Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archi...63761.aspx
Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?
I have been reading people all over the internet who hate that
Microsoft is perhaps in the future going to limit Windows Update to
legal copies of Windows (Automatic Update would be their only option)
with the Windows Genuine Advantage program (more info in the Windows
Genuine Advantage FAQ).

Many are on the bandwagon, from Greg Hughes to Mitch Wagner to a
hundred of whoever your favorites are, everyone is talking about how
evil Microsoft is for something that they have not even done yet.

Most think Microsoft is being irresponsible by not patching these
machines. Those people do not even realize that all security patches
and Service Packs are still available via Automatic Update, even for
illegal copies of Windows. This acts as a convincing proof to the
theory that you do not need to know how to read in order to know how
to write.

The gist of the typical argument of those who are smart enough to at
least recognize the "Automatic Updates" option is that people who
pirate software will not choose to automatically update since they
would be afraid that Microsoft would shut them down remotely for not
being a legal user of Windows. They would rather use Windows Update
where they have the choice for what they will or will not install.

But have these wingnutspeople even used automatic updates before? Have
they even looked at dialog?

Well, lets look at it now, shall we? Here it is, both in Windows XPSP2
and Windows Server 2003:



Notice how I have them set -- the XPSP2 box will automatically update
every day at 3:00am, and the Server 2003 box will simply let me know
if there are updates and then let me know again before installing. Is
that a hint as to why I think these people have not used the feature?

Notice how both of them have an option to look at the updates previous
declined (currently disabled, I do not tend to refuse updates!)? Is
that another hint?

Look at all of the options I have here!

People have total control over whether they install the security
updates or not. Even if they are using a pirated version of Windows!
The same choice they have in Windows Update for Critical Updates and
Service Packs. If they are willing to use the latter, then why would
the former be less appealing?

Wouldn't using Automatic Updates lead to a safer internet for all
users since it does not require an explicit visit to a web site to get
patches installed? The only reason I do not install automatically on
my Server 2003 boxes is that I may be building something and would
prefer to control when I install. It is still very cool to get the
reminder that there is something to install, and I am a huge fan of
that sort of feature.

So what are these people complaining about, exactly?

posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 5:50 AM

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archi...63761.aspx
Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?
I have been reading people all over the internet who hate that
Microsoft is perhaps in the future going to limit Windows Update to
legal copies of Windows (Automatic Update would be their only option)
with the Windows Genuine Advantage program (more info in the Windows
Genuine Advantage FAQ).

Many are on the bandwagon, from Greg Hughes to Mitch Wagner to a
hundred of whoever your favorites are, everyone is talking about how
evil Microsoft is for something that they have not even done yet.

Most think Microsoft is being irresponsible by not patching these
machines. Those people do not even realize that all security patches
and Service Packs are still available via Automatic Update, even for
illegal copies of Windows. This acts as a convincing proof to the
theory that you do not need to know how to read in order to know how
to write.

The gist of the typical argument of those who are smart enough to at
least recognize the "Automatic Updates" option is that people who
pirate software will not choose to automatically update since they
would be afraid that Microsoft would shut them down remotely for not
being a legal user of Windows. They would rather use Windows Update
where they have the choice for what they will or will not install.

But have these wingnutspeople even used automatic updates before? Have
they even looked at dialog?

Well, lets look at it now, shall we? Here it is, both in Windows XPSP2
and Windows Server 2003:



Notice how I have them set -- the XPSP2 box will automatically update
every day at 3:00am, and the Server 2003 box will simply let me know
if there are updates and then let me know again before installing. Is
that a hint as to why I think these people have not used the feature?

Notice how both of them have an option to look at the updates previous
declined (currently disabled, I do not tend to refuse updates!)? Is
that another hint?

Look at all of the options I have here!

People have total control over whether they install the security
updates or not. Even if they are using a pirated version of Windows!
The same choice they have in Windows Update for Critical Updates and
Service Packs. If they are willing to use the latter, then why would
the former be less appealing?

Wouldn't using Automatic Updates lead to a safer internet for all
users since it does not require an explicit visit to a web site to get
patches installed? The only reason I do not install automatically on
my Server 2003 boxes is that I may be building something and would
prefer to control when I install. It is still very cool to get the
reminder that there is something to install, and I am a huge fan of
that sort of feature.

So what are these people complaining about, exactly?

posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 5:50 AM

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archi...63761.aspx
Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?
I have been reading people all over the internet who hate that
Microsoft is perhaps in the future going to limit Windows Update to
legal copies of Windows (Automatic Update would be their only option)
with the Windows Genuine Advantage program (more info in the Windows
Genuine Advantage FAQ).

Many are on the bandwagon, from Greg Hughes to Mitch Wagner to a
hundred of whoever your favorites are, everyone is talking about how
evil Microsoft is for something that they have not even done yet.

Most think Microsoft is being irresponsible by not patching these
machines. Those people do not even realize that all security patches
and Service Packs are still available via Automatic Update, even for
illegal copies of Windows. This acts as a convincing proof to the
theory that you do not need to know how to read in order to know how
to write.

The gist of the typical argument of those who are smart enough to at
least recognize the "Automatic Updates" option is that people who
pirate software will not choose to automatically update since they
would be afraid that Microsoft would shut them down remotely for not
being a legal user of Windows. They would rather use Windows Update
where they have the choice for what they will or will not install.

But have these wingnutspeople even used automatic updates before? Have
they even looked at dialog?

Well, lets look at it now, shall we? Here it is, both in Windows XPSP2
and Windows Server 2003:



Notice how I have them set -- the XPSP2 box will automatically update
every day at 3:00am, and the Server 2003 box will simply let me know
if there are updates and then let me know again before installing. Is
that a hint as to why I think these people have not used the feature?

Notice how both of them have an option to look at the updates previous
declined (currently disabled, I do not tend to refuse updates!)? Is
that another hint?

Look at all of the options I have here!

People have total control over whether they install the security
updates or not. Even if they are using a pirated version of Windows!
The same choice they have in Windows Update for Critical Updates and
Service Packs. If they are willing to use the latter, then why would
the former be less appealing?

Wouldn't using Automatic Updates lead to a safer internet for all
users since it does not require an explicit visit to a web site to get
patches installed? The only reason I do not install automatically on
my Server 2003 boxes is that I may be building something and would
prefer to control when I install. It is still very cool to get the
reminder that there is something to install, and I am a huge fan of
that sort of feature.

So what are these people complaining about, exactly?

posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 5:50 AM

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archi...63761.aspx
Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?
I have been reading people all over the internet who hate that
Microsoft is perhaps in the future going to limit Windows Update to
legal copies of Windows (Automatic Update would be their only option)
with the Windows Genuine Advantage program (more info in the Windows
Genuine Advantage FAQ).

Many are on the bandwagon, from Greg Hughes to Mitch Wagner to a
hundred of whoever your favorites are, everyone is talking about how
evil Microsoft is for something that they have not even done yet.

Most think Microsoft is being irresponsible by not patching these
machines. Those people do not even realize that all security patches
and Service Packs are still available via Automatic Update, even for
illegal copies of Windows. This acts as a convincing proof to the
theory that you do not need to know how to read in order to know how
to write.

The gist of the typical argument of those who are smart enough to at
least recognize the "Automatic Updates" option is that people who
pirate software will not choose to automatically update since they
would be afraid that Microsoft would shut them down remotely for not
being a legal user of Windows. They would rather use Windows Update
where they have the choice for what they will or will not install.

But have these wingnutspeople even used automatic updates before? Have
they even looked at dialog?

Well, lets look at it now, shall we? Here it is, both in Windows XPSP2
and Windows Server 2003:



Notice how I have them set -- the XPSP2 box will automatically update
every day at 3:00am, and the Server 2003 box will simply let me know
if there are updates and then let me know again before installing. Is
that a hint as to why I think these people have not used the feature?

Notice how both of them have an option to look at the updates previous
declined (currently disabled, I do not tend to refuse updates!)? Is
that another hint?

Look at all of the options I have here!

People have total control over whether they install the security
updates or not. Even if they are using a pirated version of Windows!
The same choice they have in Windows Update for Critical Updates and
Service Packs. If they are willing to use the latter, then why would
the former be less appealing?

Wouldn't using Automatic Updates lead to a safer internet for all
users since it does not require an explicit visit to a web site to get
patches installed? The only reason I do not install automatically on
my Server 2003 boxes is that I may be building something and would
prefer to control when I install. It is still very cool to get the
reminder that there is something to install, and I am a huge fan of
that sort of feature.

So what are these people complaining about, exactly?

posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 5:50 AM

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archi...63761.aspx
Do they not even *use* Automatic Updates?!?
I have been reading people all over the internet who hate that
Microsoft is perhaps in the future going to limit Windows Update to
legal copies of Windows (Automatic Update would be their only option)
with the Windows Genuine Advantage program (more info in the Windows
Genuine Advantage FAQ).

Many are on the bandwagon, from Greg Hughes to Mitch Wagner to a
hundred of whoever your favorites are, everyone is talking about how
evil Microsoft is for something that they have not even done yet.

Most think Microsoft is being irresponsible by not patching these
machines. Those people do not even realize that all security patches
and Service Packs are still available via Automatic Update, even for
illegal copies of Windows. This acts as a convincing proof to the
theory that you do not need to know how to read in order to know how
to write.

The gist of the typical argument of those who are smart enough to at
least recognize the "Automatic Updates" option is that people who
pirate software will not choose to automatically update since they
would be afraid that Microsoft would shut them down remotely for not
being a legal user of Windows. They would rather use Windows Update
where they have the choice for what they will or will not install.

But have these wingnutspeople even used automatic updates before? Have
they even looked at dialog?

Well, lets look at it now, shall we? Here it is, both in Windows XPSP2
and Windows Server 2003:



Notice how I have them set -- the XPSP2 box will automatically update
every day at 3:00am, and the Server 2003 box will simply let me know
if there are updates and then let me know again before installing. Is
that a hint as to why I think these people have not used the feature?

Notice how both of them have an option to look at the updates previous
declined (currently disabled, I do not tend to refuse updates!)? Is
that another hint?

Look at all of the options I have here!

People have total control over whether they install the security
updates or not. Even if they are using a pirated version of Windows!
The same choice they have in Windows Update for Critical Updates and
Service Packs. If they are willing to use the latter, then why would
the former be less appealing?

Wouldn't using Automatic Updates lead to a safer internet for all
users since it does not require an explicit visit to a web site to get
patches installed? The only reason I do not install automatically on
my Server 2003 boxes is that I may be building something and would
prefer to control when I install. It is still very cool to get the
reminder that there is something to install, and I am a huge fan of
that sort of feature.

So what are these people complaining about, exactly?

posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 5:50 AM