AutoPatcher no longer allowed

[Mystiq]

People (might) still find Autopatcher useful and i dont see why its not possible to have it avaitable without any M$ ****. Seems kinda odd or can M$ simply kill development of any software based solely on the fact its for Windows? :wacko:

[Nashy]

Hi Nashy,

What's the meaning of childish for you? I believe this is a new fashion on the web to criticize other's opinions. No I'm not buying any other Microsoft product ever again as I said. You don't have to believe me but I will NOT do so for sure. It is totally true Microsoft has the right to deny people distribute their software but I'm completely sure their attitude will be different if they were only a 5% on the market instead an 80%.

Deny, EULA, Copyright, Buggy software, etc is everything you will ever heard about Microsoft. That's it, I'm done with them.

Have you ever been locked out of your PC because WGA says your copy is not Genuine? I personally have had terrible experiences with legal(purchased) Microsoft products. You can't be really disappointed as you said when you take no actions against something you don't consider convenient.

You simply don't know what a 4 years of hard work, coffee nights, "overtime", testing, and sacrifice means for those who FREELY made that Autopatcher you probably downloaded so many times. But that's life and there has to be people like you and childish like me.

Peace

lol ok. *pats head*

Hard work is great. Now I'll be blunt, what you were doing was all great, but you should have known at any time MS could pull the plug. It's their software, not yours.

[whocares78]

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.

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.

there is no legal argument. home time im outa here

[cme4pc]

@DaveLegg, i'd have thought you'd forgive me considering the news...

i'm in a state of shock...

This is SO wrong on SO many levels.... :crazy:

First of all.... The AutoPatcher code is the property of its creators, not Microsoft. Granted the patches from Microsoft are their property and they can control it's distribution as they see fit, and the patches are still available via regular MS channels. If the AP codes is available then, as Simon suggests, folks can d/l the patches through MS approved distribution methods, then use the AP code to "build your own" update discs. AP can still offer modules for open source and other software for which permission is available.

Neowin... show a little backbone and let the AP community continue in a manner that does not infringe on MS intellectual property rights for the time being. Yes, there will need to be compliance IF a cease and desist order has been issued, however, all we have heard is that there was a "phone call" or communication by email.... exactly what activity was specified... by whom at MS and under what legal authority?.....

Concern over malicious code is EXTREMELY VAGUE! Is Microsoft now going to monitor / control all inventory-diagnostic-slipstream-etc.etc. programs and forbid patch detection, listing and referal because these programs too may contain "malicious code?" Sounds like an excuse to eliminate competition. THIS SMACKS OF ANTI TRUST ISSUES.... and all communications between MS and Neowin/AP Team needs to be forwarded to government prosecutors involved in the ongoing cases to illustrate how MS over-reaches.

The security ramifications of choking off viable alternative patch management system should concern everyone across the board from end users, to ISP's and all the way up to national security. It's UNBELIEVABLE that MS would do ANYTHING CONTRARY to efforts inside or outside its organization that would make using internet connected computers more secure. Clearly MS does not have our global society's "GREATER GOOD" in mind here.

If the AP Forums could be re-instated without posting / channeling software/code that belongs to microsoft (give unto ceasar...) then I think it would be in everyone's interest to have the community re-established. It would be unlawful for MS to attempt to control an entire community built around software code that does not belong to Microsoft.

AS SIMON SUGGESTS, It would also reduce the workload and d/l size of the autopatcher files if a technique is developed where AP serves as a "Front end" utility for patch managment rather than containing the actual MS patches themselves.... I hope I'm getting the point across here.... NOT ALL AP CODE IS MICROSOFTS! ... it would appear that MS wants to channel tech types and system builders to MS update, technet, and the download center for distribution by automated process, individual downloads or in bulk security release formats. OK fine. Again, there should be a way for the AP team to create a front end without duplicating / redistributing MS property. At least for the time being until some clarity / agreement can be reached between AP and MS.

MS apparently has NO APPRECIATION FOR HOW VALUABLE AUTOPATCHER IS TO ITS OWN CONSUMERS AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING THEIR CUSTOMERS FOR SAFE, SECURE, AND RELIABLE COMPUTING.

I've always said that MS SHOULD BUY AUTOPATCHER / HIRE ITS TEAM / WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE MS OFFERS NOTHING THAT CAN SAVE MS PARTNERS, ITS INTERNAL CUSTOMERS, ITS EXTERNAL SUPPORT CUSTOMERS AND END USERS A MORE EFFICIENT PATCH MANAGMENT / DELIVERY SYSTEM. Something tells me that MS is working on it's own similar program, quite possibly by reverse engineering AP, and will market it's version as part of One Care Live. Again, this attempt by MS to shut down AP reeks to high heaven of anti-trust / monopolistic business practices designed to unfairly eliminate competition.....

For crying out loud, YOU GUYS OWN AUTOPATCHER, not MS.... DON"T JUST LAY DOWN!!!! Its really up to NEOWIN and the AP Team members to decide to stand up for themselves and their communities... for all our sakes, I, for one, hope they do.

[Alpha Drone]

If one of Microsoft's concerns is that Autopatcher allowed pirated copies of XP to be patched, one has to ask... how did those pirated copies of XP get installed in the first place, if WGA was working properly?

On a lighter note- it's nice to see such community support for Neowin! If you read this thread alone, you see MANY of the posters signed up today... apparently just to comment on this thread. Very nice!

[swift_gti]

If Microsoft are saying that Autopatcher isn't allowed because its redistributing their files, then why not have the autopatcher framework still keep going and we simply have a list of links to the hotfixes straight from the Microsoft website.. that way they aren't redistributing the files but we can still use autopatcher to apply them etc..

Or have autopatcher simply go to the MS site and downloaded the required fixes and then store them for any future use.. again they won't actually be redistributing them :)

[argonite]

<snip>

You're calling anti-trust on this one? This is not illegal and not anti-trust. It is Microsoft patches, and Microsoft doesn't approve. Got it? That's the end. Maybe IF AutoPatcher had been a front-end, this wouldn't have happened, but it was, and it is. So unless there's a major revamp in AutoPatcher, you will have to DEAL with Microsoft's LEGAL but STUPID decision.

[160160]

'STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT and just deal with it' ?

Oh I think complaining is quite reasonable under the circumstances. There may not be much else we can do, be we can still complain.

[clx]

oh dear me...

I usually like reading the Inquirer, but i think they have the wrong end of the stick here, but as i dont use Autopatcher myself please correct me if i am wrong in believing that Autopatcher doesnt allow you to "bypass Windows genuin authentication"

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42008

Volish briefs kill Autopatcher software

Get off our Windows

By Nick Farrell: Thursday 30 August 2007, 11:06

THE MAKER of a bit of software designed to make it easier to update Microsoft products has been killed off after Volish lawyers found out about it.

Autopatcher is a natty bit of software which provides all the updates you need in one easy to download package. It has been around for more than four years, but it's clear that Vole just woke up to the idea that it was a way around the Genuine Advantage updating machine. This means that if you have a bit of pirated software you can get the updates without having to go near Vole and be dubbed a pirate.

Writing on the site, Antonis Kaladis said he had received an e-mail from Microsoft, requesting the immediate take-down of the download page.

He said that this means that AutoPatcher was probably history and, as much as the outfit disagreed with Vole, it could not do much. ?

[Panacik]

This is SO wrong on SO many levels.... :crazy:

First of all.... The AutoPatcher code is the property of its creators, not Microsoft. Granted the patches from Microsoft are their property and they can control it's distribution as they see fit, and the patches are still available via regular MS channels. If the AP codes is available then, as Simon suggests, folks can d/l the patches through MS approved distribution methods, then use the AP code to "build your own" update discs. AP can still offer modules for open source and other software for which permission is available.

Neowin... show a little backbone and let the AP community continue in a manner that does not infringe on MS intellectual property rights for the time being. Yes, there will need to be compliance IF a cease and desist order has been issued, however, all we have heard is that there was a "phone call" or communication by email.... exactly what activity was specified... by whom at MS and under what legal authority?.....

Concern over malicious code is EXTREMELY VAGUE! Is Microsoft now going to monitor / control all inventory-diagnostic-slipstream-etc.etc. programs and forbid patch detection, listing and referal because these programs too may contain "malicious code?" Sounds like an excuse to eliminate competition. THIS SMACKS OF ANTI TRUST ISSUES.... and all communications between MS and Neowin/AP Team needs to be forwarded to government prosecutors involved in the ongoing cases to illustrate how MS over-reaches.

The security ramifications of choking off viable alternative patch management system should concern everyone across the board from end users, to ISP's and all the way up to national security. It's UNBELIEVABLE that MS would do ANYTHING CONTRARY to efforts inside or outside its organization that would make using internet connected computers more secure. Clearly MS does not have our global society's "GREATER GOOD" in mind here.

If the AP Forums could be re-instated without posting / channeling software/code that belongs to microsoft (give unto ceasar...) then I think it would be in everyone's interest to have the community re-established. It would be unlawful for MS to attempt to control an entire community built around software code that does not belong to Microsoft.

AS SIMON SUGGESTS, It would also reduce the workload and d/l size of the autopatcher files if a technique is developed where AP serves as a "Front end" utility for patch managment rather than containing the actual MS patches themselves.... I hope I'm getting the point across here.... NOT ALL AP CODE IS MICROSOFTS! ... it would appear that MS wants to channel tech types and system builders to MS update, technet, and the download center for distribution by automated process, individual downloads or in bulk security release formats. OK fine. Again, there should be a way for the AP team to create a front end without duplicating / redistributing MS property. At least for the time being until some clarity / agreement can be reached between AP and MS.

MS apparently has NO APPRECIATION FOR HOW VALUABLE AUTOPATCHER IS TO ITS OWN CONSUMERS AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING THEIR CUSTOMERS FOR SAFE, SECURE, AND RELIABLE COMPUTING.

I've always said that MS SHOULD BUY AUTOPATCHER / HIRE ITS TEAM / WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE MS OFFERS NOTHING THAT CAN SAVE MS PARTNERS, ITS INTERNAL CUSTOMERS, ITS EXTERNAL SUPPORT CUSTOMERS AND END USERS A MORE EFFICIENT PATCH MANAGMENT / DELIVERY SYSTEM. Something tells me that MS is working on it's own similar program, quite possibly by reverse engineering AP, and will market it's version as part of One Care Live. Again, this attempt by MS to shut down AP reeks to high heaven of anti-trust / monopolistic business practices designed to unfairly eliminate competition.....

For crying out loud, YOU GUYS OWN AUTOPATCHER, not MS.... DON"T JUST LAY DOWN!!!! Its really up to NEOWIN and the AP Team members to decide to stand up for themselves and their communities... for all our sakes, I, for one, hope they do.

Take a deep breath and read a few pages back... MS seem to think they where offering Windows for download through AP and not just the updates.

This is still being assesed by MS and the AP creators and will hopfully turn out fine in the end.

[Lee G. Veteran]

This is still being assesed by MS and the AP creators and will hopfully turn out fine in the end.

I hope so too, although I'd completely understand if Microsoft didn't allow AutoPatcher. It's just one of those things, sadly.

[ozgeek]

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.

Turn on Automatic Updates and you won't have to sit through them. Just let the computers do it's job of downloading the updates while you do other things like install software. I had to do this during Work Experience. On each new computer I go to Windows Update and downlad and install the updates. While the computers is doing those, install software and drivers and stuff like that. Not hard work at all, just repetitive work to do. As for repair shops, if you don't want to eat up bandwidth, just make sure Automatic Updates is ON and Windows will do it via the customer's own internet connection after they take them home.

I only tried Autopatcher once years ago but haven't bothered with it since because my computer does it all automatically without my involvment. To say that while using Windows Update leaves you open to bad things is rubbish. If this was the case then MS would have made it so that their updates are instantly installed the second they are downloaded yet, they made it so it waits for a specific time to install these.

Edited August 30, 2007 by ozgeek

[MickK]

Just a thought but if Autopatcher can't include the patches and hotfixes itself for legal reasons, is it possible to directly link to the files on the MS website instead. I can't see MS having a problem with this if all they are concerned about is malicious code and this way, the end user wouldn't see any difference in the current product other than a huge size reduction of the installer. Of course, after installing and running the program for the first time, all downloaded patches and hotfixes (from MS) could then be saved to a users local drive so that they don't have to repeat this process for future updates.

[beddo]

I'd be very interested to see how this pans out. If WGA is the concern then there has to be a way to include it in the rollup. If code security is a concern then people have already raised the idea of having autopatcher as an aggregator which pulls the files directly off the provider's servers. In that case a 'cache locally' option would be very useful for people such as ourselves.

We are an IT support company and are continually building new machines or rebuilding machines with a knackered windows install. Every single one of these has a genuine license and that is all checked during activation. Autopatcher was good because it saves us downloading everything over and over again. That can especially be a problem late on in the day when you want downloads to finish quickly before you go home but all the Americans are up and the load on the servers increases. The speed difference is really noticeable!

If Microsoft would release a rollup or SP3 update then they could sort out a lot of concerns, but then that'd give people just one more reason to stick with XP rather than tackle Vista.

I suppose the interesting part of this will be whether Microsoft enter into talks on what their concerns are and how to produce something satisfactory or whether they're not interested and just want it shut down.

[Stephen Veteran]

is thur a petition going round?

ste

[the_guy]

I've used AutoPatcher for the past 2 years, helped out in the community time and again, and I am just shocked about this.

Oh well, we can hope that the Microsoft employee Neobond is in discussions with can give the green light for AP to continue.

the_guy

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

is thur a petition going round?

ste

You can voice your opinion here:

https://support.microsoft.com/common/survey...WS=mscomukform1

[Panacik]

Just a thought but if Autopatcher can't include the patches and hotfixes itself for legal reasons, is it possible to directly link to the files on the MS website instead. I can't see MS having a problem with this if all they are concerned about is malicious code and this way, the end user wouldn't see any difference in the current product other than a huge size reduction of the installer. Of course, after installing and running the program for the first time, all downloaded patches and hotfixes (from MS) could then be saved to a users local drive so that they don't have to repeat this process for future updates.

Yep, been said many times in the thread.

I'd be very interested to see how this pans out. If WGA is the concern then there has to be a way to include it in the rollup. If code security is a concern then people have already raised the idea of having autopatcher as an aggregator which pulls the files directly off the provider's servers. In that case a 'cache locally' option would be very useful for people such as ourselves.

We are an IT support company and are continually building new machines or rebuilding machines with a knackered windows install. Every single one of these has a genuine license and that is all checked during activation. Autopatcher was good because it saves us downloading everything over and over again. That can especially be a problem late on in the day when you want downloads to finish quickly before you go home but all the Americans are up and the load on the servers increases. The speed difference is really noticeable!

If Microsoft would release a rollup or SP3 update then they could sort out a lot of concerns, but then that'd give people just one more reason to stick with XP rather than tackle Vista.

I suppose the interesting part of this will be whether Microsoft enter into talks on what their concerns are and how to produce something satisfactory or whether they're not interested and just want it shut down.

It was because they thought they where allowing the download of Windows rather than the updates, this has nothing to do with WGA.

[FlishFun Veteran]

Amazing that this just started out as a way to help IT workers install patches!

Anyway, I don't think it would be so bad if Microsoft came up with a solution that worked as well as the AutoPatcher did. I still use it almost weekly, and I think that this needs to be a wakeup call to Microsoft that this is something they need to implement, or just allow the AP team to keep on truckin'. :yes:

[Stephen Veteran]

petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SaveAut...signatures.html

Edited August 30, 2007 by ste

[fuut]

thats really ****

[JiveMasterT]

You can voice your opinion here:

https://support.microsoft.com/common/survey...WS=mscomukform1

I just did.

[SnowRanger13]

I sent feedback to Microsoft. I hope we can save Auto Patcher.

[NienorGT]

Signed into digg (for the first time) and signed the petition. Still looking for the most smart text that I can do for the Feedback.

Autopatcher team as my entire support!

[code65536]

If Microsoft was really concerned about WGA, they could easily do what they did with IE7, WMP11, and Windows Defender: require WGA for the install. As someone else has already said, WGA is primarily an educational thing to inform normal users that they may have been sold a fake copy of XP (which isn't so common in the West, but is the norm in places like China; incidentally, WGA was first rolled out in places like that). My point is, having those updates do not really hamper the function and mission of WGA, and this is one case where I do believe the official line.

What is at stake, however, is support. I'd imagine that Microsoft would want greater control over their patches. They often re-issue patches, recall patches, or change the WU metadata to control and change whether a certain patch should go to a certain computer depending on that system's patch state and configuration. These are all controls that they lose with AP. And the fact of the matter is, in the Windows world, if something goes awry, Microsoft gets the blame, regardless of whether or not it was even their fault, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they are wary of things like AP.

All that having been said, I think it's best to recall the saying, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In this case, the stupidity isn't Microsoft's "decision", but rather the process by which a massive non-monolithic company like Microsoft comes to such a "decision." As already noted elsewhere, the complaint did not come directly from Microsoft, but rather from a third-party copyright infringement watchdog (the exact same company that also issues similar takedown notices on behalf of Apple Computer, movie studios, etc.; on that note, if you ever watch how Apple handles similar issues, you'll realize that Microsoft's legal department is downright saintly when compared to Apple's legal department). Microsoft has outsourced this task of Internet watchdog to this third-party company and has authorized it to take action on behalf of Microsoft and in Microsoft's name. What we don't know is what actually goes on between then. Did Microsoft direct them to go after AP? Or did this third-party, with their blank check, just decide one day that AP was not kosher? The point of outsourcing such activity is to relieve Microsoft of the burden of finding and investigating every case, so it is doubtful that there is that much communication between them, as that would defeat the purpose of the outsourcing (and if there were lots of communication and coordination, it's unknown how much of that communication is with the decision-making brass at Microsoft or with various Microsoft underlings). Even within Microsoft proper, there are often cases of very poor communication (the latest incident with the WGA server failure also involved Microsoft Support erroneously telling everyone that it won't be fixed until Tuesday, which has now resulted in questions from the WGA team about why the heck Support said that, apparently without the WGA team's stamp of approval). Just as parts of our own government more often than not do things that are not representative of the will of the country (or of the will of other parts of the government) (how many Democrats groan when they hear foreigners construe Bush's words as the officially sanctioned position of everyone in the US?), any big company would have similar synchronization and coordination issues. And much more so if outsourcing.

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, my personal guess on the true cause of the issue, in order of likelihood, is:

Most likely: third-party company got overzealous and screwed up

Possibly: Microsoft is concerned about control over support issues

Unlikely: WGA/piracy concerns

We'll find out for sure when Microsoft responds...