Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft IT

Microsoft Forces Desktop Search On Windows Update 579

Posted by kdawson
from the what-part-of-no dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Register is reporting that the blogosphere is alight with accusations of Microsoft forcing Windows Desktop Search on networks via the 'automatic install' feature of Windows Update — even if they had configured their systems not to use the program. Once installed, the search program began diligently indexing C drives and entire networks slowed to a crawl."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Forces Desktop Search On Windows Update

Comments Filter:
  • by RaigetheFury (1000827) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:39AM (#21111815)
    Is it still isn't very good compared to Google desktop indexing.
    • Re:What's worse... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by arivanov (12034) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:53AM (#21112013) Homepage
      Who cares. What is important is that it is there forcefully bundled regardless do you want it or not so Google Desktop search has to fight for its place in the Sun against an already installed product. As MSIE and WMP have shown this is a battle which third parties cannot win (at least in the consumer space).
      • Re:What's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plague3106 (71849) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:07AM (#21112177)
        As MSIE and WMP have shown this is a battle which third parties cannot win (at least in the consumer space).

        Ya you're right; that's why FF isn't gaining any ground, and third party video players don't come pre-installed on dells and others!

        No, the real issue is that you shouldn't be forced to get an update you didn't consent to.
        • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:30AM (#21113313)

          No, the real issue is that you shouldn't be forced to get an update you didn't consent to.

          And I have to wonder what problem everyone else is having, because my PC duly popped up an automatic update notification for this earlier today, and I told it to go away and not come back, with no trouble and no observable adverse consequences.

          Why do I get the feeling that this story is caused by a lot of people who don't know how to configure automatic updates properly, and a lot of FUD because of the PR cock-up a few weeks ago? You can argue about how they classified the update, but certainly nothing has been "forced" onto my PC today as a result of the update going out.

          • by SomethingGeneric (860744) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @11:13AM (#21114015)
            The way that you have setup Windows update is different than most large corporate environments. YOU have configured the update service to prompt you when updates are available and allow you to choose which to install. In most multi thousand PC Windows networks you do not want to give users that power, you configure the service to install patches for security issues and ONLY those applications already installed. The ONLY those applications currently installed part is the problem. MS is forcing the installation of a NEW program which WAS NOT already installed. They are ignoring the choice made by the sys admins and installing the search application whether they wanted it or not.
          • Why this isn't FUD (Score:3, Informative)

            by ACMENEWSLLC (940904)
            Fact. I have WDS 2.x installed. It works with Kerio. 3.x doesn.t

            Fact. Months ago I approved WDS 3.01 update in Automatic Updates WSUS (install.) For months, this update has only updated WDS 3.x to 3.01 update. It has not updated 2.x nor has it installed on machines without WDS.

            Fact. Microsoft re-released this same update to WSUS. Re-released meaning it is the same patch in WSUS. Meaning that because I have WSUS set to retain approve/disapproved settings when patches are re-released, the new WDS 3.0
      • I hate that crap, as someone said in a review of some Linux distro, I do not know why people *need* a file indexing service like Beagle, personally I have all my documents pretty well ordered, and preffer to use the filesystem structure facilities to order my data (directories, subdirectories, etc) and for me Beagle and the like are just resource and TIME (they interact with the slowest component in the PC in very heavily) wasters. WHY IS IT TURNED ON BY DEFAULT??? WHY ISNT IT POSSIBLE TO TURN IT ON EASLY??
      • What is important is that it is there forcefully

        For business users, it's one more unacceptable risk. Now that M$ has a means to carry out the more obnoxious clauses in their EULA, you can no longer ignore those clauses as ineffective. Even if you do trust M$ to respect your secrets, others can and will take advantage of this mechanism to root them out. Universal indexing is more than a business risk to Mozilla and friends, it's a business risk to everyone. Business users should be headed for the exit

    • And even worse... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bearhouse (1034238)
      Not sure why you were modded 'funny' - after testing, both for myself and others, I think that what you said is (partially) true.
      I've had some *interesting* experiences wih strange M$ 'imcompatibilities' with GDS - see below.

      My experience with both GDS and M$ so far:

      GDS
      1. Need to turn off 'advanced' features in Google, plus do not let it search your web cache, your web mail and deleted items, for obvious (security & usability) reasons.
      2. If you let it index Thunderbird mail, it sometimes deletes / lost
  • This sounds like a dumb mistake. While they might have meant to install it on all computers, I doubt they meant to turn it on if it had previously been turned off. Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.
    • by mattpalmer1086 (707360) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:45AM (#21111885)
      Since when did Microsoft care about pissing off its users? What realistic alternative do they have?
      • I didn't say they do care about pissing off its users. I hinted that they'll only deliberately piss them off when they benefit from it. The contention of my post is they don't benefit from turning it on when people have already turned it off therefore it must be a mistake.
        • by MoonFog (586818)
          It wasn't turned off, and the updated turned it on. It wasn't even installed on the machines. The "update" installed an application and started it without alerting the user. It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent. Ever. This was a desktop search software, not a firewall or something that could probably be used for security.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sm62704 (957197)
            It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent.

            When you install an application (say, a smiley face cursor or a security update) and that installation installs a different application without your consent (say, a spam mailer or a desktop search), isn''t that called a trojan?

            What's next, rootkits [mcgrew.info]? Oh wait, this is Microsoft, they wrote the OS. You're already rooted.

            -mcgrew
          • From TFA

            Microsoft installed a resource-hogging search application on machines company-wide, even though administrators had configured systems not to use the program

            If they meant the program had never been installed or had been previously uninstalled, "configured systems not to use the program" is a pretty damn peculiar way to say it. So either:
            1) the Register used peculiar wording because they're illiterate.
            2) the Register used peculiar wording to deliberately mislead and misrepresent the issue.
            3) the update turned the program on after it had been turned off.

            It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent. Ever.

            Oh I agree. That WGA bullshit is a big reason why I've recommended my family not "upgrade" to Vista,

      • by mattpalmer1086 (707360) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:01AM (#21112105)
        Fabulous - my first Troll mod :) I actually felt I was making a serious point, although I guess I put it rather briefly.

        People don't have a realistic alternative to Windows yet. It's not just a technology issue either. Microsoft only improve products when they face competition, and ensuring they don't have to do that is one of their principal business strategies.

        Since Microsoft is (a) in the game of making money, (b) has a monopoly position in the market place and (c) continues to shut out competitors, then I contend that Microsoft don't care whether they piss off their users or not, and never really did care, except in those areas in which they are yet to dominate.

        Pleasing users is not Microsoft's game. That's what their competitors have to do.

    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:51AM (#21111985) Journal
      Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.

      No they are merely testing, how far they can push their flock. One has periodically test these things to know how much you can get away with. Without precise knowledge of how much the users will put up with, they might be a little conservative and lose money they would have otherwise made. Further this will also raise the pain threshold of the users, once they get used to this level of pain, they will not see anything wrong with Vista.

      • by jvkjvk (102057) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:15AM (#21113083)

        Further this will also raise the pain threshold of the users, once they get used to this level of pain, they will not see anything wrong with Vista.
        Now, there's some forward thinking. Keep pushing out updates to XP, slowly yet continually make the user experience worse and worse. After a year, it could be worse than Vista - if they work at it. They don't need to improve Vista, they just need to hobble XP!
      • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @11:11AM (#21113971) Journal
        Firstly, Vista isn't painful. I've tried it, I use it, it's fine. I even have UAC on, because it isn't as annoying as everyone makes it out to be. Although I must say as a disclaimer that I, like many people, haven't tried to set up a HD home cinema setup, so perhaps I'm not experiencing the worst of it.

        Secondly, the thing that's really slowing Vista adoption is not the alleged pain, but the fact that most people don't trust Windows until at least one service pack. This is a critical time for Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to make money (and trust me, they do), they would be focussing on rushing out a service pack, and concentrate on lessening the waves of FUD that are circulating around the web.

        In short, I think the GP is right, and the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.
    • by TheLink (130905)
      1) It's not so simple to "previously turn off something", if it's never been installed before.

      2) Whatever it is, Microsoft is doing lots of "Yeehaw! Cowboy" stuff and it's costing companies a fair bit of resources. But most will still keep coming back for more: "it's really my fault Microsoft only slaps me when I do something silly".
    • by Yer Mum (570034) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:53AM (#21112009)

      But they benefit from deliberately installing stuff on the computers of users who don't get pissed off.

      Don't want people to download Firefox or Opera? Push IE7 as a critical update.

      Don't want people to download Google Desktop? Push Windows Desktop Search as a critical update.

      Probably the balance between pissed-off users and non-pissed-off users makes it worthwhile in the end.

      • But they benefit from deliberately installing stuff on the computers of users who don't get pissed off.
        Oh yes. I was commenting on one part of the update, not the whole thing.
    • I think in the next update, the search index will become remotely searchable... and in the update after that, the access priviledges will be extended to the Microsoft IP range.
    • by jotok (728554)
      Honestly I don't think consumer satisfaction is a big issue with Microsoft; the vast majority of their clients are locked in anyway.
    • by myvirtualid (851756) <.pwwnow. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:26AM (#21112433) Journal

      This sounds like a dumb mistake

      Assuming that this is just a dumb mistake, I don't know what's worse:

      • Microsoft's complete and total lack of quality control, how many years after they claimed to have made security their number one priority? If your processes are so pathetic that mistakes like this make it out the door, you don't get security and likely never will. Change management is a paramount security control.
      • Someone, anyone, offering them such a pathetic get out of jail card

      Oh, but to err is human!, I hear you saying.

      Bollocks. When it comes to the operating system that runs the vaaaaaaast majority of desktops worldwide, quality counts. Or should.

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:03AM (#21112889) Homepage

      I guess I would wonder how this was able to happen at all. The admins configured the service so that the update wouldn't happen, and it happened anyway. Why was the software built in such a way that an outside party could even have the option of pushing an update against the configured settings?

  • by Chas (5144) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:48AM (#21111923) Homepage Journal
    This is getting ludicrous already.

    It's not even a friggin' security update either.

    Desktop search is NOT required on the desktop. It's a gimmick application (albeit a useful one for some people).

    Microsoft is abusing it's position as the sole control point of Windows Update to push more of their crap into the market.

    Additionally, Google may have a legit antitrust complaint here, as Microsoft looks to be trying to "IE vs Netscape" them on the desktop search. Unlike browsers, which can be opted not to be used, this desktop search is being auto-pushed, can't be refused, and it's detrimental to system performance to run two desktop search apps in parallel.

    Fuck the Storm botnet. We have bigger problems with a piece of malware called "Windows Update".
    • by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:56AM (#21112043)
      I think you'll find that the Desktop Search is completely inseparable from the desktop and that the latter would be rendered completely useless if it is uninstalled. Just like IE is.
    • by mysticgoat (582871) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:10AM (#21112227) Homepage Journal

      Fuck the Storm botnet. We have bigger problems with a piece of malware called "Windows Update".

      There is a fix for the "Windows Update" problem. If universally applied, it will also fix the Storm Worm.

      You know what it is.

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:59AM (#21113791)
      Microsoft is abusing it's position as the sole control point of Windows Update to push more of their crap into the market.

      when I first started using windows, I never used windows update. I was suspicious of it and I'd rather just manage my own security even though I would lose out on bugfixes. over time, I grew to 'accept' that MS was trustable in their updates and I started using them. I would approve each one and check to make sure nothing was getting installed that didn't seem useful or needed. but I was 'into' the MS update thing each month and updated my PCs.

      over the last year or two (give or take) I lost this trust. it also seems to be about the time that vista came into the scene. I don't run vista and I don't think I ever will, but if I was losing trust in MS's ability to force ONLY essential updates on me. it seems that if I can't even trust xp's update, why would I want to take things to the next level of non-control and give the full 'admin' switch to MS and just be at their update-stream mercy? its my understanding that vista boxes HAVE to be continually (not continuously, but mostly online) in order for them to stay (cough) 'current'. in all that that implies..

      if you are a vista user, you MUST accept and trust the update stream. but I can't even trust it as an xp admin or user; how does MS expect me to give them full control over my box by installing and using vista?

      I stopped taking the updates from the net and instead use the heisse security thing (the offline update cdrom method). I have a frozen image from when I think there were only 'good' things in that update and I guess that's pretty much the last of the updates I'm going to install (ever) on my xp boxes.

      the bond of trust is broken and so I could never accept installing or running vista. I can't examine or really approve/disapprove each update in vista and so ALL my control is essentially gone. no thanks.. really, no thanks!
  • Addition to TFA (Score:4, Informative)

    by cerberusss (660701) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:49AM (#21111939) Homepage Journal
    This only happens on Windows XP, when you have either Office 2007 or Windows Live Photo gallery installed.

    Not saying it's OK, just mentioning the facts.
  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by east coast (590680) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:49AM (#21111951)
    Critics cried foul on the principle that users should have absolute control over their machines.... The revelation that Microsoft is pushing yet more installations not explicitly agreed to by administrators is not likely to sit well with this same vocal contingent.

    It makes me ask: What kind of administrator is using automatic updates on their machines anyway?

    Let's face facts, while Microsoft should take much of the blame on this any admin should know at this point that automatic updates is opening yourself up to all types of undesirable installs.

    This is nothing new and it's sad to see "professionals" in the field are still leaving security updates and other installs to go through without even sending a glance it's way first.
    • Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)

      by makomk (752139) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:18AM (#21112325) Journal
      Unfortunately, this one apparently affects admins who were doing what they were supposed to and using WSUS. Commenters on the Register article were complaining that they'd set up WSUS to require them to approve patches, but it had taken it upon itself to auto-approve Windows Search to be installed on all systems anyway...
    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilNight (11001) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:15AM (#21113071)
      Companies that can't afford to send a fleet of tech monkeys running around to all of the desktops (in other words, most of them).

      I manage the WSUS at my company. No updates are EVER to be passed through without my direct approval, even new revisions of previously approved updates. We've had far too many updates go through and break things to allow any kind of auto approval. So, imagine my surprise when I sit down to a cup of coffee and my morning log review, and the first thing I see when I log in is the Windows Update icon telling me to install Windows Desktop Search - something I never approved.

      It went straight through, completely ignoring all of our security policies in the process. I was a little irritated at the Windows Update self-update passing through but I let that one slide since it was a MUCH needed bugfix and MS got a suitable backlash from it (silly me, thinking it was a one-time thing). Now we have the same behavior again months later. This is not acceptable. Luckily I'm in a bit earlier than most people so I was able to recall it with a few ninja edits to our group policy, and a company wide email apologizing for allowing it to be published, and warning people to avoid installing it if it somehow still got through to their systems.

      I made a few changes. Our WSUS servers now no longer have internet access and are not scheduled to download. I must manually turn on their internet access in our firewall and activate the pull interactively. That way I will see the updates as they arrive, and not have to put up with this stealth update bullshit in the future. I clearly cannot trust them to just sit there and acquire updates on their own any longer.

      I'm now developing a security policy for our corporate security software that will forcibly kill any applications on a blacklist I am creating. I will be adding Google Desktop, Windows Desktop Search, Plaxo, AIM, and any other programs I find that have a habit of sending data back home to outside companies. I'll happily find people alternatives that don't phone home - it's not the apps that bother me, it's the potential for leakage of our corporate data to third parties. I don't particularly care if the feature can be turned off, since I'm not the one installing it. If a program has potential to phone home, it's banned.
  • Annoying? Yes. (Score:5, Informative)

    by walterwalter (777821) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:49AM (#21111953) Homepage
    However to say that by default it was indexing the entire C: drive is erroneous. The default behavior is to index user files in "doc and settings" and then your outlook files after you open that program.
  • by AndyST (910890) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:51AM (#21111981)
    Welcome to Live Search, NSA Edition

    [_______________] [search]

    ( ) the web
    (o) all computers running Windows

    [X] force update
    [X] slow down computers
    [ ] obey law / constitution
    [X] forward trade secrets to us corps
    • Here they go and make linux MORE secure by adding code to it, opensource code so it is known to be safe, while spying on windows users.

      This proofs it, Linux users are true patriots who love their country and will defend it with their lives and therefore can be trusted with their freedoms, while windows users are all terrorists who hate our freedom and way of live and need to be spyed upon.

      Makes sense. If you see someone using windows, report them to the proper authorities, the freedom of the world depends

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @08:52AM (#21111989)
    Windows Update, you're the whore
    Who makes my computing such a chore
    I can't take this shit anymore

    Woo woo be doo

    Windows Update, you make me sore,
    When I disable you, you ignore!
    Windows Update, you're the bane of my existence, it's true!

    Doo doo doo doo, doo doo

    Every day when I
    Make my way to the workstation
    I find a little fella who's
    downloaded some new MS aberration

    Chunk-a-lunk-a-bluescreen!

    Windows Update, you're a cunt
    And I'm not sure I could be more blunt
    Windows Update, I'm awfully cross at you.

    Every day when I
    Make my way to the workstation
    I find a little fella who's
    downloaded some new MS aberration

    Windows Update, you're a cunt
    And I'm not sure I could be more blunt
    Windows Update, I'm awfully sick of -
    Windows Update, I'd like stick a brick in -
    Windows Update, I'm gonna download Ubuntu!

    Doo doo, be doo
  • I'd remain anonymous if I used that awful offal word "blogosphere" too. Blagh! [mcgrew.info]

    -Ralph Blog

    (Ok, not really, that was a pseudonym, I'm joking. OW! STOP IT!)
  • Just to verify without taking the 30 seconds to actually google an answer, but if Windows Update turns it back on, the standard turn off methods still work, correct? (assuming it doesn't get 'updated' back to on again later).

    FYI, these are the instructions I've followed in the past to turn this off (home user, not a sysadmin):
    http://lifehacker.com/software/optimization/turn-off-indexing-and-speed-up-windows-xp-031440.php [lifehacker.com]

  • misleading (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bizzeh (851225) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:01AM (#21112101) Homepage
    there are a few misleading points in the article.
    1. it doesnt AUTOMATICALY install with auto updates, or windows updates, it is in the optional software section of windows updates, thus does not come via automatic updates at all, and in windows updates you have to manualy select it.
    2. you are prompted before install
    3. once installed, it does not automaticaly start indexing everything in C, it promts you and asks what you would like to be indexed, and when/how.
    • Re:misleading (Score:5, Informative)

      by MikeyVB (787338) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:38AM (#21112591)
      Actually, TFA is not misleading at all.

      I am one of the Systems Admin for a company with 2000+ users. We use WSUS for updating our clients, and our WSUS settings are set to not install any updates of any kind what so ever unless we explicitly approved of them.

      Yesterday ALL of our users suddenly got the Windows Desktop Search app. We double checked our WSUS settings, confirmed that updates only install with approval, and also explicitly "Declined" the Windows Desktop Search. It still continued to roll out, even though we said we didn't want it!

      We use Lotus Notes for our corperate e-mail, and so Outlook is not installed on any computers, and so of course since Windows Desktop Search indexes your Outlook e-mail, and since we didn't have it, everytime a user logs on now, they get two error messages about that it can't find Outlook and can't index your e-mail. Ridiculus!!!!!

      Called Microsoft for support (we have an enterprise license) and said they would "look into it" and "get back to us". No matter that our users are calling like crazy and wondering what is going on...

      I *hate* Microsoft now.
      • Re:misleading (Score:5, Informative)

        by cwastell (1179517) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @11:08AM (#21113935)
        It was released as an revision update. WSUS automatically approves those by default, even if you've got every other type of update set to manual approval. Its a separate tab (Advanced) in the Automatic Approvals dialog, so its basically a hidden setting unless you're looking for it.
    • Well on my computer the update downloaded and installed itself - even though I made a point NOT to click on the install updates button. The good news is that all you need to do is go to Add/Remove programs to get rid of the thing: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=301681&SiteID=1 [microsoft.com]
  • It came up with the desktop search under the OPTIONAL software updates.
    Naturally, it got unchecked and blocked. My poor Inspiron 1100 has enough trouble as it is running XP along with all the necessary stuff that makes my world go 'round.
    I also noted that IE 7 is back in the high priority list again, and again, it got blocked.
  • Like I keep Saying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vtcodger (957785) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:02AM (#21112119)
    Automatic Updates do not seem to me to be a very good idea -- for users anyway. The big problem is that on bad days, they have the potential to shut down you or your organization with no warning. In fact, they can easily be more cataclysmic than a virus or rootkit. Malware may well try not crash your machine because killing the host is a bad strategy for a parasite. Bad updates do not have any such constraint.

    QA of patches is very difficult. Lots of time pressure. Lots of things to check. Easy to overlook things. It's not like Windows and other modern Megasoftware have any coherent set of specifications that can be tested against. Or that test procedures would be perfect if there were specificiations. Or that a thorough test could be run in a realistic amount of time. This looks like yet another QA screwup.

    Better to defer installing updates for a few days I think and let others Beta test the fixes. There's some risk to that also of course. But not as much. At least not in my estimation.

  • It's okay, it's just Microsoft trying to compete with Ubunutu 7.10's inclusion of trackerd.
  • M$ has always been know to be a one trick pony, so considering their current push is in advertising I would guess that this was not an "error" as they would lead you to believe. I wonder if what they are trying to do is to do what Google Desktop was/is tryin to do, which is to do some data mining work for targeted advertising...
  • by oliverthered (187439) <olivertheredNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:07AM (#21112169) Journal
    Gees, we have better quality control where I work. and we don't have any.
  • Article Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

    by Toreo asesino (951231) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:21AM (#21112349) Journal
    This applies to WSUS only, not the consumer Windows Update as everyone has mistaken it for. WSUS is the corporate, large-network version of managing and deploying product patches & upgrades to Windows machines (even if it's useful networks of any size really).

    What I find bizarre is that this system, not Windows Update (which I stress again, is different) has been subjected to a patch that seems to auto-approve itself!
    Under normal circumstances, each patch has to be approved (if set this way) by a network-admin before it will trickle out to workstations. This is the first time it would appear an update has approved itself.
    • I tell a lie.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Toreo asesino (951231) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:25AM (#21112425) Journal
      The problem here is in fact that the search has come as an update for Windows, rather than a separate product. Looks like the people that are affected are auto-approving updates as they come, which more or less half the reason you'd use WSUS in the first place - to test patch deployments before releasing onto the network at large.

      http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2315860&SiteID=1 [microsoft.com]
    • Re:Article Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

      by hb253 (764272) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:29AM (#21112463)
      Wrong. I'm administaer WSUS 3.0 in my company and the desktop search app was not auto approved or autoinstalled. As I've said in other posts, if WSUS released the patch, it's the admins fault, pure and simple.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by thehermit (78428)
        Seems as though there is some varying behavior with this update - perhaps related to the time the WSUS servers synced with MS?

        Our WSUS server (version 2.0, version 3 upgrade planned for Q1-2008) has Automatic detection only turned on for critical and security updates. All other auto approval options including revisions to updates have been turned off since early 2006. All 2.6.x versions of desktop search were declined when they were released in April 2006 and January 2007 since we do not want this softwar
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ciggieposeur (715798)
        I'm administaer WSUS 3.0 in my company and the desktop search app was not auto approved or autoinstalled. As I've said in other posts, if WSUS released the patch, it's the admins fault, pure and simple.

        I would say that if there are a lot of admins who have been using WSUS successfully for a long time and yet saw this problem, AND if their WSUS installations would have done the right thing if configured correctly, AND if they were in fact incorrectly configured, THEN the problem might be one of faulty docume
  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:23AM (#21112389) Homepage
    For many of us, it died long LONG ago. For many, there's still a great deal of blind trust in Microsoft. Many people are losing trust in Microsoft yet at the same time cannot see an alternative. (For example, at an architectural firm... there's just NOT a Linux desktop alternative ... there's AutoCAD and Revit and that's pretty much *it*. I know there are Macintosh CAD packages, but they are not AutoCAD and/or Revit.)

    So for those who don't trust Microsoft and use it anyway, there's stuff like Deep Freeze. :) Sure, Microsoft, go ahead and force your updates. Some people can roll them back because they don't trust your software any longer... even if they still use it.
  • WSUS is your friend (Score:5, Informative)

    by Verteiron (224042) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @09:59AM (#21112827) Homepage
    I declined this for my network via WSUS. It never set itself to "auto-install" as some of the comments I'm reading say it did, at least not in my network environment.

    Saw it in WSUS, declined it, end of issue.
  • by Techogeek (1148745) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @10:22AM (#21113179)
    If you have your PC set to notify before downloading updates, you can simply uncheck it when the yellow shield pops up. When you close the window a box will pop up asking if you want to install it later. Just uncheck the box again and it will never ask again.. Worked for me!

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...