"Perfidious Microsoft"

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

FloorDemolisher — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:32:59 GMT

I really find this nonsense about the so-called stealth update to Windows Update to be ridiculous. That "update" has been done. You know about it NOW. So get over it. It needs to work in order to get the critical updates etc. So Microsoft FORGOT to tell people. Well people now know it's been done. Users are going to do that update anyways. So it's done. Get over it. People out there who are complaining were going to update that anyways.

I find it so hypocritical that there are people who are clamoring for updates for other non-Microsoft software they have and are so very disappointed when there aren't any updates to download. And then they start getting pissed off because of this update to Windows Update which you need anyways if you want to download the latest windows critical updates. Users can be such silly, idiotic, two-face hypocrites when comes to this updating nonsense.

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

thruska — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:00:51 GMT

Simple solution and Microsoft has done this in the past: Let the user choose to update Windows Update. As in, Windows Update sees an update for itself and let's the user choose to download and install it.

I've seen this done on several occasions prior to downloading the latest patches. Windows Update lists an update to itself as the only update available. You download and install it and then you get a list of other updates that are available. You download and install those.

So why do something different? This is a secret Windows Update. The first of its kind. And the only way we will make it the last of its kind is to stop it NOW. By complaining about it. LOUDLY.

The only real way I'm aware of to get Microsoft's attention is to affect them financially. Lawsuits are generally so small that it doesn't dent them. We need a $400 billion class-action lawsuit, be in court tomorrow, win the case by default, AND serve an injunction to the bank to immediately transfer the funds (I say we drop 10% of the total in the judge's lap). Tomorrow is Saturday. That's the only way I know of that would get the entire company's immediate attention. Anything less than $20 billion and they'll ignore it.

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

James ONeill — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:48:36 GMT

$arge. First off using $ sign in the way you have done in the comment, is usually done to annoy people who work for MSFT. Normally that kind of rudeness gets posts deleted...

Sorry to bring facts in but, the code isn't your property - you licensed it to run on the hardware that you do own.

As for behaving like Malware.

(a) You can turn off ALL updates

(b) If you have updates on the dialog box tells you that WU updates itself.

I think very few people would say that installing something required to support something you opted in to was obsessing on our buisness interests or asserting absolute control...

Now... (hypothetically)

We can argue that we have the right to do it; we can argue that only in this way can we guarantee the service will keep on working ("we know best")

We can argue that the behaviour is explained on the settings dialog box (albeit badly).

But I'm not developing any of those arguments because frankly building up the expectation that no code will be changed and then changing code is damn silly, rude, and bad for trust and we shouldn't have done it. If WU really must work this way then we needed to spell it out so no-one could be in any doubt. And we didn't do that.

Which is why I said I'd put those repsonisble in the stocks.

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

Old Sarge — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:57:14 GMT

The whole point is unauthorized modifications to another parties property. That is malicious behavior whether or not there is malicious intent. WU is behaving the same way any malware (virus, root kit, etc.) would.

Micro$oft is not entitled to simply modify Windows code on a non-Micro$oft corporately owned computer without obtaining express consent to do so. The expected behavior of the WU software is that users may control when and if updates are applied to their personal property, including the Windows OS running on that property. Micro$oft does not own that instance of Windows, the purchaser does.

If the WU application itself is so poorly implemented that past clients are completely incompatible with the most recent version, then Micro$oft should completely disable it until it can be properly designed to function as expected--notify updates to itself first and then look for other updates.

Micro$oft should be keenly aware of the impact that unilateral actions may have to both its perceived trustworthiness and its bottom line. This unilateral WU behavior certainly does nothing to bolster trust. On the contrary, it bolsters the belief that Micro$oft has only its business interests in mind and that it believes that it retains absolute control over its products, even after purchase. It does not!

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

James ONeill — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:14:23 GMT

Jim.

That sounds like a very good solution. If there is a reason why it couldn't be done, I'm not party to it.

re: "Perfidious Microsoft"

Jim Branning — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:53:49 GMT

Your missing one very simple point -

Present the update as an update. A required update. One which prevents you installing or being notified of any other updates until you accept it.

It happens with a fresh XP install. You did it again with the BITS and Installer 3.1 updates. What's the difference here?