Microsoft Forces Desktop Search On Windows Update 579
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."
Addition to TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Not saying it's OK, just mentioning the facts.
Annoying? Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can someone confirm this? (Score:2, Informative)
misleading (Score:3, Informative)
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:Addition to TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Article Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:1, Informative)
Which is why every IT Department which maintains "hundreds of [those] PCs" should be running their own WSUS server, which is free, easy to do, and saves your company an assload of bandwidth whenever patches get deployed. YOU control what gets pushed out to the clients.
I tell a lie.... (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2315860&SiteID=1 [microsoft.com]
Re:Article Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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.
At least you can remove it (Score:3, Informative)
WSUS is your friend (Score:5, Informative)
Saw it in WSUS, declined it, end of issue.
You don't have to install it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's worse... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forced? (Score:2, Informative)
I thought the desktop search used a service called "search". Disable that service and the desktop search doesn't run.
Re:misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forced? (Score:2, Informative)
WSUS exists so admins can pick and choose which updates go out. Just having it let everything go through with out testing it is, well... I cannot come up with a single reason as to why anyone would want to configure it that way.
Re:No Conspiracy Theories (Score:3, Informative)
I call double-bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Forcefully? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:5, Informative)
My wsus downloaded and marked them as INSTALL tuesday night, they were rolled out at 3am just as any update I would have approved. EXCEPT I DID NOT APPROVE IT. Why the fuck would I 1) approve a patch the same day it was released with NO testing and 2) EVER APPROVE WINDOWS DESKTOP SEARCH.
People like you piss me the fuck off. I run a tight ship. WSUS has NEVER done this before. EVER. It was 100% their fucking fault. Just because it didnt happen to you doesnt mean it didnt happen.
Re:What's worse... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:2, Informative)
Why this isn't FUD (Score:3, Informative)
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 3.01 retained it's approved status. They also re-released Windows 2003 SP3, for example. Same patch, just a few minor changes.
Fact. When I came in yesterday, WDS 3.01 was automatically installed on 50+ of my machines, and I didn't want that. It was slated to install on all 500+.
This update to existing WDS 3.01 patch should have been released as a new patch in WSUS so that it adopted my default approval settings, not as a minor change & re-release to adopt existing approval settings.
To uninstall WDS you run
C:\WINNT\$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps your "Automatic Approval" options settings caused it to be approved for install? For me, I have nothing set to be automatically installed (my only automatic approval is "Detect Only"), and the Windows desktop updates all came in as "Declined". But, SP2 for Windows Server 2003 came in as "Install", when is should have been "Detect Only".
Something is definitely weird about this group of updates.
Re:Addition to TFA (Score:2, Informative)
This is absolute crap!!! I hope this one triggers someone to do something about Microsoft's ever increasing invasiveness. Something needs to happen before their greed has truly disastrous consequences.
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:3, Informative)
What really gets me is that that isn't truly an "update" as I think of it, it's new software. Perhaps an "upgrade", but not an "update".
Re:What's worse... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be ignorant. IE is made up of many components such as HTML parsers, HTML renderers, XML parsers, network protocol handlers, GUI management. Only an absolute idiot would suggest reinventing the wheel every time that functionality was needed. It is absolutely true that "Internet Explorer" (all the code that actually implements the web browser functionality) is integrated into the OS (OS in the sense that the majority of people understand it) and there are very sound and smart reasons for it to be the way it is. From a design perspective it's pretty much in line with best practices for abstraction and code reuse.
You spoke about code reuse, but what you say doesn't make sense. The whole point of code reuse is that you can take pieces of one app's code and use it in another potentially unrelated app. With the IE model you can only reuse everything by way of integration with IE, not just the parts you want.
No... Contrary to what you believe, the Windows web model sure isn't an example of a good design that facilitates code reuse.
And even worse... (Score:3, Informative)
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 / corrupted the Thunderbird mailbox if you de-installed.
Clearly, not a trivial problem.
3. Integration with M$ products - notably Outlook - quite good.
4. Can have problems 'losing' files from index - don't get reindexed, even if force-reindex (sometimes).
5. Search results interface OK, but rather sparse and configuration options limited.
6. Gadgets are a pain, for most people. Turn 'em off, (easy).
M$ search.
1. Earlier versions much poorer and slower than GDS. Later ones better.
2. You *have* to install with latest version of Outlook in order to get rid of annoying 'click here to enble instant search' bar in your toolbar. GDS does not seem to work so well with later versions of M$ Office.
3. M$ search - once installed - works OK, although user interface is more cluttered, through attempting to offer more advanced search options...
4. Yippee! GDS then is de-selected as 'default', and Google as search engine in browser, and starts to crash...
More 'cookcoo wear' from M$?
Re:Who's being "forced" to do anything?! (Score:2, Informative)