Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[TB]

I would love to read paragraph 7 in the license agreement. There is only
one problem and I am hoping you can help me. My HP Pavilion dv6451us does
not seem to contain the license.rtf file anywhere on the hard drive! This
computer was purchased 9/7/07 and has not been modified in any way that
would have removed that file.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:OfHFk%23X$HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Read paragraph 7 in the license.
> Consent is already given when the agreement is accepted.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OW2Ap6X$HHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will update
>> their software without the users consent.
>> caver1
>

 

[TB]

Thank you. Though it is rather vague I see what you are talking about. I
also am waiting to be able to register my copy of Vista Ultimate. Strangely
everytime I go to the site to register Windows it just gives me an error on
the page and won't proceed. I have contacted Msoft but have not heard
anything back from them.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23GSu1OZ$HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Start/Run
> Type "winver" ENTER
> Click "Microsoft Software License terms"
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
>
> "TB" <brownto1968@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
> news:%237qFnHZ$HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I would love to read paragraph 7 in the license agreement. There is only
>>one problem and I am hoping you can help me. My HP Pavilion dv6451us does
>>not seem to contain the license.rtf file anywhere on the hard drive! This
>>computer was purchased 9/7/07 and has not been modified in any way that
>>would have removed that file.
>

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone
>>>>>>>>>> sign an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a
>>>>>>>>>> certain amount is
>>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan
>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking
>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though
>>>>>>>>>>> notification
>>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all
>>>>>>> about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>>>>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>>>>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will
>>>>> not give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY
>>>>> SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files
>>>>> on a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not
>>>>> used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if
>>>>> those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they
>>>>> are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the
>>>> automatic updates off.
>>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down
>>>> if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't
>>>> sound good for the consumer.
>>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>>>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original
>>>> but not update.
>>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>>
>>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house,
>>> modify the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary
>>> conditions they care to include with these modifications or else they
>>> will cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>>
>>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
>>> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>>
>>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have
>>> paid, and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>>> responsibility is already denied).
>>>
>>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish and
>>> potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>>
>>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish
>>> without fear or responsibility.
>>>
>>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so,
>>> it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself
>>> with that possibility It may however open up a whole new market
>>> for engineers with experience in other systems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS
>> owns the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
>> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything they
>> want.
>> caver1
>
>
> Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the media
> player.
>
> In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most people
> would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not be so bad
> except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just cover IE7, it
> applies itself to whatever else is already there AND adds new stuff - so
> the pressure brought to bear on the customer to install IE7 is also
> pressure to accept something they have not originally agreed to in
> realtion wo something they have already paid for. The penalty for non
> compliance, incessant nagging and attempted install through the
> "Critical Update" channel.

I have managed to avoid IE7 on all XP machines I support so far.
(This is because I got burned once by the WGAN updates through the
browser and have always kept a very close eye on updates ever since.)
When I was checking out vista on my machine, I ignored IE7 and used
Firefox exclusively. That was one of the things that bothered me about
Vista though was the incessant nagging from the security center, start
up programs that were hindered, Defender, UAC, etc.

>
> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade" has
> changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts the
> user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and the
> increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating with
> MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you actually
> have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB for trying
> to do the same kinds of thing.
>

I found that my 2.x version of winamp works great on Vista though when I
was testing it. I still have Vista loaded on a partition of my machine,
but it has been months since I booted into it.

These all sound like typical MS tactics.

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

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

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Windows Update Service
> BITS
> If those services are turned off, there will be no updates.
>

There is no proof that this is the case. Putting that aside for the
sake of discussion, That's quite a sneaky trick for MS to pull on your
average windows user. Tell me how easy it is for them to first figure
out how to 'turn off these feature(s)' and secondly get windows updates
once they turn off these feature(s) by disabling these services?

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

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

 

[Charlie Tame]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:

Snipped a bit...

>> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade"
>> has changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts
>> the user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and
>> the increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating
>> with MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you
>> actually have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB
>> for trying to do the same kinds of thing.
>>
>
> I found that my 2.x version of winamp works great on Vista though when I
> was testing it. I still have Vista loaded on a partition of my machine,
> but it has been months since I booted into it.
>
> These all sound like typical MS tactics.
>

I'm not sure it is just MS, I mean the likes of google and others all
would like to do things but at this time Microsoft is the one with the
ability

Hard to pin it down but I just see the present situation as being as
rather serious goof in numerous directions at the same time

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

With the services disabled, it will not be possible to get updated manually
or automatically through Windows Update.

Instead the updates will need to be downloaded from their source and
installed manually.

Anyone that really wants to can, the typical user you refer will most likely
not be interested in turning off those services and of those that do,
finding out how will be easy for most.

"sneaky trick", possibly.
In any case, it would have been better if more information had been
forthcoming in advance instead of the trickle that has come out after the
fact.

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


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fd7dth$3ca$1@aioe.org...
> There is no proof that this is the case. Putting that aside for the sake
> of discussion, That's quite a sneaky trick for MS to pull on your average
> windows user. Tell me how easy it is for them to first figure out how to
> 'turn off these feature(s)' and secondly get windows updates once they
> turn off these feature(s) by disabling these services?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[caver1]

Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>> write up
>>>>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking"
>>>>>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not
>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain amount is
>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking
>>>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notification
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all
>>>>>>>>> about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these
>>>>>>> services (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or
>>>>>>> service provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases
>>>>>>> it will not give the user an individual notice when it connects.
>>>>>>> *YOU MAY SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files
>>>>>>> on a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is
>>>>>>> not used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it
>>>>>>> if those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like
>>>>>>> they are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>>>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the
>>>>>> automatic updates off.
>>>>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>>>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine
>>>>>> down if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it
>>>>>> doesn't sound good for the consumer.
>>>>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I
>>>>>> don't like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the
>>>>>> original but not update.
>>>>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>>>>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house,
>>>>> modify the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary
>>>>> conditions they care to include with these modifications or else
>>>>> they will cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but
>>>>> also stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>>>>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have
>>>>> paid, and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>>>>> responsibility is already denied).
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>>>>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>>>>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>>>>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>>>>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish
>>>>> and potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>>>>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>>>>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish
>>>>> without fear or responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do
>>>>> so, it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>>>>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself
>>>>> with that possibility It may however open up a whole new market
>>>>> for engineers with experience in other systems
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS
>>>> owns the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
>>>> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything
>>>> they want.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the
>>> media player.
>>>
>>> In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most
>>> people would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not
>>> be so bad except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just
>>> cover IE7, it applies itself to whatever else is already there AND
>>> adds new stuff - so the pressure brought to bear on the customer to
>>> install IE7 is also pressure to accept something they have not
>>> originally agreed to in realtion wo something they have already paid
>>> for. The penalty for non compliance, incessant nagging and attempted
>>> install through the "Critical Update" channel.
>>>
>>> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade"
>>> has changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts
>>> the user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and
>>> the increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to
>>> communicating with MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to
>>> assess what you actually have on your system. 30 years ago we were
>>> criticizing the KGB for trying to do the same kinds of thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ever notice that when you get a logical argument that all the fanatics
>> fall off the globe?
>> caver1
>
>
> Well I don't so much care about legality as what's "Ethical" if you
> like. I don't think it's ethical to sell something and then change the
> terms under which the user can use it, and things appear to be heading
> that way.


When it comes to control and greed ethics are thrown out with the baby
and the dirty diaper is kept.
caver1

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> With the services disabled, it will not be possible to get updated
> manually or automatically through Windows Update.

I'll believe it when I see documentation/proof.

>
> Instead the updates will need to be downloaded from their source and
> installed manually.

What a pain in the @$$ - and that's if they even have a source. There
is no other source for those sneaky stealth updates, you know.

>
> Anyone that really wants to can, the typical user you refer will most
> likely not be interested in turning off those services and of those that
> do, finding out how will be easy for most.

Like for people who 'download' programs on their computer from CDs? Or
people who can't find the 'any' key? These are the 'most' you speak of,
will it be easy for them?
>
> "sneaky trick", possibly.
> In any case, it would have been better if more information had been
> forthcoming in advance instead of the trickle that has come out after
> the fact.
>

I definately agree here for once.

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

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

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"I'll believe it when I see documentation/proof"
Instead, why don't you simply try it.?
That is better verification than documentation anyways.

"if they even have a source"
There is ALWAYS someplace to download windows updates directly.

"Like for people who..."
The people you describe here will mostly leave Windows Update at the default
settings largely uncaring and unaware there are different settings.


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


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fd9065$d03$1@aioe.org...
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> With the services disabled, it will not be possible to get updated
>> manually or automatically through Windows Update.
>
> I'll believe it when I see documentation/proof.
>
>>
>> Instead the updates will need to be downloaded from their source and
>> installed manually.
>
> What a pain in the @$$ - and that's if they even have a source. There is
> no other source for those sneaky stealth updates, you know.
>
>>
>> Anyone that really wants to can, the typical user you refer will most
>> likely not be interested in turning off those services and of those that
>> do, finding out how will be easy for most.
>
> Like for people who 'download' programs on their computer from CDs? Or
> people who can't find the 'any' key? These are the 'most' you speak of,
> will it be easy for them?
>>
>> "sneaky trick", possibly.
>> In any case, it would have been better if more information had been
>> forthcoming in advance instead of the trickle that has come out after the
>> fact.
>>
>
> I definately agree here for once.
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Asher_N]

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in
news:xn0fbbb1ka0s0s001ceedsaid@news.individual.net:

> Frank wrote:
>
>|ceed wrote:
>|
>|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>||
>|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more
>|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.
>||
>|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
>|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But
>||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I
>||would have wanted to deny that also..
>||
>|| Take a look here:
>||
>||
>||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-
>||line/
>||
>|
>|
>|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:
>|
>|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.
>|
>|Which is vastly different from saying:
>|
>|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
>|640kb memory".
>|
>|Frank
>
> If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right?
>
>

The first is in context with the design and expectations at the time.
Given the 8086 proc, and IBM's prediction that they would sell about
250,000 of those new compuyers, the first quote is accurate.

 

[Kerry]

I am unable to open .msi & .msu files. I do not have a secretly update
version of windows\system32
i would like to know what to install so as to open these files. (I have
registry booster 2. no help)

"Silicon neuron" wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users
>
> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems
> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that
> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and
> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files
> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.
>
> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's
> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be set
> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with
> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be
> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.
>
> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the
> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's
> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU
> wasn't authorized to install anything.
>
> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who
> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another
> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update, as
> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,
> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had to
> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a
> notice never appears.
>
> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue
> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it
> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set
> your preferences to require it.
>
> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet
>
> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no
> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you were,
> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a
> stealth install or nothing.
>
> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which
> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft
> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
>
> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself.
> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is
> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked
> until this update is installed."
>
> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
>
>
> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues
> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows
> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
> available."
>
> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began
> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any
> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.
>
> System logs confirm stealth installs
>
> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP and
> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
> according to the post.
>
> In Vista, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. wuapi.dll
> 2. wuapp.exe
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaueng.dll
> 5. wucltux.dll
> 6. wudriver.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuwebv.dll
>
> In XP, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. cdm.dll
> 2. wuapi.dll
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaucpl.cpl
> 5. wuaueng.dll
> 6. wucltui.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuweb.dll
>
> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's
> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"
>
> How to check which version your PC has
>
> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables in
> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374,
> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version tab
> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)
>
> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:
>
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll
>
> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event
> Log:
>
> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.
>
> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.
>
> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.
>
> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them. Event
> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows
> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for system
> patches.
>
> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the Event
> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were stealth-updated
> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
> machines that received the patch on other dates.)
>
> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog
> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information at
> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU updates
> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic
> Updates."
>
> No need to roll back the updated files
>
> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the updated
> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason
> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the latest
> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform
> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant in
> the future.
>
> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.
>
> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information on
> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send me
> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.
>
> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also
> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly
> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.
>
>
>

 

[Marsha]

Hello,
I have read this post and I am concerned that this Microsoft Stealth
update is the reason I can not get my two software video editing programs to
burn onto disks.
I use Photo Show and Pinnacle video editing software. Neither one will
burn onto disks since this Stealth update occured.
I spoke with a gentleman that has used Pinnacle since it's infancy and
the software has always worked. He can not burn either. The program will
create projects but will not burn. Is this Microsofts way of controlling
what we do in our homes? I do not resell these projects. I want to be able
to use this software. There are others using Pinnacle that have the same
problem. How can Pinnacle stay in business with this happening?
Is there some way to resolve this issue?
Thank you.

"Silicon neuron" wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users
>
> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems
> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that
> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and
> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files
> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.
>
> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's
> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be set
> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with
> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be
> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.
>
> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the
> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's
> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU
> wasn't authorized to install anything.
>
> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who
> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another
> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update, as
> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,
> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had to
> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a
> notice never appears.
>
> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue
> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it
> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set
> your preferences to require it.
>
> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet
>
> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no
> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you were,
> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a
> stealth install or nothing.
>
> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which
> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft
> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
>
> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself.
> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is
> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked
> until this update is installed."
>
> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
>
>
> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues
> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows
> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
> available."
>
> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began
> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any
> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.
>
> System logs confirm stealth installs
>
> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP and
> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
> according to the post.
>
> In Vista, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. wuapi.dll
> 2. wuapp.exe
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaueng.dll
> 5. wucltux.dll
> 6. wudriver.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuwebv.dll
>
> In XP, the following files are updated:
>
> 1. cdm.dll
> 2. wuapi.dll
> 3. wuauclt.exe
> 4. wuaucpl.cpl
> 5. wuaueng.dll
> 6. wucltui.dll
> 7. wups.dll
> 8. wups2.dll
> 9. wuweb.dll
>
> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's
> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"
>
> How to check which version your PC has
>
> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables in
> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374,
> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version tab
> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)
>
> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:
>
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll
> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll
>
> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event
> Log:
>
> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.
>
> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.
>
> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.
>
> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them. Event
> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows
> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for system
> patches.
>
> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the Event
> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were stealth-updated
> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
> machines that received the patch on other dates.)
>
> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog
> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information at
> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU updates
> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic
> Updates."
>
> No need to roll back the updated files
>
> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the updated
> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason
> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the latest
> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform
> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant in
> the future.
>
> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.
>
> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information on
> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send me
> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.
>
> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also
> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly
> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.
>
>
>

 

[Holz]

Marsha wrote:

> Is there some way to resolve this issue?
No.
Microsoft is going towards a subscription model, they will control
everything in your PC.
--