Windows Live Essentials 2011 Flagged as Important Update

[=HyperViper=]

You can hide any updates you want, stop being a drama queen about it.

Doesn't give the option to hide this update so you better double check before you pull out another phrase out of your vocab. I know it shows as important when u have previous WL installed on your computer. If it fixes any bugs and or security holes, in the description of the update it states none of it apart from how great the new version is.

Bottom Line is that many users find this disturbing, there is nothing dramatic about it.

The only way to get rid of this is to un check the box that will notify you of the recommended updates as Important under windows update settings. The whole notion behind reporting recommended updates as Important (an area where 99.9% of times is referred to security patches) serves purely marketing purposes and in this case unethical so.

Ironically drawing a comparison, i therefore find the times where Windows Messenger was integrated feature of windows, somewhat more honest.

[Ryster]

Why? Why shouldn't they have to compete on the same terms as everyone else? I see no reason to defend this behavior from a corporation. Microsoft isn't your friend, it's a business (and one with a long history of abusive and illegal behavior.) You're just money to them.

You forget that many things in Windows Live Essentials 2011 were included in previous versions of Windows. Mail, Messenger and Movie Maker for instance. Microsoft removed them as core apps of the OS and released them as separate standalone apps. There's nothing wrong with that and I fully support that stance. These are just prior OS features that they have separated out and made optional. Keeping them on a separate development track to Windows itself makes them easier to update and support going forward,. It also gives consumers CHOICE about if they want to install them, or choose another set of products. While keeping then readily available in Microsoft Update makes it easy for anybody who does miss them to put them back.

Would you prefer they were put back in the OS like with Apple and you get no choice?

Doesn't give the option to hide this update so you better double check before you pull out another phrase out of your vocab.

Granted the below is for the optional version available in 2009, but the option to hide updates is shown below and is the same for recommended and critical updates too.. that's how I hid the EU Browser Choice thing. What options do you get when you right click on it in the list of available updates?

[tablet_user]

Hide your laptop Hide your computers. WLE is critical.

[WelshBluebird]

Doesn't give the option to hide this update so you better double check before you pull out another phrase out of your vocab.

You can hide it. At least on Windows 7, just right click on the update, and click hide.

[Ryster]

You guys do realise that with this update they will have made a fair few security improvements? Yes, it's a whole new version, but it's also more secure.

I believe I made that point, but thanks Calum :)

[Calum Veteran]

I believe I made that point, but thanks Calum :)

Oh, sorry :) I hadn't read the whole thread.

[Bryan R.]

I couldn't believe in my eyes this very day when i noticed the update notification icon on my wife's laptop. Normally knowing that Important updates are patching security holes i would just go ahead and install it. However what triggered my attention to click on "details" was the size of the update. 156mb ? i was "huh ? another service pack?"

I had two rub my eyes not once but twice to see that the important update was "Windows Live 2011".

I wont even bother to go through why it appears as important update neither i ll quote the lame excuses from Microsoft's Spoke persons.

Dear Microsoft,

What a LAME move this is to push up your software flagging it as an Important Update. What will be the next critical update ? A Firefox uninstaller ?

You should be ashamed. Nough Said.

Over reactive much?

[hdood]

Microsoft removed them as core apps of the OS and released them as separate standalone apps. There's nothing wrong with that and I fully support that stance.

As do I. I never thought they should be part of Windows in the first place, and the reason they were was because Microsoft wanted to crush the competition. They are now standalone applications like they should be, and the distribution system should be the same as for any other standalone application.

It also gives consumers CHOICE about if they want to install them, or choose another set of products. While keeping then readily available in Microsoft Update makes it easy for anybody who does miss them to put them back.

If people want them, they can go to the website and install them. What's wrong with that? It's what they have to do if they want to install a competing product.

Microsoft Update should go away as an update system as well. Why should non-Windows products from Microsoft have the privilege of using the Windows update system to update themselves? Why can't they use the same method that Microsoft dictates for third parties? Either everyone should have access or no one should. How is it any different from all the other internal Windows APIs that Microsoft was convicted in the past of illegally letting other Microsoft products use?

[Calum Veteran]

Over reactive much?

I know! How dare Microsoft suggest their own software, within their own software updater, from within their own operating system. What is the world coming to? /s

[Kyang]

I know! How dare Microsoft suggest their own software, within their own software updater, from within their own operating system. What is the world coming to? /s

So long as it's listed under optional updates, (Which it is, as others in this thread have reported.) then yes, it's fine. If it's suddenly placed as an important update, then I don't really support it. Patches should be the only thing that qualify as important updates, not some extra side-software.

[Neoauld]

It was marked as important for me but never auto-checked. I did it anyways just cause...its not so bad once you get used to it

[tablet_user]

So long as it's listed under optional updates, (Which it is, as others in this thread have reported.) then yes, it's fine. If it's suddenly placed as an important update, then I don't really support it. Patches should be the only thing that qualify as important updates, not some extra side-software.

All the pcs i repaired lately have it as optional unless they have the beta installed then it was in critical. Even on my 3 computers it was listed as optional

[lalalawawawa]

Windows 8 = integrate every freaking Microsoft product into it, and remove the "product" thing, like make the programs to be a simple feature of the OS. Should be good enough, I think.

[Bryan R.]

So long as it's listed under optional updates, (Which it is, as others in this thread have reported.) then yes, it's fine. If it's suddenly placed as an important update, then I don't really support it. Patches should be the only thing that qualify as important updates, not some extra side-software.

Pay attention: A consensus has already been reached that the update is only marked as important for those that have a previous version or component which it covers already installed.

[WelshBluebird]

So long as it's listed under optional updates, (Which it is, as others in this thread have reported.) then yes, it's fine. If it's suddenly placed as an important update, then I don't really support it. Patches should be the only thing that qualify as important updates, not some extra side-software.

It wasn't marked as optional. It was marked as important, and set to automatically download and install.

(I am running WLE 2010, and made sure I unchecked the new version and have hidden it so it doesn't try to install again).

Normally I don't think I'd have a problem with it. But the fact MS have removed features in the new version, and from all accounts there is a pretty large bug in it (that I mentioned earlier regarding geo location info in phots) mean that I really don't think MS should be attempting to force this onto people (which it essentially is, as most people have updates to automatically install).

[Bryan R.]

Windows 8 = integrate every freaking Microsoft product into it, and remove the "product" thing, like make the programs to be a simple feature of the OS. Should be good enough, I think.

No. IE was forcibly removed from Windows in the EU for this very reason.

[Chsoriano]

Pay attention: A consensus has already been reached that the update is only marked as important for those that have a previous version or component which it covers already installed.

Seriously... put this thread to rest already... it keeps on popping into my mini spy feed :p

[Salty Wagyu]

Yup, got marked Important for me as well due to having WLM 2009 installed, good thing I have AU set to check only otherwise my WLM 2009 would have been overwritten.

I agree it shouldn't be shown as an important update.

[argonite]

Seems like you're just complaining about how Windows Live Essentials is a downgrade in features, and thus don't want it to accidentally overwrite your older version. Nothing to do with Microsoft practicing shady tactics or anything, they're just updating the software you already have.

[soldier1st]

this is another reason why you should check every update that is availible before installing.

[Calum Veteran]

[...] They are now standalone applications like they should be, and the distribution system should be the same as for any other standalone application. [...]

However, it is Microsoft's operating system, so I see no problem with them suggesting users install their own software. Apple include all of this software within Mac OS X; Microsoft actually give users an option and only suggest they install the applications.

[...] If people want them, they can go to the website and install them. What's wrong with that? It's what they have to do if they want to install a competing product. [...]

Except, the competing products are not developed by Microsoft; since Microsoft are the developers of the operating system, it makes sense and is only fair for them to advertise their own software, within that system.

[...] Microsoft Update should go away as an update system as well. Why should non-Windows products from Microsoft have the privilege of using the Windows update system to update themselves? Why can't they use the same method that Microsoft dictates for third parties? Either everyone should have access or no one should. How is it any different from all the other internal Windows APIs that Microsoft was convicted in the past of illegally letting other Microsoft products use? [...]

I don't actually understand why people, including the EU, think it is a legal issue if Microsoft bundle certain software with their own operating system. If you think about it, Microsoft could create an operating system and not allow developers to build applications for it, just like Apple used to do with iOS (which is why I still don't understand why the EU had the ability to hold them to account). I certainly don't see a problem with Microsoft doing whatever they wish with their own operating system.

I disagree with your suggestion that Windows Update should disappear. However, I believe it should integrate with a full application store (or, 'marketplace', as Microsoft like to refer to them as). This marketplace could house Microsoft applications, as well as third-party applications, with a way to update them all. That's what I think would be better, in regard to this and it looks like that might be coming in Windows 8.

[Calum Veteran]

It wasn't marked as optional. It was marked as important, and set to automatically download and install.

(I am running WLE 2010, and made sure I unchecked the new version and have hidden it so it doesn't try to install again).

Normally I don't think I'd have a problem with it. But the fact MS have removed features in the new version, and from all accounts there is a pretty large bug in it (that I mentioned earlier regarding geo location info in phots) mean that I really don't think MS should be attempting to force this onto people (which it essentially is, as most people have updates to automatically install).

Of course it's displayed as automatic and important. You have a previous version installed - a previous version which is less secure and no longer supported by them.

If Microsoft ensured Windows Live Essentials 2011 downloaded automatically, on a computer which didn't have a previous WLE version installed, I'd understand people complaining; however, you are using free software which a company has provided and no longer supports; thus, they keep it up to date to ensure they can support everybody and everybody is using the latest version.

If it wasn't for operating systems being depreciated, it appears many people would still be using MSN Messenger 6.1... something Microsoft does not want - people using many different versions.

[hdood]

I don't actually understand why people, including the EU, think it is a legal issue if Microsoft bundle certain software with their own operating system. If you think about it, Microsoft could create an operating system and not allow developers to build applications for it, just like Apple used to do with iOS (which is why I still don't understand why the EU had the ability to hold them to account). I certainly don't see a problem with Microsoft doing whatever they wish with their own operating system.

I disagree with your suggestion that Windows Update should disappear. However, I believe it should integrate with a full application store (or, 'marketplace', as Microsoft like to refer to them as). This marketplace could house Microsoft applications, as well as third-party applications, with a way to update them all. That's what I think would be better, in regard to this and it looks like that might be coming in Windows 8.

The reason why "people," including the United States government (which lead the way against Microsoft) and the EU, have an issue with it is because of market dominance. The problem with Microsoft is that it has (although it's starting to shrink) an OS monopoly. At one point it was close to 100%. That's not in itself illegal, but it's something that makes them extremely powerful. For the sake of competition and ultimately consumers' benefit, such a situation has to be kept a close eye on.

Let's then use instant messaging clients/services as an example. This would be a separate market from operating systems. Even though Microsoft dominates the OS market, the IM market is separate and full of other vendors who do well.

Let's say Microsoft then decides they want a piece of the pie. Okay, fair enough. They release an IM service. That's fine, it's just one of the masses. Let's say they then decide that it isn't popular enough and start thinking of ways they can make it more popular and thus take away market share from the competitors.

They then realize that they have this thing called Windows, which is both a powerful brand and the standard OS found on "all" computers. They then decide this can be used to their advantage and add "Windows" to the name of the IM service and start advertising it on the Windows site, even though the IM service has nothing to do with the Windows operating system.

We now have a problem. Microsoft is using their dominant status in the OS market to gain an unfair advantage in the IM market.

Now the market share increases by 10% because people associate it with Windows, a product they know. Microsoft decides they aren't happy with this 10%, so they go and add a download link to it in Windows itself. Now every single Windows user is exposed to it and associates it with the Windows they know and trust, and hey, it's easier than hunting down something else when it seems to work just fine. Now the market share increases even more, let's say to a total of 40%.

Still not happy, Microsoft decides to go all the way and actually adds the IM service to the OS itself. Now every single Windows user has instant access to it without even downloading it. Since it works well enough, more people start using it. No hassle of having to seek out something else, and they know all their friends also have easy access to it. The market share now jumps to 90%, putting the competition out of business and making Microsoft the dominant IM vendor as well. Not because they were the best and beat the competition fair and square, but because they used Windows.

If you think about it, Microsoft could create an operating system and not allow developers to build applications for it, just like Apple used to do with iOS (which is why I still don't understand why the EU had the ability to hold them to account). I certainly don't see a problem with Microsoft doing whatever they wish with their own operating system.

The difference is that Apple does not have an OS monopoly. That's what limits Microsoft here.

I disagree with your suggestion that Windows Update should disappear. However, I believe it should integrate with a full application store (or, 'marketplace', as Microsoft like to refer to them as). This marketplace could house Microsoft applications, as well as third-party applications, with a way to update them all. That's what I think would be better, in regard to this and it looks like that might be coming in Windows 8.

That would certainly be better, and I would much prefer that. I can see downsides with it though. Being in the store would presumably not be free for developers, and both being in the store and the placement in the store could greatly affect the popularity of a piece of software. Still, I would like to see something like that.

[Mr aldo]

Sorry if someone asked, but did the computer already have Windows Live Essentials installed? If so, how is this a big deal?

Either way, Apple does this crap ALL THE TIME, I have iTunes installed, and the Apple Software Updater is constantly asking, do you want Safari? Huh? Huh? Do ya? Do you want Safari?

Yeah, I want an Apple browser on Windows...

Anyways, to stop this from ever happening, go to Control Panel > Windows Update > Change Settings > Uncheck "Give me updates for Microsoft products and check for new optional Microsoft software when I update Windows"

[AnotherITguy]

WINDOWS LIVE ESSENTIALS 2011 is better, but it has lost a few things, still it doesnt mean i won't use it because of the eliminated features.