Regardless of what one may think is right or wrong or sneeky or whatever, MS owns the OS and can do pretty much do what they want with it. If you don't like it dont use it. What is unfortunate there isn't really an alternative. People will throw Linux out as one but it really isn't, the same goes with a Mac.  There may be a choice but they are not an alternative.  Since 90% (made that percent up, but you get the point) of the software is written for Windows, it pretty much rules out all other OS's. Another downside to convenience, many will give up security for ease of us.

The real argument to be made is if the update they forced to install ended up breaking something what are they going to do about it? The same thing they have always done, release a patch for the patch. For most, if not all, home users this is pretty much irrelavant. But in the business world choosing when to install updates is primarily done to test the updates to make sure they don't break your business applications.

Quoting Rander:

Quote:
Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
Regardless of what one may think is right or wrong or sneeky or whatever, MS owns the OS and can do pretty much do what they want with it.

No they don't! I bought the software and I paid for it - that makes it mine! Microsoft then offers upgrades and bugfixes for the software at no additional cost - nice of them, as long as I myself can decide if I want to install the updates or not!

And yes, I know I did not buy the software - I bought a license to use the software, but my point is that the second I install the software using that license key, it is my personal property within the limits of the copyright laws...

Except... during installation you clicked "I agree" on a EULA that says otherwise. 

I'm not defending what they did, but I can see their point that the update was necessary since it was an update to the updater.  Even though people may not be using it, if they did choose to use it and it didn't work, that would be more of a problem.  It would have been nice if they had maybe announced it before hand, but I guess they subscribe to the ole saying "It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission".

Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
Regardless of what one may think is right or wrong or sneeky or whatever, MS owns the OS and can do pretty much do what they want with it. If you don't like it dont use it. What is unfortunate there isn't really an alternative. People will throw Linux out as one but it really isn't, the same goes with a Mac.  There may be a choice but they are not an alternative.  Since 90% (made that percent up, but you get the point) of the software is written for Windows, it pretty much rules out all other OS's. Another downside to convenience, many will give up security for ease of us.

The real argument to be made is if the update they forced to install ended up breaking something what are they going to do about it? The same thing they have always done, release a patch for the patch. For most, if not all, home users this is pretty much irrelavant. But in the business world choosing when to install updates is primarily done to test the updates to make sure they don't break your business applications.

Well, it has been confirmed that it does break things.  'Windows Secrets' newsletter for this date is reporting a major problem for people who may have to reload the OS after this stealth update by Microsoft.  It can render the PC unusable, and unable to be updated because the online program requires confirmation of the stealth update files being there in order to authorize a download of patches and updates.  A reloaded OS does not have these validated file so the online won't initiate a download to bring the OS into spec.

By the way, those who think the EULA gives them the right to do whatever they want, you are dead wrong.  You have to explicitly give them permission to access and update/change the contents of your PC before they can legally do so, and carefully reading the EULA says that. 

Microsoft sucks!

I feel alerted when I see 5 voters trusting M$ - I hardly can trust any company who tries to sell anything. But M$ is rated much lower in my personal records...

Regards, AA

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
What is unfortunate there isn't really an alternative. People will throw Linux out as one but it really isn't, the same goes with a Mac.  There may be a choice but they are not an alternative.  Since 90% (made that percent up, but you get the point) of the software is written for Windows, it pretty much rules out all other OS's.

I have to disagree, it all falls down to what you wanna do with your computer. I installed Ubuntu Linux to my mothers computer, there wasnt a single thing they (my mother and my younger sister) couldnt do because of the change. At work i use Windows, but apart from AutoCAD every program i use can be used in Linux and Mac. And actually theres an alternative to AutoCAD too, BricsCAD (it costs 10% of ACAD's price but can do all the same things). But it falls down to personal preference, BricsCAD doesnt support "Shortcut menus in drawing area". Most dont use it, but i do, so i still use ACAD. Another would be ArchiCAD, which is used a lot in modelling, can be used in Mac too. MS Office? Open Office does everything it does, except it doesnt have the 400€ price tag. I know Nokia uses many Linux computers cause there are software that arent even available to Windows. Many music producers, graphic designers etc use Mac's.

I think I am being misquoted here, I understand why too. First off I am not up to par with software that's being used from around the world and anytime a statment that's made in support of the evil company MS will always be held to a different standard.

Is there an alternative to MS products and softs written for windows platform, yes. However the majority is still in the Windows world. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US I would wager that having Autocad exp is much easier to come by a job than having BriscCad exp. Graphics, artwork, music, movie softs MS does not have this market. Hands down Mac's have this market. But again this is far from mainstream, meaing the % of market is small. Most companies and most homes are running windows platform. For every rule there is always an exception.

pc will never be able to do a 10th of what Macs can do today when it comes to graphics etc.

it's official MS has admitted the patch broke something. Here is the tagline from the story:

Microsoft Confirms Stealth Updating Mucks Up XP Restore
XP users who repair the OS cannot update their PCs with the latest patches because of a file included with the stealth update.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I'm glad that I have all of my XP boxes set up to notify only.

From what I've read, Notify only would still have nested you an automatic stealth update. The only way to be free of this update, is to disable automatic update altogether.

Mind you, I may be wrong about it, but I think I remember reading something to that effect.

Quoting RossRoy:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I'm glad that I have all of my XP boxes set up to notify only.

From what I've read, Notify only would still have nested you an automatic stealth update. The only way to be free of this update, is to disable automatic update altogether.

Mind you, I may be wrong about it, but I think I remember reading something to that effect.

That is EXACTLY what happens, and that has been verified by several independent testing groups.