AutoPatcher no longer allowed


Recommended Posts

I had a call from Microsoft Legal this morning and they have told me that we are no longer allowed to endorse AutoPatcher on Neowin.

Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers.

AutoPatcher started in 2003 and has been redistributed in some of the worlds best computer magazine cover CD/DVD's. I have no explanation for why Microsoft allowed it to continue unchecked for 4 years before making this decision.

I asked the representative if Windows Genuine Advantage had anything to do with it and he categorically told me this was not the case, he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox and that the concern at Microsoft had more to do with the possible malicious code that could be redistributed with certified Microsoft updates.

We have no grounds to challenge the decision by Microsoft.

I'd like to thank the whole AutoPatcher team for their continued work, unfortunately none of the team is online, but they have been contacted via the AutoPatcher.com website by Microsoft Legal.

The AutoPatcher forums have been disabled for guests and members.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/584427-autopatcher-no-longer-allowed/
Share on other sites

:(

It's great for packaging offline patches, portability, and in many ways more flexible than updating through Windows Update. What does Firefox access on WU have to do with that?? That's not nearly the reason I believe most are using AutoPatcher, and I think Microsoft is missing the problem here, or more likely, they either pretend or don't want to realize the problem. I mean, all Windows users have IE installed anyway, including Firefox users.

AP is more for system administrators and experienced users wanting to package files for easy offline installs, possibly on a network scale.

And of course they'll deny it's for WGA reasons. They don't want to get into the debate of locking in users to their services out of inefficient antipiracy methods again. They'd probably even lie to not have to.

While I don't see the need for MS to ban support for AutoPatcher, it is after all a great utility and something that has saved me hours and hours when repairing clients machines, I'm sure they (MS) must have their reasons for this.

I'll continue to support it as long as I can, but it is a massive blow to myself and to the community as a whole that MS have decided to take this action. But, as I've said there must be a good reason why, I'm sure it will all become clear in due course.

I'd like to express my thanks to all the team behind AutoPatcher for the sheer amount of hard work and dedication that they have all shown in making this product, and like others have said, it's a massive blow and it sucks - I feel for you guys.

Ad

Lets hope MS come up with there own solution for it I vaguely remember before XP SP2 they did a security rollup where several updates where in the one download.

I think it would be nice if they offered this every now and then a single download that has all the updates in it after SP2 perhaps they could have it make you register the PC after you have ran the updates on it making it possible to update peoples PC?s for them when they are on dial up etc.

Lets hope MS come up with there own solution for it I vaguely remember before XP SP2 they did a security rollup where several updates where in the one download.

I think it would be nice if they offered this every now and then a single download that has all the updates in it after SP2 perhaps they could have it make you register the PC after you have ran the updates on it making it possible to update peoples PC's for them when they are on dial up etc.

The single download isn't the point of AutoPatcher though. The cool thing about AutoPatcher is that you have a disc ready with the updates and you don't need to actually download the updates when setting up the computer, which can take quite a long time as it seems the XP update system seems to slow everything down. It also includes several optional updates that are never included in the infrequent rollups that Microsoft puts out. All in all, it's much more convenient to use AutoPatcher when compared to any solution Microsoft has ever provided.

This is a poor decision by Microsoft. I can understand their concern of being blamed if malicious code were distributed with their updates, but the AutoPatcher project has been going for 4 years without incident, so I'm at a loss as to why they would be concerned about this now.

Hi Guys,

It's a sad day and I don't mind saying that I am in shock here regarding the AP news.

I appreciate that the AP project is now dead as far as Neowin concerned, however I am wondering if there could be a future for it in another form?

Perhaps if the hotfixes and patches themselves are not re-distributed then MS would be able to live with it?

There are other projects which list the hotfixes for download or automate the download of the hotfixes directly from MS servers for offline use. If this could be combined with the AP framework then we could still have a viable project.

Folks would need to download the hotfixes themselves however once this is done the AP framework could still be useful for installing the hotfixes offline.

I have PM'ed some of the AP team with my suggestions so we will see what will come of it.

At the end of the day this is an attempt by MS to close down a freeware project that competes with their own automated patch distribution systems.

Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with security of the patches is deluding themselves.

Giving that MS had no issues with this project for over 4 years it seems strange for them to object now based on security concerns.

I am also disappointed that the Neowin Staff has let MS run roughshod over this project and done little to fight this action by MS.

Regards

Simon

What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!