Do they not even <b>*use*</b> Automatic Updates?!?

Because requiring people to show identification will make even the least paranoid person think twice no matter what the reason. It makes people uneasy is all. I own more copies of XP than I have machines and I still don't want to "verify" that my license is legitimate.

Fair enough. But notice that Automatic Updates do not *ask* me if my Windows is valid? Even better for the paranoid, right? :-)

If I have a pirated copy of Windows then I assume the scrutiny of the explicit step on Windows Update that scans my system for updates would be at least as great a cause for unease....

It's microsoft dude, therefore it *has* to be evil. I find it quite amusing that most people neglect to mention the fact that several other OS have *paid subscriptions* in order to be able to download patches.

One other thing to consider here is how many users are actually affected by this policy? A lot of people have legit copies of Windows because they buy them with their machine.

I agree that hose that have illegal copies, should also have the ability to patch their machines, by possibly paying a subscription fee that will become their license.

It may not ask but as we've all learned from spyware the absence of a prompt does not mean the software isn't busy doing something behind your back. A label describing in summary what is and is not transmitted would help greatly in this regard. I don't have XP here at work so I can't check if this information is already shown prominently somewhere.

The complaints aren't so much about what windows update does now but about the future plans to send license information to Microsoft for verification. Soothing people's fears about what currently happens does little to alleviate apprehensions about stated plans to (possibly) implement such checks in the future.

I still get the willies when I activate XP or Photoshop.

Right, but how is this helped by the Windows Update vs. Automatic Update question? Your issues would apply equally (from a perception standpoint perhaps even moreso) to Windows Update, which the pundits still want people to have access to.

Why restrict access to one sort of update but not another? Presumably MS is testing the waters and will then restrict access to all ways of updating as it just plain doesn't make sense to lock one door when you have another one right next to it that is wide open.

If there is no explicit promise that no licensing information is sent to Microsoft when Windows is updating (either via automatic updates or Windows Update) then we have to assume the worst. In programming terms, it is undefined behavior and could change at any moment.

The larger issue is a tough question for sure. Microsoft has a definite right to get paid for the hard work they put into writing Windows but on the other hand having unpatched computers makes the internet as a whole more dangerous.

Personally I would lean towards making updates available to everyone in an unrestricted fashion.

I can tell you why I don't use AU... because I can't figure out how to use it (that is: make it do what I want it to do).

Problem 1: When does AU check for updates? 3am? My PC isn't usually on at that time (many people outside the US are a bit more energy conscious and actually turn the thing off at the end of the day). I could set it for another time, but there's no guarantee that my PC will be on at that time either. Can I force it? It also seems to check upon startup, but that doesn't show in the dialog box.

Problem 2: There's no interface. The AU icon will appear in the system tray. Left-click... nothing. Right-click... nothing. Double-click... nothing.

Problem 3: BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service, IIRC) doesn't appear to be so intelligent. The "idle bandwidth" on my Gigabit LAN will quickly drown out my 8mbit DSL connection when a few XP systems will start automatically updating. Tying the system directly to the DSL modem will use so little bandwidth that it takes forever to download even the smallest patch. I ended up downloading the 260MB IT install of SP2 over a 256kbit line after AU failed to properly retrieve it over an 8 hour period of time (on an otherwise idle machine). BTW, what will it do if a machine's bandwidth is tied up with sending out copies of viruses or spam e-mail messages. No idle bandwidth in that case. My system is protected, but there are millions that aren't.

Problem 4: For the love of everything holy... stop bugging me every 5 minutes that I need to reboot. Once is (more than) enough! I really don't need those annoying balloons popping up a dozen times. I'll reboot as soon as the processing on the 70GB of video data I just captured is complete, but it'll be a few hours. Where's the "FOAD" button when you need it?

All that makes AU so annoying to me that I find it much more convenient to check the WU site once a day. Only annoying things about that are that:

a) it seems to think the .NET Framework version 1.1 is a "high priority" update when I haven't got a single .NET application on my system and didn't even have 1.0 installed.
b) it won't respect my wishes and come up in a maximised window.

To me, those are easier to live with than AU.

Kristoffer -- the issue is the non-security updates, which provide a value update for legitimate customers.

Why restrict access? Well, with security updates there is a reason not to. Not ture of other updates -- installing them will not help legitimate users like security updates too.

Would you feel differently if WU worked but they could not get the new updates? If so, why?

I don't feel any sympathy towards people with illegitmate whitebox installations; they should have known that for $500 that copy of Ms office and photoshop would be as illegitimate as the base OS. And I'd be quite happy for a service pack to disable TCP for the lot of them, it would only benefit us all.

But I really don't like the hoops that windows/office activation makes me go through. Point one: there is a limit (what, 10?) to the number of times I can reactivate winXP or office with my MSDN universal subscription. Per year. No way of revoking installations and saying "I want to build up a new VM". That sucks. With VMware I can run through that number in a month.

Point two: this morning MS download is telling me that I should use windows genuine advantage to download "winXP SP2 support tools". you know, things to see what handles are open and minor junk like that. And if I dont, my downloads will be at a disadvantage. Was that some kind of threat? I dont know, but I could also see that the system assumed I was running IE, as it told me to accept any request for ActiveX download. As a user of mozilla for security reasons, I worry that the genuine advantage program will actually disadvantage me.

Steven -- all good. But do you believe that pirated Windows users deserve the conveniences to which you refer?

More specifically:

1 -- You set the time. Its at your convenience.

2 -- I never have problems clicking on the icon and getting a dialog, with details on what is going on.

3 -- See http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/27/361595.aspx for hoe to change the BITS settings.

4 -- I guess I am not seeing this (but then I run mine at 3am when I am hopefully not processing 70gb of video data...

Steve -- I have easily activated Windows 3x that many times (I have to since I install new builds most days, many of which I built!) Since I am doing it with the same hardware, I never run into problems.

See the FAQ for the Genuine program, it explainsd about the ActiveX issue and FireFox (presumasbly covers other browsersm too).

> 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.

Wow, pulling out the big guns, eh? I won't go there. I've commented further on my weblog.

>So what are these people complaining about, exactly?<

Microsoft. Just 'cause. Google's getting the same treatment now. They were the darling of the net for years, then they went public and started GMail, and suddenly they're an Evil Corporation.

Greg -- Heh heh heh -- well, technically that did not apply to you, since you took another route (though if we worry that people will not get updates due to paranoia, its probably thoughts that a plan like yours may exist that keep people from updating <grin>).

I don't really care if illegal copies of Windows are patched or if they cause the pirate's house to burst into flame. It's their problem. My firewall and AV software keep me isolated from their stupidity. (Although I would go with Steve's suggestion: release a patch to disable TCP/IP for those saps).

My message was more of an indication as to why people might not use AU. Also, how it might be improved:

To "fix" my first problem:
a checkbox "check for updates at startup", a button "check now". Or a way to say "check when idle" (limiting to once per day, obviously). Any or all of the above would be nice.

The second: a dialog that shows "downloading ''Security update for Wheelchair [KB123456]''. ETA: 3 minutes" would be nice. It's not the actual installation that doesn't show a dialog, but I can only get information about download status from a tooltip that only says "Downloading updates: 4%" (I have a similar gripe with the "New hardware found" tray icon... it too has no actual UI).

The third: I had read Raymond's blog. GPEDIT.MSC is not available on XP Home, though. Admittedly, this not really a problem for most users, just for people with large home LANs.

Fourth: I'm not sure whether it pops up only when you've told it you need to approve updates for installation. Does a machine with fully automatic updates reboot itself? The thing that bugs me about it is that there's no way to say "I know, now don't show this to me again until the next updates are installed". The system (sans patch) works fine without rebooting, it's not an error or any other fatal condition, why interrupt my work? Every five minutes?

Sorry if this seems like a big long rant, but I've had some really bad experiences with AU yesterday (mentioned in my first post: spending an entire day just to get SP2). Perhaps the above should be sent to the AU team.

I'm guessing that the average Joe User who has XP pre-installed on his system has no problem with AU and uses it, possibly without even knowing. It's the average pirate who (thinks he) is a bit more computer savvy (after all, he used his l33t skills to copy the CD, install Windows and bypass the activation), believes AU is doing a phone home and reporting him. He's gonna disable AU. As a "power user", he craves more control over his system (I know I do) and goes to the WU site, which also explicitly states that no info is being sent to Redmond.

From that, I'd say that closing off WU will do a lot of good for my wallet. Pirates won't start buying Windows, unless it costs less than the blank CD they use to pirate it. They won't use AU because they don't trust it (I don't trust it and I'm a legitimate user). Their systems get infected. Spyware/Malware/Viruses spread faster than automatic updates or patches. People call me to have their system fixed. I download the patches of the WU Catalog and bring them over on CD. I get rich. Funny how people are willing to pay me for tech support, but won't pay for Windows, isn't it?