Windows Update Site No More?

[Jason Dunn]

This will probably break as new tomorrow, but in reading my Lockergnome newsletter tonight, it seems that Microsoft is retiring the Web version of Windows Update. The reason? Apparently the auto-download of updates negates the need for the Web-based version. Personally, I don't agree - there have been several times I've manually gone to the update site on a relatives computer, only to find several device driver updates that were never pushed down. Only critical updates are pushed down to the clients, so there are often updates that can only be retrieved manually. The last computer I was at didn't even have the Windows XP SP1 pushed down! I imagine we'll know more tomorrow, and Lockergnome might have got fed the wrong info.

[Rirath]

Woah, indeed. I'd hate to see that service go. It's just plain handy. Auto update, although nice, isn't perfect.

[Janak Parekh]

I'm pretty certain that this is wrong. Simple reason: the Windows Update site has "recommended updates" and "driver updates" that will never get installed via the Critical Update Notification tool. Neither does major service packs, like XP SP1.

Moreover, MS recently updated the Win98 site to have the "new XP look". The only site that looks like the old (v3) version is the NT4 update site, and that'll presumably get retired along with product support for NT4 on June 30, 2003.

--janak

[vincentsiaw]

micosoft, what do you want? wy make everybody wonder everytime?

[seanturner]

I doubt MS would cancel it because I've heard so much about hte windows update version 6 website debuting...

[Janak Parekh]

v6? What happened to v5? (If you go to Windows Update now, you'll notice the URL is v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com.)

--janak

[seanturner]

Err.... V5, sorry, the finger is faster than the brain. Yeah, i've heard some stuff about possibly tieing it into the product key database as another antipiracy step in addition to activation.

[Jonathan1]

I give it 2 days. There are an *** load of people that don't want MS installing software on their systems automatically. I'm one of them. They would get so much feedback it would be pathetic. They would fold like origami. I'm actually happy about this. Anything that gives MS another black eye is good.

The balls on this company still astound me. :evil: The reason for this is so they can phase it it so anyone running illegal copies would have to .NET their downloads and they can track it.

[Rirath]

micosoft, what do you want? wy make everybody wonder everytime?

Folks, for one it's not confirmed... who says MS is leading anyone one way or another? It could be lockergnomes sources that are wrong about this.

I give it 2 days. There are an *** load of people that don't want MS installing software on their systems automatically. I'm one of them. They would get so much feedback it would be pathetic. They would fold like origami. I'm actually happy about this. Anything that gives MS another black eye is good.

And how on earth does the web update site going down affect your dislike of auto critical updates? They probably wouldn't fold. You'd probably just have a buggy windows from now on or have to download manually.

[Foo Fighter]

Bah! I'm not buyin this rumor. I'll believe it when I see....or rather don't see it. MS would never kill manual updates. To many business customers would be left out in the cold.

[seanturner]

MS would never kill manual updates. To many business customers would be left out in the cold.

I would assume they would keep corporate update alive though....

[Pony99CA]

micosoft, what do you want? wy make everybody wonder everytime?
Folks, for one it's not confirmed... who says MS is leading anyone one way or another? It could be lockergnomes sources that are wrong about this.
True, and yet that didn't stop this post:


Woah, indeed. I'd hate to see that service go. It's just plain handy. Auto update, although nice, isn't perfect.

:roll:

That's the problem with a rumor -- if it's true, it's nice to get advance warning, but, if it's false, there's much ado about nothing. Is waiting until tomorrow to comment too difficult? :rofl:

Steve

[alan williams]

This one seems wrong for some reason.

[stlbud]

I don't know about the rest but I'd like to see the Windows update site go down. The only time I had trouble with my system was when I installed an update from that site.

[Rirath]

True, and yet that didn't stop this post:

Rirath wrote:

Woah, indeed. I'd hate to see that service go. It's just plain handy. Auto update, although nice, isn't perfect.




That's the problem with a rumor -- if it's true, it's nice to get advance warning, but, if it's false, there's much ado about nothing. Is waiting until tomorrow to comment too difficult?

As usual, I'll explain my post bit by bit to you since it's not apparently obvious. When I said "indeed", I was intending that to go off of Jason's last words about it hopefully being misfed info. After that I simply said I'd hate to see the service go.

[MLO]

And the article said that they were looking into retiring it for Windows XP...not all flavors of Windows.

MLO

[Peter Foot]

When SP1 was released for Windows XP it introduced some changes to support a new version of Windows Update. This includes tying windows update into the activation process - so only correctly activated copies of windows xp can download updates.

Therefore I think this article is simply referring to v4 being retired and v5 taking its place (for xp only), we'll see...

[Ed Hansberry]

This would be nuts. Know how long it would take to wait for the automatic updates immediately after a fresh install? Could take days to get them all. As it is now, I just install, update to SP1, then update one more time to get all the criticals. Takes about 3 minutes of Ed time and 2 hrs of DSL and computing time.

[Wiggin]

:roll:

That's the problem with a rumor -- if it's true, it's nice to get advance warning, but, if it's false, there's much ado about nothing. Is waiting until tomorrow to comment too difficult? :rofl:

Steve
Gee Steve, thought this was a Forum for folks to offer thoughts & comments? Why should people wait to offer their reactions to Jason's post? If they want to say how much they like/dislike/use/avoid/etc SW Update, who are you to say they should wait? And why are you rolling around on the floor laughing at them?
Here's a suggestion... how about you just offer us an opinion about the "topic" and stop laughing at folks who are contributing?

[DrtyBlvd]

I don't know about the rest but I'd like to see the Windows update site go down. The only time I had trouble with my system was when I installed an update from that site.

You're not alone :lol: (Having had trouble following usage!)

[Corazon]

Personally I don't want every single download pushed to me. There are some updates I just don't need.
That said, I know there are many people who never check for updates. They wouldn't even think of it. I think if anything Windows should have it built in to automatically check every month (or you can set how long between checks) and off you to download or not.

[ctmagnus]

I think if anything Windows should have it built in to automatically check every month (or you can set how long between checks) and off you to download or not.

That already happens, at least with Win98SE. Just set the options in Task Scheduler. I don't use Win2k enough to know how Windows Update works on there. But your point is a vaild one concerning WinXP.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Add me to the list of those who thinks that this is a miss-reporting of the fact - at least - I sure hope so. 8O I use that web site a lot - fixing friends computers etc.

[ctmagnus]

fixing friends computers etc.

I realize this theory is absolute cr@p, but this concerns me as being one of the many, many possible grey areas. After all, you're not supposed to share your software with other people, so why would you share something like this? If MS can get it so that the only updates done from their site are initiated by their creation and not the users of their creation, why wouldn't they?

[Janak Parekh]

After all, you're not supposed to share your software with other people, so why would you share something like this?
Uhm, our furry friend is referring to Windows Update, which he's not sharing illegally. Am I missing something here? :? Maybe you're overthinking this? If you're thinking "MS-initiated updates", no sane corporation is going to allow it any time soon. Period.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

That's the problem with a rumor -- if it's true, it's nice to get advance warning, but, if it's false, there's much ado about nothing. Is waiting until tomorrow to comment too difficult? :rofl:

Gee Steve, thought this was a Forum for folks to offer thoughts & comments?

Gee, Wiggin, and I offered a thought and comment about rumors.


Why should people wait to offer their reactions to Jason's post? If they want to say how much they like/dislike/use/avoid/etc SW Update, who are you to say they should wait? And why are you rolling around on the floor laughing at them?

I'm sorry that you couldn't follow the thought of my post. I was laughing at the thought of people waiting to post, not at the people who posted, so I was laughing at my own question. That's why I put the :rofl: after the question. :roll:


Here's a suggestion... how about you just offer us an opinion about the "topic" and stop laughing at folks who are contributing?

Here's a suggestion to you. How about you stop trying to assume my motives, especially when you're wrong. I did offer a thought about the topic (unlike you, by the way, who only commented about me). I agreed with Rirath that it was a rumor and, as Jason had mentioned there might be more information the next day, wondered why people couldn't wait to see if there was more information.

Or wasn't that the thought that you wanted me to have? :roll:

Steve

[Rirath]

Here's a suggestion to you. How about you stop trying to assume my motives, especially when you're wrong

Yeah Steve, good thing you've never been there... :wink:

[Steven Cedrone]

Wiggin & Pony: Please take this "conversation" off-line...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

[Jonathon Watkins]

Cool .sig you have Steve. :lol: :wink:

Very appropriate.