The forced update broke the Windows repair disk.

The Windows repair disk does not repair Windows correctly because of the forced update.

The Windows repair disk is broken because of the forced update.

The Windows repair disk can only repair Windows. If MS forces a silent update that rewrites Windows as Ubunto, the repair disk can't repair correctly.

This is why MS should not have silently forced an update on unsuspecting users.

Because MS didn't bother to explain why the update was needed, as you article explains this can cause issues for network admins, etc. NOW people are complaining about that update because it breaks one of the most common disaster recovery tools available for winXP.

I fail to see what your problem is with people raising this issue?

"But it's inconsistent for critics to take Microsoft to task for pushing an update that was necessary for the continued smooth running of Windows Update and then gripe when the update gets undone by a repair disk."

No it's not. The first gripe is about MS's unwillingness to recognize its responsibility to notify users of its software's activity on their PCs, and to accept users' decisions about what software is installed on their PCs. The second is about MS's failure to test their update against a very common scenario.

In fact, it would be only be inconsistent if users didn't recognize that the two issues were related, and that the practical problem could only have been avoided by Microsoft behaving differently in both cases (i.e, if Microsoft had tested a repair scenario AND notified users about the update, it could have included information about fixing auto updates after a repair within the original KB article for the update.) But since MS did neither (and in fact even if it had done one or the other but not both) the result was yet more erosion of users' confidence in the company.

The silent update isn't the red herring. The red herring is the false impression that this is about Automatic Updates, when it's really about Microsoft listening to its customers.

The fact that windows update performed in a way entirely contrary to its users explicit instructions and Microsoft's documentation is by no means a "red herring."

Microsoft tried to downplay the issue by saying that the update was good and proper, was most definitely harmless, and the closest they came to accepting responsibility was that they "could have been more transparent."

Well now it turns out that the update in question was not harmless at all. A misbehaving update which can kill the auto update functionality under some circumstances is bad, but forgivable. But now it's all the more a slap in the face that this was also the one update which was invisibly declared non-optional by Redmond.

Technical flaws happen. Anybody using MS products for any length of time has probably become conditioned to accept them. But a security policy blunder like this is a much, much bigger issue. That you think the easily fixed technical problem is the only real issue here is simply bizarre, and inconsistent with just about every security researcher's opinion on the matter that I've read.

But let's put your "red herring" idea to the test. Let's see if Microsoft forces the fix to this problem on their users in the same way that the forced the update that caused the problem in the first place. I suspect they wont, meaning at least Microsoft got this one correct, even if you missed its significance entirely.

...suppose I yield to the argument that we/customers are being inconsistent.

I do not care.

I am the customer. I vote with my dollars. Or pounds. Or yen.

Who is the vendor, and who is the purchaser, here?

- The Garret

leaping on any bandwagon without checking facts, getting stories straight, reading the manual, etc. etc. etc.

Yawn.

They probably also complained ad nauseum when they were forced to change to metric, too. (If they live in a country advanced enough to use metric, that is)

At least us Apple-bashers rely only on cold hard physical evidence that Macs Are Crap.

Ask the BOFH; he'll set you straight.

Just try to get older software support, or even the "last released" version of something. I was trying to get IE 5.5 for Win 98se. It seems that on Win 98, the latest Adobe reader needs it. What a pain. Microsoft doean't archive these "obsolete" versions of things on their site. I've also got an older Apple Quadra 840AV (nice machine for its age). At least I can go to Apple's site where they have older versions available. OK, they are obsolete, but at least they are there. Maybe Microsoft is embarassed that anyone would want an improved version that runs faster, even if it was a few years old. Apple has no qualms. Maybe there is a lesson here. Time will tell.

Most of my machines use Linux anyway, but that is another story...

The justification for the forced update seems plain wrong anyway. A PC may spend an arbitrary amount of time disconnected from the internet and all other network connections. PCs were used before the internet ever became popular, and not everyone is an addict. Microsoft cannot assume that any past version of Update is ever completely gone, and must always support a reasonable upgrade route from all past versions at all times.

If Microsoft must always support upgrades from all versions at all times, why should it need to force a particular upgrade at a particular time?

This is just sloppy systems programming I do expect it from MS I don't think it's right I just expect them to screw it up. I don't care but I would think at this point people would stop worrying about it.

Dont talk rubbish, theres nothing sloppy about it, thats the kind of comment you get from Philistinism.

If you let Windows Update check for updates, them it seems to me that you intend to install at least some of them. If Microsoft thinks that a patch is so critical that it should install it automitcally then I think theyd be a pretty good judge of whats needed.

The people that want to go and zap are those that have Windows Update turned off completly. If you're on the net Windows should force the end user to keep up to date. This is exactly like the Measles jab, people dont give it to their kids and we get a major problem. People dont apply patches and we get things like the Sasser Worm

> But it's inconsistent for critics to take Microsoft to task for pushing an update that was necessary for the continued smooth running of Windows Update and then gripe when the update gets undone by a repair disk.

What part of "I want to update only when I want to update" is inconsistent? It's not "update when I don't want to update" or "don't update when I want to update."

> At least I can go to Apple's site where they have older versions available.

Apple's good about 7.5 and the like ( http://www.info.apple.com/support/oldersoftwarelist.html ), but here's a challenge. iTunes 3.0, or any version that'll run on MacOS 9.

Many PCs use WSUS. They won't get this update.

What does the update do, and why should some PCs but not others, need it?

I OWN my PCs. MS only thinks that they do.

If you think that MS is a good judge of anything where USERS' best interests are concerned I suggest you review the available evidence. Or ask those people whose "Windows Experience" was enhanced by installing WGA.

What I am concerned about is that MS will issue an update that disables XP in some way so we all have to rush out and buy Vista . Is that possible they will do this do you think ?.

They ignored the update policy on a computer and sent a forced update through anyway. You just don't get how major that is.

THEY HAVE THEIR OWN BACKDOOR INTO EVERY COMPUTER! Which means no documents on any Windows computer is safe. Regardless of encryption, format, location, anything else.

What that patch did (or what the previous one did that they wanted to overwrite), isn't as major as THEY'VE GIVEN THEMSELVES A BACKDOOR ONTO EVERY COMPUTER!

We learn from this that you might own the hardware but don't for a minute believe you own the software or any data on it. If Microsoft wants to target your individual PC, read your files and install software, perhaps under the orders of a USA "security" agency or maybe just from someone that pays them enough, then they can and will. I guess that's the same for any automatic update system, but with Microsoft when you think you've turned it off, you really haven't.

I disagree. Microsoft violates the principle of least surprise. Yet again. The complaint is perfectly legitimate.

I've seen this happen when installing SP4 on Windows 2000 after a fresh install, and on XP (even before MS's 'update'), so why all the outcry now? Often WSUS seems to stop working on some machines when MS issues an update like this. Usually, manually going to the Windows update site will fix this, sometimes something stronger like the excellent "Dial-a-fix" tool by DJ Lizard is needed, sometimes you really have dig for it and see what services are 'broken.' But again, this is something that corporate Sysadmins have been living with for a long time.

"Microsoft eventually explained that the forced update concerned Windows Update itself, and as such, was installed on machines that were configured to keep track of new patches, even if the user had opted not to have them automatically applied. Failure to patch Windows Update would prevent it from working reliably, Microsoft said."

Why didn't Microsoft simply present this as an optional update explaining that its installation would be necessary to receive further updates? At least that way people would have had control over what was running on their machines. The fact that this forced update actually broke an importaint tool that people use to repair their machines and to feel that they have some measure of control over their own property only makes it worse.

But hey, the people who have been affected by this should probably count themselves lucky that they haven't been suckered into "upgrading" from Windows XP yet. If this article had been about Windows Vista then I could easily imagine that my quote from the article would have been something along the lines of the following:

"Microsoft eventually explained that the forced update concerned Windows Vista itself, and as such, was installed on machines that were configured to keep track of user activities, even if the user had opted not to have them automatically applied. Failure to patch Windows Vista would prevent it from working reliably, Microsoft said."

"Microsoft eventually explained that the forced update concerned Windows Update itself, and as such, was installed on machines that were configured to keep track of new patches, even if the user had opted not to have them automatically applied. Failure to patch Windows Update would prevent it from working reliably, Microsoft said."

Why didn't Microsoft simply present this as an optional update explaining that its installation would be necessary to receive further updates? At least that way people would have had control over what was running on their machines. The fact that this forced update actually broke an importaint tool that people use to repair their machines and to feel that they have some measure of control over their own property only makes it worse.

But hey, the people who have been affected by this should probably count themselves lucky that they haven't been suckered into "upgrading" from Windows XP yet. If this article had been about Windows Vista then I could easily imagine that my quote from the article would have been something along the lines of the following:

"Microsoft eventually explained that the forced update concerned Windows Vista itself, and as such, was installed on machines that were configured to keep track of user activities, even if the user had opted not to have them automatically applied. Failure to patch Windows Vista would prevent it from working reliably, Microsoft said."

> If you let Windows Update check for updates, them it seems to me that you intend to install at least some of them.

Or that you'd like to first review what's available before making your OWN decision, so that you can try to judge any impact on existing installed software - software which might have nothing to do with Microsoft?

> If Microsoft thinks that a patch is so critical that it should install it automitcally then I think theyd be a pretty good judge of whats needed.

Microsoft has never demonstrated an ability to judge anything properly - least of all the needs or opinions of the machine's OWNER. (clue: it's not Microsoft)

Windows update: you visit a web site, and in consequence core operating system files get replaced. Just what kind of amoeba could possibly have thought that was a good idea? I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat.

-A.

MS have issued an update to Windows Update that MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST be applied *NOW*. It's so critical that it's applied now that it's going to be applied whether you want it or not. Next week isn't good enough. Before the next updates you do apply isn't good enough.

So, ummm... what happens in six months time when somebody reinstalls Windows from the OEM install CD that came with their machine several years ago...? Will they be able to install this update then? Or will they be barred from Windows Update completely, and left with an unpatched pre-SP1 install...?

With install keys being specific to and incompatible between "genuine MS", licence scheme and different branded OEM install CDs, there's no easy way to start from a post-hyper-critical-update CD without a lot of fannying about building slipstreamed media, so there's going to be an awful lot of very broken copies of XP in short order.

Is this a sneaky plan to get people to upgrade to Vista after all...?

Here's a wonder for you. At random times after running windows update, all you can see are wingdings, and all your fonts are lost. Try running a regedit repair when you get have wingdings instead of characters.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919752

SYMPTOMS

Consider one of the following scenarios:

• You install updates from the Microsoft Windows Update Web site at the same time that antivirus software is running on a Microsoft Windows XP-based computer.

• You run a virus scan on the computer after you install updates from the Windows Update Web site.

In this scenario, most of the Windows fonts on the computer may not be registered. Additionally, the default Windows display font becomes a symbol font such as Wingdings or Webdings. When a symbol font is used as the default display font, you may not be able to read the UI where this font is used.

BULLSHIT

"If you're on the net Windows should force the end user to keep up to date. This is exactly like the Measles jab, people dont give it to their kids and we get a major problem. People dont apply patches and we get things like the Sasser Worm"

How many years has XP been out? How many patches have been released? And how many worms, virus and so on have affected it or its components, such as IE and Outlook?

Patching is something that is done after the fact. The way to avoid malware problems is to use systems that are properly designed and administered. I don't update my copy of windows: it works, why the fk would I let Microsoft change that? I do run Zonealarm, and keep it fully up to date - and run periodic scans of my machine.

Microsoft shouldn't "force" people to do shit. Microsoft provide software to users. They should do it on the users terms. But we all know how likely that is.

Just installed XP Pro on a new hard drive, tried to update the files, and Windows Update icon in Control Panel doesn't work, tried to go to Microsoft website to download the update software, no go-won't even download, tried going to Windows Update through Internet Explorer favorites, and IE freezes up.

So I guess that answers the question about the OEM install.

Surely rewriting Windows as Ubuntu is repair in itself, and therefore requirement of said repair disc is no longer needed?

Oh to be frivolous!

Flamin' Nora... MS shoot 'emselves in the foot? They've blown everything south of the nipples off this time.

Some people mournfully predict (half jokingly) that MS will deliberately cripple XP to 'force' people to buy Vista.

If a company releases a product that is so broken and unreliable that even the part of it designed to keep its brokenness under control ends up breaking it even further, and a person responds to this by rushing out to buy even more products from that company, well.....

All I'd say to them is 'Go for it'. Fools and their money ~are~ quickly parted after all, and Paul Allen's yacht isn't quite as impressive as it once was, is it?

Nice to know that Microsoft has the ability to push any software they please on my computers without my knowledge or consent.

I actually read the entire EULA once, but I must have missed that section that gives makes this even remotely legal.

First of all, having just reinstalled for a customer several Windows 2000 servers, I know that before installing any system updates, I have to update Windows Update several times, including a couple of reboots.... so if Windows update can be updated this way, why does MS need to force an upgrade? What would happen if this forced upgrade service got hacked and pushed a malware named 'Windows Update' to several million PC's?

On a similar note, I have also noted that on 2000/XP systems that Windows Update checks that all it's services (3 in total) are not only running, but set to automatic start, otherwise, even if manually started, you cannot update... so your PC's need to run needlessly 5 mb of code and data, 23.5 hours a day... This linked with other unneeded services for a home user (DNS [only works for an Active Directory network], Windows time [most firewalls block it], telephony [no use if you have an ethernet/wifi connection], distributed link [never seen it used]...) Can anyone say bloat?

Finally, when I repair a system,I do not expect the repair to break somthing... OK, several services and applications are going to get rolled back, especially if you repair an XP system with SP2 installed with it's original non-SP CD, but no-one thought of making the update client self repairing?

If updates are set, and with the number of PC's available (and the general technical knowledge - or lack of - with most users), I am surprised that MS cannot maintain a backward compatible service that would allow users to upgrade their updaters until finally being able to upgrade the system - even if it takes a week, between 4 updater upgrades (and associated reboots) and then finally a system and app upgrade...

And if I set the system not to upgrade at all, Not At All means what it says. It's my PC and my damn responsability. I own the hardware, I decide what code gets installed on it: Agreeing to a EULA is one thing, but not to signing a blank check (IE you agree to the EULA now, and this covers your agreement to currently installed code, but also code and functionnality that does not exist yet and that you do not know about).

Appalling editorial decision to publish this M$ apologia.

When oh when oh when will Redmond UNDERSTAND that we OWN our PCs - not them??

We can only hope that they learn the transparency lesson. Oh! and perhaps they should include advice when an update is so fundamental that we are strongly advised to make a new "known good" (? known OK-ish would be more accurate?) backup?

I have blocked Micro$oft in my firewall for years. Anything that has microsoft in the resolved domain name is blocked. I review the patches at work and copy them to CDR and install the ones I want.

Micro$oft no longer has the privilege of touching my system.

Personally, I would like to know what was wrong with Windows Update that needed fixing. Seriously. WU has been running for....well, since Win98 at least, with periodic updates. If you didn't have the latest version of WU, you were given the option of either installing the new version, or going without patches. It didn't matter how old your old version of WU was, you could always update to the latest version, and then apply the patches.

It was all well and good until Microsoft decided to integrate WU with the operating system. That wasn't all bad, really--since most users don't care about security, it was fine for XP to download and install updates on its own by default. Since then, however, it appears that they have begun to assert more and more authority over our computers. If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time there's been a forced update contrary to the user's wishes. It's just that this is the first time it's had nasty consequences.

I completely disagree with the rather biased writer - this is not a two-faced issue.

The main issue is that MS have decided unilaterally that a patch will be installed; this patch clearly disables any ability to repair a system effectively.

At no point is the owner of the computer in question ever given any choice.

This isn't about Automatic Updates ability to function - this is a user choice issue.

Plain and simple.

Why is it two-faced to complain about a patch being installed without authorisation and then complain that this patch can break a function over which the user should have ultimate control and sanction?

Once again MS have taken the "We know best" approach and given the resulting SNAFU, this is obviously not true.

Vote with your currency. Stop buying Microsoft. They will not stop behaving this way until you do.

What insentive do they have while they are still raking in your cash?

If the roofers came back to me and said they wanted to install a new patch, I'd say WTF? I'd probably get pretty angry too, especially if they showed up in the middle of the night without asking me! When I write the cheque, I expect that to be the last of it. It's standard practice not to pay for something until it's finished. This whole Windows patch thing is just plain unprofessional, regardless of the reasons. Like with the roofers, I honestly don't care whose fault it is. I don't want to hear any reasons or excuses, and I don't want to see them again for a number of years. Of course if the work was done for free, I wouldn't have a reason to complain.

the above noted post: Computers with backdoors! is ABSOLUTELY all that really matters here. can we ALL look at the big picture please?

it seems a lot of people seem to be missing the point, if MS can silently put patch's on your system what else could they do with you knowing?

oh look they just got your credit cards details and charged a copy of vista to it to boost sales :) , or even worse someone at MS could get something on your system via a "silent update" take all your details, passwords, etc and sell them to the highest bidder

Hmm time to get linux on dual boot, shame game makers don't do linux clients, then would be no need for the dual boot :)

And there we have it, surely a record. How long before someone bashes Apple, and in an article that's not even related to the Mac.

Well done. Almost as much fun as watching any England football match and waiting to see how long before the commentator mentions 1966!

In the UK the Computer Misuse Act 1990 states:

"A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge. "

and...

"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both. "

"Many PCs use WSUS. They won't get this update."

Actually, in a default install of WSUS, updates to Windows Update itself are set to automatically approve for "All Computers", so unless your sysadmin has unticked that option, all your internal machines updating from WSUS will likely have received and applied this update by now.

You may be the customer, but you agreed to the EULA .. nuff said methinks.

I know a large portion of the IT industry still like to bash MS for anything and everything they do, increasingly it’s just plain silly, please get over it. I’ve been a critic in the past and will be in the future from time to time but no one will ever take that seriously due to the constant silliness of the average ‘MS hater’. Windows XP was surprisingly good, fact! it hurt to accept but I have now and lets move an and keep it real :D

p.s

have you seen the way Bill wears his pants… terrible!

So what if M1cr0$h4ft have taken it upon themselves to force a fix for part of XP. So what if they have used yet another gaping hole in the security of their bloatware in order to do it.

Call me a cynic but wouldn't it be nice if they actually fixed the operating system while they are at it?

Windows98 was supposed to be the full fix for 95 - nope, still waiting... Windows 2000 and ME ? nope - still waiting... Windows XP comes along as the great new OS? nope - still waiting... Vista ? HA HA HA!!! - the single greatest advert for Linux ever... and now, not only are we still waiting for proper drivers, support and security but there is now valuable M1cr0$h4ft time, money and effort being spent on Vienna because MS have absolutely NO intention of providing what the end client originally asked for; to wit: a secure, reliable operating system.

Have you ever read a UELA agreement? ... see below...

Do you buy the software (ie. you own it) or do you buy a licence to use it (ie. Microsoft own Windows and give you permission to install it) ?

To use the roofing analogy above, if I'd paid roofers and they realised after doing the job that they'd left a big hole in my roof, I'd rather they came and fix it rather than waiting for me to notice the water running in.

5. Internet-Based Services. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with this supplement. It may change or cancel them at any time. This supplement connects to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet as described below. In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when it connects.

((Microsoft reserves the right to change its mind or cancel this deal altogether. Microsoft admit however that it will use your personal bandwidth to keep in touch with your computer and it will not necessarily inform you when it is doing so.))

6. Computer Information. This supplement uses Internet protocols to send to Microsoft computer information, such as your Windows XP product key, hard drive serial number, PC manufacturer, operating system version, Windows XP product ID, PC BIOS information, user locale setting, language version of Windows XP, validation result and whether the installation of this supplement was successful. Certain information derived from your IP address, which cannot be used to identify you, is retained in association with this computer information.

((Microsoft will keep a note of your IP number, plus details of your hard disk identity, you computer and internet providers, your settings and your location and store it linked to your product key for windows. If, in the future, you upgrade your computer, the differences will force you to purchase another operating system, by which time we should have got rid of the last of XP and filled all the shelves with Vista or Vienna.))

7. Use of Information. We may use the computer information to improve our software and services, help prevent improperly licensed use of the software, and develop aggregate statistics. We may also share the aggregate data with others, such as hardware and software vendors

((Microsoft reserve the right to give your details to manufacturers of computer software and hardware. As if your junk mail folder wasn't already full enough, now I can look forward to seeing adverts for all the new hardware I can't afford but need in order to run the operating system I can't afford and don't want))

8. CONSENT FOR INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. BY USING THIS FEATURE, YOU CONSENT TO THE TRANSMISSION AND USE OF THE ABOVE COMPUTER INFORMATION.

and that is why I click "Decline"

Dan,

I'm disappointed with this article, because usually your articles are of a high quality (and better than most of the other Reg writers)

----------

"red herrings about stealth updates" : they weren't red herrings, based on the first half of your article!

I quote : "the end user who should ultimately decide what software runs on it"

----------

"But it's inconsistent for critics to take Microsoft to task for pushing an update that was necessary for the continued smooth running of Windows Update and then gripe when the update gets undone by a repair disk"

There is no inconsistency. There are two problems, being articulated by the same people. The first one is the user controlling what is installed on their PC (see earlier in your article). The second one is an update (whether pushed by MS or pulled by myselves) breaking vital functionality. Two separate complaints about two separate problems. It is not inconsistent to complain about both of them.

if i was a hacker, i would be delighted to learn that microsoft has a build-in backdoor

if i was a hacker i would set out to find how it works and make my own "patch" - just imagine, an undetectable rootkit (just ask Sony how to do it)

- complete access - and the user wouldn't even have to click on anything, email OR funny links

i wonder if antivirus programs would be able to detect something like this

Let me see if I understand this:

Automatic Updates is *allegedly* under user control. There are 3 options.

i) Automatically Update the system with all the relevant new patches.

ii) Present the user with a list of the new relevant patches and allow the user to determine whether or not to apply them.

iii) The user has expressed a preference not to be notified of the existence of patches at all. They will either get the patches from another source (Company Update sites, Removable media, with the list of patches compiled by someone who vaguely knows what they are doing) or do without.

Now it turns out that choosing to be responsible for the configuration of your own hardware is not being honoured. There always exists the possibility that some fool in M$ could ( via action / inaction / malice / love / social engineering) allow an arbitrary package to be silently sent to any Intarweb connected Windows box.

Isn't this a Backdoor into the system? How secure is this backdoor? (Help! We are through the Looking Glass; I appear to be positing the existence of Secure Security Holes !?)

How easy would it be for someone to spoof a Mega Kritikal Update to dump the wacky world of Warez, Virii, Trojanuses, and other software Buckets of Sunshine [(c) Lewis Page 2007] straight onto my harddrive?

It would seem that the only way to secure your system from these buckets would be to break an allegedly disabled feature, by repairing it, and then manually repatch the system back to it's previous level.

Is that right? Is the above really a simplified and exaggerated version of what's happened, and its potential implications?

Does Windows Update go looking for new patches to Pull down, regardless of the AU settings, or were they Pushed onto the boxes? (Trying to figure how how this would be exploited.)

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

Bonus Feature for the TinFoil Hatters - Pick your favourite:

THEY (You know who THEY are!) have had full control to your PC all along. And you never suspected a thing. And even if you did there's nothing you could have done about it. You're no better than those mindless meat-sack drones that we (uhh, you) call Sheeple!!! Run!! Hide!! It's all True!!

or

It's all a Giant Conspiracy to improve Vista Sales!!! It's now impossible to assume you have a secure XP installation!!!11!!one! To ensure security you must either: Go Linux, Mac, OtherOS, which is unlikely, cos you'd have done it already; or Buy Vista, which is safe from all this nastiness, thanks to it's updated security model.

or

Tehy blew it!!! A Brave Courageous Whistleblower revealed teh existence of tehir Top Secret Back door! Now we have evidence taht TEHY (see "THEY" - first option) have been secretly infesting our computers all along. Now we can fight back! Teh Revelation taht starts teh Revolution!!shift+one!!11!!!

Am I the only person here that thinks running Windows Update & checking automatic update status is something you need to do after doing a system restore? Its basic computer admin.

Are you kidding? unless you get a Mac or build your own x86 PC it's pretty to avoid paying the borg tax.

The EU are making some right moves in discussing the practice of OEM Windows licencing. Maybe then people can buy a naked PC easily without the OEM having to report you to Microsoft for suspected piracy (yes, Microsoft encourage that).

I'm happy with my Mac, call me smug or whatever you like. It's the first time I've had a computer I can just switch on and use since the days of the Amiga. Linux and Windows both had their annoyances.

To further use the roofing analogy, if when you paid your (obviously crap :-) roofers you'd told them in no uncertain terms that, should they notice any problems with their work, you wanted them to tell you about it but NOT start any repairs without your go-ahead, but you then woke up in the middle of the night to find them hammering away on your roof without bothering to uphold their side of the agreement, then wouldn't you perhaps be a bit pissed off?

It's like when I take the car to be serviced, I *always* tick the box that says the garage MUST contact me before fixing anything not already covered by the servicing charge. If, having ticked that box and not had any phone calls from them except to say the car was ready, I then showed up at the garage to find they'd gone ahead and done an extra grands-worth of work and were expecting me to pay for it all before giving me back the keys, I'd be bloody furious. So why is it somehow OK for MS to take your permission to be INFORMED about an available update, and turn that into permission for it to be INSTALLED without your say so? Quite simply, it isn't.

But there's more than one critic, it doesn't make them all inconsistent that some complain about forced updates and some complain about non-forced updates.

regarding the roofing contractors...

IF I had my roof built/fixed only to find a gaping hole in it - I am entitled to take the contractor to court, sue their ass and keep the roof they installed.

I've been battling with this issue most of this afternoon - decided to take a break and read the reg website - first thing I noticed was this article - followed the link and it all now works - hurraah for the Reg.

this boils down to (once again) the fact that as far as M$ is concerned, Windows on YOUR machine is not yours, it's THEIRS, and it will always be theirs, regardless of how much money you forked over to them for it, and they think they can do whatever they want to modify it when they feel it's "necessary".

so, justifying a statement like "pushing an update that was necessary for the continued smooth running of Windows Update and then gripe when the update gets undone by a repair disk" requires proving that the update is "necessary...for the continued smooth running of Windows Update," which frankly i don't believe.

there had to have been other ways to approach this, and it's a bit hard to understand how this got pushed out to the general public without any TESTING on their end that would have determined that this problem arose after the installation. the fault lies with M$ for pulling this kind of crap and then leaving it up to the end-user to deal with it.

they're never going to learn, they really don't care about us except for the money that's in our (virtual) pockets, and as long as you are a windows user, you might as well expect this.

do what i do and turn off automatic updates for your computers. use the WU site and "custom" option, after reading about what the various updates do, and choose the ones that actually seem to be relevant to the functionality of your windows machine(s). and if you are a sysadmin, use WSUS and insert yourself as a valve between M$ and your workstations to minimize the possibility of this kind of thing, since they continue to abuse the trust that people place in them by dint of using Windows (a choice many of us don't have much choice in, unfortunately).

You betcha!

we're the IT branch of our County's government. Most of our hardware is Win 2000 but certain 'special' cases-executive types who "have XP at home", IT managers, Friends Of the Boss, and the like are running XP.

We've got tons of legacy (read-old and not XP compatible) software these special folks also demand shoehorned into their systems. Most barely work by judicious use of tricky SMS magic, and all sorts of modified system files and custom work.

Imagine the noise when a few of these "special" apps belonging to the highest politically powered and mostly technical-unsavvy users suddenly break. Administration says nothing is wrong at their end, desktop support gets the chewing from both sides as users and higher up Admins all deny responsibility. Boxen are rebuilt and reimaged, tricky apps massaged back in, and they still don't work. Or worse, work after installation but when user tests it a few hours later, it tanks. Of course it's the desktop grunts who have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not hardware by repeatedly rebuilding, reimaging, retesting on box after box. Admin sits on their high horse and says they did no updates.

After a few days, one of these poor, overworked, two-hour-lunch-and-six-hour-workday "administrators" decides to actually do some research. Whoopsie, that last update seems to allow local boxes to resume automatic updates.

Remove that one from the list of approved patches to be distributed, rebuild user boxes one last time (not the Admins of course) and without so much as a mea culpa from Administration (for not even bothering to research a problem escalated to them for a week!), life goes on.

Thank you, Microsoft! A Big One Finger Up to ya!

The scenario goes something like this:

I decide I want to only install certain updates on my computer, so I set Windows Update to "Notify, not install".

MSFT decides to install an update to my updater w/out my consent. I get pissed.

My computer, for reasons unrelated, gets broken, and I have to use the repair disk to re-install Windows.

Due to the unauthorized "update" MSFT previously forced on me, I can no longer do ANY updates to my computer (or at least a large number of them are gone), and cannot get back all of my previous functionality. I get pissed.

I fail to see any inconsistency here. They do stuff without my permission. It breaks my system, including their so-called "fix".

With or without the issue of who owns what or back-doors into the system, my problem is that the unauthorized stealth-update does exactly what it claims to guard against. It makes you unable (in certain scenarios) to update your computer.

Um.. I don't know about you but I wouldn't care to bother the BOFH. He may set you straight but I think he's more likely to set you on fire... : )

The roofers analogies are crap.

This isn't roofers leaving a hole and coming back to fix it, it's builders of the house keeping a back door key for themselves.

Had this exact problem yesterday. repaired PC, updates broken. Rang MS spent 10 min on first line help, transfered to 2nd line. 2nd line called me back, sent file by email. called me back 2nd time to confirm receipt of email, 10 min spent unpacking batch file, restarting, visiting update site, installing single update, restarting, visiting update site, installing 2nd random patch, restarting and confirming all worked. They then finished support call. Total time spent about 30 min.

I,m based in NZ and MS support is in Aus so their call backs are all overseas toll calls. I am sure that many other countries also deal with MS overseas call centres so I suggest the following.

If one or two people from each organisation make one or two calls a day to MS to resolve this issue based on my own experience It will cost MS millions of dollars to resolve. Perhaps if the cost is great enough to them they will think twice in future before releasing patches of this sort. Our inconvenience is not their concern. Perhaps their own will be.

I should also say that Alex from MS Aus was really helpful, patient and well trained. While the organisation may be a little flaky at times, some of the individuals working for them are stars.