AutoPatcher no longer allowed

[Lee G. Veteran]

Yeah, that was awesome M2ys4U! (Y) :D

[+John. Subscriber¹]

M2ys4U? You have my total respect. Well done lad.

[Jack 0Neill]

That doesn't quite seem right considering they'd been allowed to do this for four years. Those EULAs haven't changed for that entire time so why would Microsoft care now?

Hard to say, it could have been anything; even a change in staff/management.

With the mention of malicious code, it makes me wonder if someone repacked AutoPatcher with malware and a new MD5Hash on a mirror site and then an end user who used that AutoPatcher reported the problem to Microsoft. It's really hard to say.

[Eolo]

Goodbye Microsoft!!

Hello OSX!!!!!

That's the spirit. I think microsoft needs a slap in the b**. Microsoft is a real pain in the ***.

[Windam]

this news makes me so happy all of a sudden..

[NienorGT]

this news makes me so happy all of a sudden..

WHAT?

[Jack 0Neill]

WHAT?

It was clearly sarcasm. Notice the two periods at the end of the sentence?

[ZOleg]

F***ing MS!!!

Everybody - kill Bill!!!

[Allan]

This has hit international news ... I'll copy this to "Clippings" Section

The Register

The Inq. (a real good story for once!!!)

Heise Security

PC Pro (UK)

SlashDot

BetaNews

TechSpot

Search Security - Aus.

Atomic Aus.

From Australia to the United Kingdom ... that's pretty damn good for Neowin...

[hotrod]

That was BRILLIANT with your HUGE pickett that clearly made it OBVIOUS to everyone what you were doing there! Nice job!! glad we got some exclusive footage!

[DrunkenMaster]

Why doesn't MS hire the people responsible for making Autopatcher? Here, they were, freely making a tool which saved countless MS users (home and SMB users and system admins, etc) hours or their time and money patching up their systems in a way which was quicker, easier and more intuitive than what Microsoft was able to accomplish. I can see the logic in the service packs and/or downloading each patch individually (incase one patch interferes with system or software) but why couldn't MS management or its development team realize that this was/is a handy way to patch its OS?

I don't know if my criticims offer a reason for pulling Autopatcher. But I think it should make it to official MS release and employ at least a few of the people responsible.

[travl0r]

Wow Autopatcher is so usefull and I thought it was helping peaple using Windows OS

I'm really failing to understand Microsoft's action, they should help projects like this not try to stop them

I hope Microsoft will listen to the community and rethink their position like they previously did several times

[mousepadtech]

5 words

I have switched to Linux!

__________________________________________________

I have been looking for a reason and fighting it off for years

this was the straw

[dyreryft]

Why doesn't MS hire the people responsible for making Autopatcher? Here, they were, freely making a tool which saved countless MS users (home and SMB users and system admins, etc) hours or their time and money patching up their systems in a way which was quicker, easier and more intuitive than what Microsoft was able to accomplish. I can see the logic in the service packs and/or downloading each patch individually (incase one patch interferes with system or software) but why couldn't MS management or its development team realize that this was/is a handy way to patch its OS?

I don't know if my criticims offer a reason for pulling Autopatcher. But I think it should make it to official MS release and employ at least a few of the people responsible.

I'm pretty sure microsoft do offer yearly/halfyearly/quarterly/somethingly iso downloads of their patches, or ordering of a cd with them (not sure exactly how often).

Whilst not anywhere near as handy as Autopatcher, I do believe they do provide something.

It is a shame about autopatcher though, handiest piece of software I've used as a sysadmin.

[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.

just curious what he hell has sales got to do with any of this, i really doubt anyone will switch to linux just because microsoft said they couldn't use the auto patcher. really that is just an insane comment, hey it's hard enough for someone that knows windows well to install stuff on linux, let alone any normal user.

[NienorGT]

I have switched to Linux!

Rofl, you leave Windows because you don't want to get updates by yourself and you go get an OS that have almost an update by day...

[Laughing Man]

Depending on the flavor of Linux. Linux's update by day might just be the SVN of a program from a repo you installed. Not the OS itself. Kinda like Windows Defender and their updates of the anti-spyware database.

just curious what he hell has sales got to do with any of this, i really doubt anyone will switch to linux just because microsoft said they couldn't use the auto patcher. really that is just an insane comment, hey it's hard enough for someone that knows windows well to install stuff on linux, let alone any normal user.

I also think this depends on the flavor of Linux as well. For most people I'd imagine it's easier to install stuff on Linux then Windows. I mean they have two package managers built right into the OS. All you have to do is load it up, type in whatever your searching for. Click the checkbox then install/ok. Then it's pretty much automated for the rest of it. And then if that's not enough for a "normal" user then they could always just go to www.getdeb.net and download debs of the latest programs. The same as downloading an exe and installing it. But yes I agree, I really doubt this would make anyone switch to Linux.

[~Simon]

That was great M2ys4U :D

You're my hero!

[Witt3439]

I kinda wonder if the reason that AutoPatcher was shut down was because it was already what XP SP3 (and probably Vista SP1) is going to be, just a bunch of updates!?!

One of the good things about AutoPatcher was that it also had a lot of useful apps included with it if the user wanted to install any of them, which probably made it too useful, at least as far as Microsoft was concerned.

It's obvious that the program was good, or Microsoft would've used the "malware" excuse LONG before now. In my opinion (and we all know what they say about opinions), Microsoft felt threatened for whatever reason!

[themousepad]

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.

I just try to provide a very professional and complete service to all my customers. Auto updates only install the critical updates there are still many updates to install that it does not cover... hardware updates and addins for example...

If you leave these to your customers they may update... say an nvidia driver that does not need updated and boom... no video... bsod... ive had it happen many times... only to have the computer show up again in my shop and i have to take time to repair that mistake because I should have had it done correctly the first time...You may not realize but the public in general are idiots and of course... they didnt do it .. you did.... in addition if you are fixing a computer and being paid for a complete, clean, professional product ... dont you think you should give it to them... and what about the customers on dial up... what.. they can do updates over the course of 12 months and still not get them completed

Downloading and installing updates from service pack 2 forward ... there are what...???... like 200 when you include ie7,mp11,.net ... when updating, repairing and installing O/S on 5-8 cpus every day... you really need an auto patcher tool to save you lots of time per machine so you can move on to the next one...

I guess a guy could use a wsus server but then you have the added expense of a server just to do updates and nothing else... why when you can have an auto patcher...

Hey ... Maybe thats it......MS shutting down auto patcher to push its wsus server.... that makes a little bit of sense also ... now doesnt it...

Well I hope for everyones sake... MS backs off on this and AP returns...

Im keeping my fingers crossed but i think they old arther will set in before it happens... heres hoping im wrong...

[Caleo Global Moderator]

It's fairly ironic how shutting stuff down gives it more attention. I didn't know of autopatcher before now... but I'm downloading it as we speak. Screw ms.

[Ji@nBing]

That really sucks. I've been using Autopatcher since the beginning. It's the first thing I run after a fresh install. I really hope MS changes their minds. Regardless, I'd like to thank the Autopatcher team for all thier hard work over the years making such an awesome app.

[remix17]

What did M2ys4U do exactly? I went back but couldn't find anything.

[noormanbel]

Someone's not reading my post(s), or at least is not understanding them.

You can go to Microsoft's Update Catalog, download all the updates, put them on a CD/DVD/Flash Drive and take them around with you to OTHER computers, just like Autopatcher. This makes the third time I've mentioned this. Oh, and the Update Catalog also includes WHQL drivers for download... and Office patches too.

And, how many times has Autopatcher 'changed' things and required a full-release download, instead of just an update?

And, I think the August one was like 350+MB.

The Microsoft way- just download the new updates from the Catalog and burn them.

Yeah, I said MS's way is more cumbersome, so I know that.

*cheers*

.

You go ahead and doubleclick every patch that you downloaded from UC to start them one after the other.

I prefer the Autopatcher way; select (f.e. only the critical patches) and launch the install process.

It 's unattended !

Wait a minimum of time and 'voil?', a fully patched system.

I don't want to sit through the series of downloads every day !

.

[akaladis Veteran]

Hard to say, it could have been anything; even a change in staff/management.

With the mention of malicious code, it makes me wonder if someone repacked AutoPatcher with malware and a new MD5Hash on a mirror site and then an end user who used that AutoPatcher reported the problem to Microsoft. It's really hard to say.

AutoPatcher has had several security features for years now. Altering a module will be caught be AutoPatcher's own MD5 integrity checks and the user will be alerted appropriately.