E-Mail:

Microsoft Clarifies Silent Updates

Over at the Microsoft Update Product Team blog, they have clarified why silent updates are necessary to keep your system up to date with the latest fixes for Windows Update itself. After reading the information one can better understand what Microsoft was trying to do, but I personally believe that this information should of been made public before, not after, all the ruckus ensued concerning this issue. I find it hard to believe that Microsoft wouldn’t think that anyone would notice this behavior on their systems. Anyway, on the blog they explain how Windows Update functions:

One question we have been asked is why do we update the client code for Windows Update automatically if the customer did not opt into automatically installing updates without further notice? The answer is simple: any user who chooses to use Windows Update either expected updates to be installed or to at least be notified that updates were available. Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications. That result would not only fail to meet customer expectations but even worse, that result would lead users to believe that they were secure even though there was no installation and/or notification of upgrades. To avoid creating such a false impression, the Windows Update client is configured to automatically check for updates anytime a system uses the WU service, independent of the selected settings for handling updates (for example, “check for updates but let me choose whether to download or install them”). This has been the case since we introduced the automatic update feature in Windows XP. In fact, WU has auto-updated itself many times in the past.

Again, I think we should of been told before not after the fact. Sometimes I wonder why Microsoft treats us like children, and they take the role as the every watching parent. I think we are all big boys and girls and can handle the information no matter what it is.

So what do you think?

Comments welcome.

Full blog article here.

[tags]microsoft, blog, windows update, silent, updates, [/tags]

2 Comments

This seems obvious to me, but if you are going to present end users with an option to “opt-out” of Windows updates, you are creating an expectation of “privacy” and “stability”…i.e. my system won’t be updated or messed with without my explicit permission (by Microsoft).

This is the expectation of any user who elects to “turn off” Windows updates.

If they later decide to “turn on” Windows update, and find that some aspect of the site does not work properly because the WU service is somehow obsolete, they simply must design into their web site an error page that explains the issue and redirects to a WU installer download page, where users can bring things up to date. The WU engine does not have to work (yet), it just has to advise the user that he is out-of-date, and let him update. This notification process is trivial.

If MS presents a user (or system admin) the opportunity to opt-out of updates, then updates things anyway, THAT is “failing to meet customers expectations”, just as much as failing to update the WU engine. Actually MORE so, because it seems to indicate to the end user that his explicit choice to opt-out of system updates was meaningless.

Hello mhz,
Excellent points. Thanks your for your comments. As you state -opting out should be just that with no exceptions.
Regards, Ron

What Do You Think?

 

Want to Start a Blog Here for Free?

Are you an expert in one subject or another? If your goal is to help others and dispense hard-earned information back to the community, stake a claim on your very own Lockergnome blog today! You can write about anything - no matter the topic. Sign-up to start blogging!

Blogroll, General, Google, Internet, Technology - Oct 9, 2008

Google Joins The Game

68 queries / 0.573 seconds.