Actually, I used Windows for years before discovering something
better. I explicitly disabled updates in XP, and it would insist on
looking for them and bothering me about them, anyway.
I put it here for I don't know what to call it--shall we say... historical
record?--how to turn off your Windows XP installation's automatic update
service: get into Control Panel, run the System applet, turn to Automatic
Updates page tab, set the radio button to your desired option. If you want
Windows to never download anything of its own accord, even when instructed
by applications (such as InstallShield) that use Windows Update
infrastructure for their purposes, go to Control Panel, go to
Administrative Tools, run the Services MMC snap-in, find Background
Intelligent Transfer Service, stop the service, set the service's startup
mode to 'Disabled.'
Very easy, very logical, very intuitive, clearly documented, and even
self-documented. Windows has lots of disadvantages but UI, configuration,
and representation of the local system is where there's the smallest
concentration of them. If you want to blame it get under the hood, find
actual OS design flaws, and then laugh to your heart's content.
In conclusion, I apologize to 9fans for polluting their list with Windows
nonsense. This will end right here even if J. R. Mauro goes on to say
her/his Windows system won't boot after a clean successful installation.
--On Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:43 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"
<jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is a lie. There are updates which (at least on XP) you could
never refuse. Nevermind the fact that Windows would have to restart
more than once on a typical series of updates.
Windows isn't really the subject on this thread or this list. Except when
someone goes out of their way to nonsensically blame it. I don't think
that's really meaningful or productive in any imaginable way. As it
happens, no one here is really a Windows user (or some are and they're
laughing in the hiding bush). You are no better. Please do substantiate
what you claim or stop trolling. There are absolutely no mandatory
Windows updates; you can run a Windows system intact, with zero
modification, for as long as you want or as long as it holds up given
its shortcomings. So, my educated guess goes: you have zero acquaintance
with that OS. Not even as much acquaintance as a normal user should have.
Actually, I used Windows for years before discovering something
better. I explicitly disabled updates in XP, and it would insist on
looking for them and bothering me about them, anyway.
Now maybe I missed some other option or the option I chose was
misleadingly labeled, or something was biffed in my registry. I just
googled for "can't turn off Automatic update" and found a bunch of
similar stories, though. In any event, it was so long ago I can't
remember what the circumstances exactly were.
--On Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:19 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"
<jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Eris Discordia
<eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote:
This thing about Windows updates, I think it's a non-issue. It's not
like updates are mandatory and, as a matter of fact, there's rather
fine-grained classification of them on Microsoft's knowledge base which
can be used by any more or less experienced user to identify exactly
what they need for addressing a specific glitch and to download and
install that and only that. Periodic updates of Windows are really
unnecessary and can be easily turned off. Cumulative updates (like the
service packs), on the other hand, are often the best way to go.
That is a lie. There are updates which (at least on XP) you could
never refuse. Nevermind the fact that Windows would have to restart
more than once on a typical series of updates.
What seems to actually be the problem for you is that you don't like
being told there's a closed modification to your existing closed
software. Well, that's the nature of binary-only proprietary for-profit
software. The only way to get you to pay out of anything other than
good will, which is a rare bird.
No, I think he's saying that Windows Update is a piece of fetid garbage.
P.S. On open/free software mailing lists and forums justice is often
not done to Windows, et al. Particularly, no meaningful alternative is
presented for carrying out the important duties Windows currently
performs for general computing, i.e. non-technical home and office
applications which combined together were and continue to be the killer
application of microcomputers.
Mac's updater is miles ahead of Windows Update, but both are still
crappy. I've given Linux to several "computer illiterates" and they
were immediately relieved that they could open up a single application
and search for any kind of software they needed, and updating it all
was done by that simple application. How simple is that!
The rate of failure of updates (compared to Windows update, which
would leave you with a completely unusable system every once in a
while) was also much lower.
--On Saturday, April 18, 2009 8:11 AM +0200 lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
The update/installation process in Ubuntu sucks. If you try something
using BSD ports or Gentoo portage, you can fine tune things and have
explicit control over the update process.
I was specifically omitting BSD ports, as they are in a different
league. The point I _was_ making is that one readily sacrifices
control for convenience and that Linux and Windows users and those who
assist them have to accept second-rate management and pay for it (I
should know, I can see it when XP decides to use the GPRS link for its
updating :-(
Enough reason for me to prefer Plan 9 (and NetBSD, but I can only get
my teeth into so many apples), if there weren't many more reasons.
++L
