Jump to content



Photo

AutoPatcher no longer allowed


  • Please log in to reply
585 replies to this topic

#31 +mrbester

mrbester

    Be seeing you...

  • 2,041 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 02
  • Location: Brighton, Land of the South Saxons, Albion

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:29

he added that Windows Update for pre-Vista versions of Windows can now be accessed using Firefox

That raised an eyebrow, so I thought I'd test it. Yep, it worked, but only because I set *.microsoft.com to open in an IETab (I don't even have microsoft on my allow list for NoScript because of that). Switching back to the Gecko engine got me a "To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later" message.

So I thought of trying a clean installation of FF (in a 2000 Pro VM) without any addons, just in case it was my setup throwing things off: Nope, exactly the same thing. So I call bollocks on that. It only "works" if you've gone to the effort of downloading extra addons and configured them a certain way. Being able to access the Download Center in non-IE doesn't count.

Using the "may contain dodgy code" excuse is pathetic. If we extrapolated that, we'd not use Windows at all due to all the crappy code that needs patching on a monthly basis.

Autopatcher also helps out when WU just refuses to work properly and hangs the CPU (like it does on my fully validated, compliant yadayada XP installation) and also when you don't want to waste bandwidth (and a few hours) by downloading several hundred megabytes of updates since SP2 when you reinstall. And don't get me started on the "Dynamic Update" during installation: last time I tried that (with a Ethernet cable attached) I got Blaster before the install completed as my XP installation disc doesn't have SP2 on it.

Microsoft are extremely unlikely to provide an equivalent. And then they wonder why there is antipathy towards them.


#32 crashguy

crashguy

    Neowinian

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 04

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:29

I would say this is obviously an attack by microsoft for me on three front's. Stop people who either refuse (by piracy) / or do not wish to use "windows genuine" to have access to updates, to stop people from thinking windows XP has a future (it'll live past vista!), and lets face it it's a good idea, perhaps it's microsoft's next "original" idea?

#33 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:31

Using the "may contain dodgy code" excuse is pathetic. If we extrapolated that, we'd not use Windows at all due to all the crappy code that needs patching on a monthly basis.

It specifically says "malicious" code, and no matter how bugged Windows may be, it's not containing malicious code. I can understand your animosity toward Microsoft, but you're really reaching with that ;)

#34 jelli

jelli

    Long time lurker, slow time poster!

  • 1,341 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 06
  • Location: Liverpool, England
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:31

I could be completely wrong here but perhaps the reason behind this is SP3 for XP? as in since SP3 is essentially just all the updates for XP from SP2 onwards and nothing new (correct me if I'm wrong) and they feel AP would undermind SP3 so they decided to stop AP?? but this is only what I think so take with a grain of salt.


I would have considered that to be the case as well but since XP SP3 release date is still aimed for 1st Half 2008 according to the Microsoft website i think it's unlikely unless the release schedule has changed.

#35 BassRck4

BassRck4

    Strangelet Wannabe...Grid Me

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 03
  • Location: socket 940

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:32

Great, just great... We will need to download 100+ patches every time we install XP now?
Seriously, that SUCKS Microsoft!


ABSOLUTELY! Is'nt XP support supposed to end 2009? Will we now be f_o_r_c_e_d onto Vista?

#36 jelli

jelli

    Long time lurker, slow time poster!

  • 1,341 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 06
  • Location: Liverpool, England
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:34

ABSOLUTELY! Is'nt XP support supposed to end 2009? Will we now be f_o_r_c_e_d onto Vista?


Official support isn't ending until 2009 or whenever (can't remember the official date) and how does this force anyone on to Vista? All they have to do is connect to the Microsoft website and download the patches instead or order the SP2 disc from Microstoft and then install all patches post SP2 whenever they do a clean install. Yes this is going to take longer than just using the autopatcher but in the great scheme of things its not like its going to take days to sort out.

#37 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:35

ABSOLUTELY! Is'nt XP support supposed to end 2009? Will we now be f_o_r_c_e_d onto Vista?

Not really. Many people don't have a problem with sitting through all those updates. Though AutoPatcher is quite popular with the technically-minded crowd, many people deal with the regular Windows Update process on a daily basis and don't complain. AutoPatcher is simply a convenience that is now being taken away by Microsoft and unfortunately we'll just have to deal with it.

#38 (Spork)

(Spork)

    ANDROID-APPLE

  • 4,786 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:36

wow im blown away ! this sucks AP owned

#39 OverBrn

OverBrn

    Neowinian

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 06

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:37

I wish I was better with Linux, cause this is about the last strike for Microsoft. Vista suckin @ss, now this horrible decision.

#40 BassRck4

BassRck4

    Strangelet Wannabe...Grid Me

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 03
  • Location: socket 940

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:42

Not really. Many people don't have a problem with sitting through all those updates. Though AutoPatcher is quite popular with the technically-minded crowd, many people deal with the regular Windows Update process on a daily basis and don't complain. AutoPatcher is simply a convenience that is now being taken away by Microsoft and unfortunately we'll just have to deal with it.


The average person who buys a new computer would want automatic updates and support and would not have a "choice". They would have to get Vista when XP support ends.(much too soon!)

#41 apul

apul

    Neowinian

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 06
  • Location: France

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:42

Why MS don't recruit AutoPatcher team as they made with Mark Russinovich and Sysinternals?
Keep AutoPatcher ALIVE, this is teh best thing you can do, seriously.

#42 Daninku

Daninku

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,381 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 04
  • Location: Malta (EU)

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:57

****in bad Microsoft!! **** this is enough!!!!!!

#43 aeugenio

aeugenio

    Neowinian

  • 13 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 06
  • Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:59

Why MS don't recruit AutoPatcher team as they made with Mark Russinovich and Sysinternals?
Keep AutoPatcher ALIVE, this is teh best thing you can do, seriously.

I vote for that !

Sad day =/

#44 vetKudos

Kudos

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 04
  • Location: Ireland

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:05

I don't get why everyone is so annoyed, I'm shocked auto-patcher was allowed to continue for so long in the first place. Is anyone really surprised by this?

#45 +mrbester

mrbester

    Be seeing you...

  • 2,041 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 02
  • Location: Brighton, Land of the South Saxons, Albion

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:05

It specifically says "malicious" code, and no matter how bugged Windows may be, it's not containing malicious code. I can understand your animosity toward Microsoft, but you're really reaching with that ;)


I'm not reaching as I said it was an extrapolation. Since this is by definition hypothetical it isn't something that is the norm (except in Linux zealot camps perhaps). As PsiMoon said it has nothing to do with the authenticity of the patches.

Oh, and many people DO have a problem with sitting through the updates because not everybody is on an all-you-can-eat fatpipe broadband connection. Fancy re-updating XP when you're at the end of a dial-up connection where you get charged by the second? Didn't think so.

Most people have autoupdate on anyway, so it "doesn't matter" so long as their installation doesn't crap out for whatever reason. When it does, they normally call on a more technically minded friend / family member to fix it for them rather than some character to fiddle around and say "it needs a reinstall" and charge £200 minimum for the whole deal. That's where I come in and, yes, Autopatcher is the way to go as it saves hours and hoursand hours> of piddling about.

And now they've effectively killed it. Here's my bill for the extra wasted bandwidth and time.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!