On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.'
Yes, simple as 1,2,3... 4,5,6,7,8,9. What a snap! > > 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. No one asked you to pollute the list the first time around, and I haven't run Windows on anything in years. I'm glad it works for you. Wish I could say the same. > > --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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
