AutoPatcher no longer allowed

By Steven P.
in Site Announcements

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

1Frothy

Posted
Posted
What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

Looks like Ryan has pretty much abondoned his pet project anyway. It's been months since the last update.

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

Are you kidding? Neowin can be taken down faster than you can blink an eye if they don't listen to Microsoft. Go ahead and make your own website as popular as Neowin and then get on some large corporation's bad side, let alone Microsoft's. Let's see how well you do :rolleyes:

Mentor

jelli

Posted
Posted
What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

So Neowin should fight for the right to redistribute what belongs to Microsoft in the first place? Please think before posting, it is Microsoft's software and they can do with it what they wish, they are simply locking down all sources to get patches from so that they can control and ensure that the patches that people receive are genuine.

Shame that Ryan has stopped supporting his project, was a great fan of it combined with nLite.

Grand Master

Xerxes

Posted
Posted

I could be completely wrong here but perhaps the real 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.

Enthusiast

kouhii00

Posted
Posted
What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

Whoa calm down buddy. You do know when a big corporation with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ goes after a puny (compared to MS) site you know who loses right? Besides it's MS's softwares they have rights to it if you don't like it then don't use it, simple.

Mentor

+mrbester MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
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.

Enthusiast

crashguy

Posted
Posted

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?

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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 ;)

Mentor

jelli

Posted
Posted
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.

Mentor

jelli

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Contributor

BassRck4

Posted
Posted
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!)

Mentor

+mrbester MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Panacik

Posted
Posted
What a crock of sh**. What is the crap about neowin is not allowed. Is Microsoft telling you what to do now neowin? Cant believe neowin will just do whatever it is told by Microsoft. Who is your daddy neowin lol. Wonder what will happen to http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ and sites like that if "Microsoft will only allow updates to be downloaded from its own servers."

If Neowin had not gone along with what Microsoft has demanded of them in the past, Neowin would not be here now for us to ahve this conversation.

Microsoft monitors Neowin and has a certain amount of say over what happens on the site. The same as is with Bink.nu and others.

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.

Its a great idea, however do you think Autopatcher would stay a free software? They would find some way to say people should pay for the product and/or that it is only for use by companies and not the end user.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.