as WSUS. I use WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) at work. It's not the same thing as WU (Windows Update). WSUS acts as a go-between between Windows/Microsoft Update and the computers that are configured to check the WSUS server for updates. WSUS is meant for Microsoft domains. http://technet.microsoft.com/wsus/default.aspx

Score: 0

By goodguy4life

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 10:50 PM

thank you for correcting me (and the article too).

I think the point still holds that the issue is : even when you turn off automatic updating it still updates. and it didn't happen the last 5 or 6 years, it's only occurs on latest version of AU, particularly version 7.0.6000.381.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:29 PM

Agreed.

Without these updates, Microsoft could not even have the capability of updating itself anymore. You'd go to Windowsupdate, and it'd give an error. Kinda like if you tried to run windows update for windows 95 today--MS has updated the underlying methodology of windows updating altogether and since windows 95's updater was out of date after it was EOL, it can no longer update itself.

Try updating Windows XP with SP1a today while the IIS service is disabled--not gonna happen (unless the auto update was already installed for that version prior to SP1's end of support).

There has to be another way of checking updates because the updater needs updated. Now--can/should MS be more open about it downloading something without your knowledge? Perhaps so--this, to me, is not even remotely a problem in and of itself.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:50 PM

huh? IIS isn't installed on XP by default as a service.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:00 PM

Automatic Updates has functioned this way for what-- 5 or 6 years now? And yet people are just noticing?


Tell me about it, I could use a job like that..

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 1:54 PM

Hell, it has ALWAYS logged events in event viewer since the beginning. You are the absolute WORST SYSADMIN **EVER** if you have never noticed them before now.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 12:37 PM

It's really a matter of choice. Those who prefer proprietary, closed source software must choose "blind faith" belief in what they have, since there is no access to the code. Back doors or whatever may exist come with the product.

The other choice is open source software. Those people using open source don't have to trust the vendor.

Just a matter of trust and choice...to each their own. Personally, I feel more secure in what I have using open source only.

Score: 0

By meb

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 11:54 AM

I do imagine MS has a door in there so in the event of a DoS attack against the Windows Update site, the WSUS can upgrade and point to a different system to circumvent the attack.

Whilst the idea is sound, it's implementation probably isn't. Users should be given the option to know what's going on.... particularly as in my country we are meter for every piece of content downloaded.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 17, 2007 - 9:59 AM

I do imagine MS has a door in there so in the event of a DoS attack against the Windows Update site, the WSUS can upgrade and point to a different system to circumvent the attack.

Ever since the MSBLAST worm came along, yes. That and windowsupdate.com no longer works without the 'www' in front.

Score: 0

By ostrakon

posted Sep 14, 2007 - 11:44 AM

And this comes as a surprise... how, exactly?

I'm not going to actively bash Microsoft in general, though many of its practices are percieved (rightfully so) as dubious, but I will make the disclaimer of being a long-time MS user who's recently switched to Apple.

Having said that, hasn't Redmond been in the spotlight quite often for occurences such as these? I'm not sure where experts could get "astonished" by this bit of information. Though I won't say that it's always the case, it certainly seems that though MS will do what it thinks it can get away with, in many instances

Certainly, any reasonable user should be willing to admit that there has been a great deal of good that has come from Microsoft, but to respond to Russinovich's statement at the end of, "There's nothing nefarious going on", well Mark, perception is nine-tenths of nearly everything.

Score: 0

By james079

edited Sep 14, 2007 - 2:08 PM

A lot of ado about nothing. I'm happy that automatic update updates itself without interrupting me... otherwise i'd send it to hell or throw the pc out of the window.. but tell me what do you pretend that Windows pops up a notification... hello I've just updated windows update ahhaaa so f what.... an OS should be as uninterruptive as possible IMHO. Just log the thing and bugger off. But "oh thank god I swithched to Apple now" Oh come on.......

Score: 0

By Sarg

posted Sep 15, 2007 - 2:33 PM

"You have chosen to turn off Automatic Updates. Do you still want to allow Windows Update to update Windows Update or do you want to update Windows Update when you update Windows?"

Score: 0

By katmai

edited Sep 17, 2007 - 4:59 AM

I don't understand. Why do people complain so much about such a trifle. That is simply harmless and complaining would be stupid. Because what happens if at some point you decide to have every update off right? and then ms changes the way WSUS is authenticating and getting the updates? when you turn on the updates at some point this would break the system and people would start complaining on why they cant get the updates. So clear me up here: How come people complain about MS being an insecure system, when 80 % of the world population uses it for a desktop, when you got almost any friggin application on this earth running on windows. Have you ever tried linux as a desktop ? Let me put it this way. Get linux installed on a desktop then after the 1hour and 30 minutes to install 4 gb or 6 gb of data, because yes you need the same stuff to be working, office, and you have to install a LOT of dependencies. Then you have to check that the drivers for the video card are not working, then you have to make the sound work. Then what ? You get the apps crashing if you don't install something correctly, and you have to read the readme, modify system files, get all things working properly, and after all you put in you think "ah i'm done", NO you are not done, because it's open source and everybody contribues, which is good, but there is not a straight line within the coding, so mistakes might slip in, so for every stuff you will add you have to check for often updates, and install and upgrade, aaaalll by yourself. Let me see you complain then. Nobody helps you, but hey, you get a system that doesn't update it's updating system by itself right? Let's get a fact straight here. MS is a great product whatever any of you would say. I would not enjoy pretty much to spend time like 8 9 hours to setup my computer after i installed the OS, and regard of that, i would definitely want my programs to work, not to cry about compatibility and other programs that are required. Get your heads straight. ms is doing a great job with windows, people just like to complain. Yet complaining got microsoft to release vista, and complaining will help getting windows to a better system even than now is. It's all about spending less time with the machine setup and more time with actually making the things work.

As things come by: WHY on earth would i want notification that the system updates itself. Will i do anything than close the window? Will i look at the hashes to see if the patches or whatever have been installed correctly ? How many of the people that argued have actually read the MS kb to see what the update is for? How many people actually know what a kb is and what technet is ? Get serious, if i wanted windows to give me notifications every time, i would have installed some ad stuff to pop ads for me , and then i would have been dead happy, i get to click and see notifications all the time.

Score: 0