AutoPatcher no longer allowed

[The Tiny One]

And as is always the case, with Microsoft, come up with a better way of doing something...

Microsoft will

#1 Prohibit you from doing it...

#2 Threaten others from using what you created....

#3 Force you to sell it to them, so then they can claim it as their own product....

#4 Then MS will wonder why people do not want to pay for their products...

Never knowing that the more they cheat the public, the more the public will try to cheat them.

I don't think so. What an ignorant post.

[rajputwarrior]

this sucks :( i really depended on autopatcher.

i am downloading the august release while i can

Edited August 30, 2007 by rajputwarrior

[NEVER85]

Guess MS got p'od that we were trying to make an awful prodcut (Vista) into something better with the patches.

Oh well, MS's lose.

I guarantee you've never used Vista for more than an hour. Stop spreading your anti-Vista bull**** and go back to using that dinosaur malware haven known as Windows XP.

Anyways, this is terrible news. I've loved using AP for well over a year.

[themousepad]

Come on guys, get over it, I've got a 512K connection here at the moment and a clean install of XP only takes 11 minutes to download and install all of the post-sp2 updates. I think this was bound to happen for a long time.

Multiply that by 30-50 computers a week... how much lost time can you contribute to having a 512K connection that is probably set to a 10mb buffer and slows to 150K or less on the 2nd or 3rd download from microsoft...take a tech bench with 5-10 stations running downloads all day long 5 days a week... and how much lost time then can you contribute to your 512k pipe.

Auto Patcher saves me hours and hours a day. Its a sad thing that MS has pulled down this site and that there are those of you out there that say " live with it ".

Microsoft pushes lower toc ( total cost of ownership ) But all of us admins and techs in the field are supposed to work longer and harder for the same amount of money.

I guess we could start installing MS O/S, sp2 from cd and leave all else alone... no security patches, no ie7, no mp11, no .net or any other MS improvements, fixes or patches. Leave the system open to hackers, bugs, and the likes ... then we can just charge the customer again in 2 months or less when his computer gets attacked, or bugged out ... We could double our profits by doing this...Yea.. that sounds like a much better way to do business.... put out a product thats full of flaws and substandard... Hey ... MS can do it, so can we... Just follow their example, and blame it all on them.

Im a MS parterner and have always supported MS but this one of the lowest blows MS has given us. You think WGA was bad and was going to cost us time ... which it has... but this one ... is really a slap in the face to all of us that help keep the O/S up and running on a daily basis...

[stylemessiah]

This is an act of bastardry which miscrosoft should hang for, and should, god willing, never recover from in the eyes of end users or people who support end users.

This was one hell of a useful tool that put microsoft to absolute shame

[Matrix XII]

This is complete and utter bull****! I can't believe MS would do this to us :cry:

[PGHammer]

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

The biggest reason could indeed be what the rep from MS Legal pointed out: the Malicious Code Problem. One rather large nightmare that a non-MS patching site (such as AutoPatcher.com) would face is someone attaching malicious code to a set of otherwise legitimate Microsoft patches. A system gets infected (with a trojan, rootkit, or other problem) via AutoPatcher.com, and the infected system's owner blames *Microsoft*. (Now, come on; you don't think that couldn't happen? Are the AutoPatcher uploads checked that vigorously for malicious code?) It is precisely for this reason that a part of the EULA for Microsoft Systems Management Server (the enterprise/corporate version, if you will, of WU) specifically bars Internet-based deployment. Microsoft has enough reputation issues without having to worry about non-MS patch server infections making things worse.

I don't like it; however, I can indeed understand the worry.

[rajputwarrior]

Multiply that by 30-50 computers a week... how much lost time can you contribute to having a 512K connection that is probably set to a 10mb buffer and slows to 150K or less on the 2nd or 3rd download from microsoft...take a tech bench with 5-10 stations running downloads all day long 5 days a week... and how much lost time then can you contribute to your 512k pipe.

Auto Patcher saves me hours and hours a day. Its a sad thing that MS has pulled down this site and that there are those of you out there that say " live with it ".

Microsoft pushes lower toc ( total cost of ownership ) But all of us admins and techs in the field are supposed to work longer and harder for the same amount of money.

I guess we could start installing MS O/S, sp2 from cd and leave all else alone... no security patches, no ie7, no mp11, no .net or any other MS improvements, fixes or patches. Leave the system open to hackers, bugs, and the likes ... then we can just charge the customer again in 2 months or less when his computer gets attacked, or bugged out ... We could double our profits by doing this...Yea.. that sounds like a much better way to do business.... put out a product thats full of flaws and substandard... Hey ... MS can do it, so can we... Just follow their example, and blame it all on them.

Im a MS parterner and have always supported MS but this one of the lowest blows MS has given us. You think WGA was bad and was going to cost us time ... which it has... but this one ... is really a slap in the face to all of us that help keep the O/S up and running on a daily basis...

QFT, i use autopatcher at work all the time, saves me HOURS a day!

[outofspace]

and where is a will to fight!?

It easy to change servers of the site to another country and lot of others ways.

Remember indifference is NO SOLUTION

[noormanbel]

Why would MS allow firefox users to access windows update? I even stopped using nightly builds and switched back to 2.0.0.6 ... nothing.

.

With Firefox, just install the 'IE Tab' plugin and switch to IE mode; you wil be able to access the patch site ! LOL

.

[noormanbel]

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 ;)

.

If AP would ever have contained 'malicious code' it wouldn't have survived for 4 years !

.

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?

.

M$ doesn't surprise me anymore, certainly NOT with this move !

They are pathetic !

.

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.

.

I totally agree !

.

[cyberfrem]

I don't know if anybody's already said this (I haven't read every page of the thread) but in the meantime, can't Autopatcher continue without the Microsoft updates, ie. all the useful tweaks, etc. that it also includes?

[PrEzi]

I don't know if anybody's already said this (I haven't read every page of the thread) but in the meantime, can't Autopatcher continue without the Microsoft updates, ie. all the useful tweaks, etc. that it also includes?

You have the latest version, yes ? Then just keep it safe and use it. and I think there's no point on continuing without updates to release new versions...what for ? for the change in name ?

[noormanbel]

What about those users, who :

-have slow internet connection

-do service repairs(reinstalls of OS)

-must reinstall in a place where there is no internet?

I do much of those stuff and I don't want to wait a freaking day for the updates to complete downloading !

What I did was basically (re)install XP + drivers, fire-up autopatcher, reboot and install other software, ready !

Now it's going to be like that + 1-5 hours more depending on internet connection (if any).

I liked Microsoft... really did... but now I ask myself - Do the M$ morons know what they're doing !?

Eventually I would skip the updates part and leave XP's with SP2 without the updates, or leave it set to automatical but that

would mean that I'm lazy or not professional in what I'm doing in the eyes of my customers...

Simple - The number of fully patched (more secured, less flawed etc.) OS'es WILL go down.

Less patched = more vulnerable to trojans, worms viruses and so on.

Less patched = more computers on zombie-net...

.

What about all the redistributed copies of Windows XP SP1 and SP2 by all those Computer magazines in the past ???

M$ never had 'malicious code' issues then !

.

[»X«]

I used to use autopatcher alot back in the day. But I don't bother now for Vista. Takes about 45 minutes to get all updates. But would'nt one of the main reasons MS stopped this is because people who pirate xp for example and cant validate their install, can use autopatcher to get said patches? Completely bypassing MS authentication?

Not sure though.

[Luis.A]

This is totally outrageos. I hope microsoft can get their act together on this one. MS should buy autopatcher a distribute it themselves with WGAif that is the problem.

[Hani]

I used to use autopatcher alot back in the day. But I don't bother now for Vista. Takes about 45 minutes to get all updates. But would'nt one of the main reasons MS stopped this is because people who pirate xp for example and cant validate their install, can use autopatcher to get said patches? Completely bypassing MS authentication?

Not sure though.

well, unlike XP, Vista still doesn't have a lot of updates.

[glitch409]

Here's a link to the story on CNET: http://news.com.com/Patch+service+shuts+af..._3-6205191.html

What really gets me is this part:

"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...."

Since when, exactly, has Neowin been a subsidiary of Microsoft.

Am I blaming Neowin or the guys at AutoPatcher for what happened? No, I mean there no way they could fight it. Would Microsoft have a case in court against AutoPatcher? That?s debatable (license agreements hold very little water in courts). But what should have everyone here upset isn?t just the fact that we lost a very useful piece of software today, it?s the fact that whatever Microsoft wants, Microsoft gets. They can just walk up to anything they don?t like and if they don?t have the money or power to fight back, they can just send a cease and desist letter and not have a second thought about it.

And it?s true that Microsoft will never see any bad effects from doing this, but I hope this little event has taught all of you a little something about corporations. They?re powerful and, more importantly, stupid.

Anyway, I?d like to do what Microsoft was too blind to do and thank the AutoPatcher team for all their hard work.

[Yorak]

I've used AutoPatcher a few times before, like emergency viruses the day before a big speech is due. That happened twice, having to reinstall XP that night. AP made it easier. Microsoft are just throwing their weight around like they've always done, like they did to KoL, and like they will always do.

[whocares78]

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.

they still do, look them up you will find them, we use them in our test area

[whocares78]

Here's a link to the story on CNET: http://news.com.com/Patch+service+shuts+af..._3-6205191.html

What really gets me is this part: Since when, exactly, has Neowin been a subsidiary of Microsoft.

Am I blaming Neowin or the guys at AutoPatcher for what happened? No, I mean there no way they could fight it. Would Microsoft have a case in court against AutoPatcher? That?s debatable (license agreements hold very little water in courts). But what should have everyone here upset isn?t just the fact that we lost a very useful piece of software today, it?s the fact that whatever Microsoft wants, Microsoft gets. They can just walk up to anything they don?t like and if they don?t have the money or power to fight back, they can just send a cease and desist letter and not have a second thought about it.

And it?s true that Microsoft will never see any bad effects from doing this, but I hope this little event has taught all of you a little something about corporations. They?re powerful and, more importantly, stupid. i am not even goign to comment on the license agreement thing, it will be a waste of my time

Anyway, I?d like to do what Microsoft was too blind to do and thank the AutoPatcher team for all their hard work.

Firstly MS woudl have a huge case, debatable my ass, they make the software so can decide who gives it away for free and who doesn't, simple as they get really. no way you could beat MS on this one

MS have been kind enough to let this go on for a fair while, and really if MS does not want you redistributing their software then they have every right in the world t stop it. i fail to see how MS can be at blame for stoppiong someone illegally redistributing their software, it does not matter if MS give it away for free or not. it is still illegal for anyone else to give it away for free, unless mS say they can

You say MS will never see any bad affect, what if hacker manages to get into autopatcher modify a coupe of updates to basically give them full access to your machine and then post it back on the web for all to download, all of a sudden MS is gettign blamed baecause one of "their" updates broke someones machine

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT and just deal with it.

.

What about all the redistributed copies of Windows XP SP1 and SP2 by all those Computer magazines in the past ???

M$ never had 'malicious code' issues then !

.

yeah and you do realise that before XP SP1 they were NEVER allowed to redistribute any SP's, they did it for XP sp1 becasue it was such a big download. adn i got that straight from an MS security conference i went to. MS Allowed it so it is OK it is up to MS who they let do it, plain and simple

I thnk MS only allowed ones they trusted to redistribute it and they would easily know if one of them released a copy with malicious code, adn never allow them to do it again, you can't compare the two really.

[glitch409]

You say MS will never see any bad affect, what if hacker manages to get into autopatcher modify a coupe of updates to basically give them full access to your machine and then post it back on the web for all to download, all of a sudden MS is gettign blamed baecause one of "their" updates broke someones machine

I meant Microsoft would never see a dip in sales(as many people are "switching to Linux" because of this), by pulling this little stunt. Chances are, no one is switching to Linux because they lost AutoPatcher.

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT and just deal with it.

This is a forum, so I felt the most appropriate way to "deal with it" was post.

As for the rest of what you said, I'm about to head to bed and don't feel like diving into a legal argument at this time.

[clx]

mm.. bit sad to see this happen.

hands up who would NOT be surprised to see Microsoft release a product similar to autopatcher in the near future ? ;)

[Steven P. Administrators]

I'm confident something can be worked out.

And for all those blaming this on WGA it is simply not true! Some updates won't even install if the Windows version can't be validated in some way and Antonis has said he ships the WGA tool with the AutoPatcher updates.

Thanks everyone for your support on this matter, I wonder what Microsoft have to say for themselves!

[Cavalyr]

need to find the last full rls so i can hold on to it. and i dont use the torrent thing. i am sure it is out there somewhere.