An explanation of Windows Update automatic updating

The Microsoft Update team has posted a statement addressing the current community discussion on Windows Update's self-updating behavior.  The upshot is that a longstanding procedure in Windows Update requires it to self-update before it is able to recognize that new updates are available (note: WU does not conduct a self-update event each and every time it checks for updates).  This self-updating is done regardless of whether the user has enabled automatic checking, download and/or installation of updates.  It does so in an effort to avoid WU misleading the user to think s/he is up-to-date simply because s/he was not receiving notification that updates are available.  Put another way, WU cannot alert the user that there are security updates available if it is not in the necessary updated state that will allow it to recognize those updates (see "chicken and egg" dilemma).

However, we do recognize that we should have been clearer in our explanation of this process earlier in the game; the MU team's blog post is an effort to rectify that oversight.

In short, this is a poorly understood process, so I invite you to take a look at the details in the MU blog post to learn more.

Questions on this behavior are best addressed directly to the team via the MU blog.


Comments

  1. Posted on: September 13, 2007 at 3:22PM  

    There is no need to silently install anything. If Windows Update can automatically install something on the user's machine, it can also ask the user if they want it. If you guys really want users to have full control over their machines, ask us before modifying our system files if we have auto-updates turned off.

  2. Posted on: September 13, 2007 at 7:48PM  

    I agree fully with the previous comment. No system should be updated without the knowledge of the user. If the Windows Update client needs to update it should be asking and mentioning the consequences of not updating.

    Stealth installation of software should not be allowed by any software and particularly not a OS.

    On a completely different item Msoft need to add deactivation to Windows so when somebody like me installs Vista 6 months ago on a PC had issues so went back to XP. Then recently upgraded the motherboard and CPU on that PC and reinstalled Vista and ended up having to call Microsoft and speak to someone that was very hard to understand to get Vista activated which took way longer than it should have. The ability to deactivate it (as I can with adobe products) would have eliminated this and lowered my frustration level no end. Between that and Microfts brilliant decision not to allow clean installs from upgrades(I know there is a workaround , which I used) but it doubles the install time whenever I have to reinstall Vista on this PC.

  3. Posted on: September 14, 2007 at 6:35AM  

    Although the reasoning behind the automatic updating can be seen as a good one, this feature should at least be able to be turned off.

    At my work there are many PCs that need to be run in a locked down and  cGMP validated environment.  If system code is modified, by anyone, even by Microsoft the system is no longer validated.  WU could also be considered an application aswell as part of the OS so that may make implications of this auto updating worse.

    At least you guys are being honest so companies can evaluate the impact of this, if any to their systems and proceedures.

    Its good that you guys noted that

    "For enterprise customers who use Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) or Systems Management Server (SMS), all updating (including the WU client) is controlled by the network administrator, who has authority over the download and install experience."

    So hopefully not that many big companies are adversely affected.

  4. Posted on: September 14, 2007 at 9:25AM  

    Microsoft has such a questionable history that this devious behavior is not unexpected. Look at the terrible things they have done in the past, the companies, careers, and dreams they have ruined with their fraudulent and deceitful antitrust business practices.

  5. Posted on: September 14, 2007 at 12:10PM  

    Hey Nick, I just realized that in Windows Vista, there is no option to set menus to slide. Only the fade effect is available. Can you confirm that? I cannot find this anywhere else on the internet.

  6. Posted on: September 14, 2007 at 3:29PM  

    I am very distressed by this kind of continuing deceitful, and arrogant behavior by Microsoft. This is only the latest in Microsoft's attempts at collecting user data and modifying system files without notification or permission.

    Perhaps Microsoft's army of lawyers has created a EULA to make this legally permissible, but it is still a violation of trust, and in the long run will turn customers and businesses away from Microsoft products.

    Microsoft must once and for all realize that just because someone is using a Microsoft product that Microsoft does not have a right to clandestinely access or modify their systems and information FOR ANY REASON.

  7. Posted on: September 14, 2007 at 8:03PM  

    Hey omgbbq, markm66, newscientist2000, Major Trumpet and everyone else:  your coments are completely understandable and I'm making sure the WU team is well aware of how the community feels on this issue.  You'll note in Nate's post (the one I linked to) that we freely admit to having fallen down on this issue and that we can, and should, do better when it comes to behaviors of this type and the necessary disclosure of same.  Please know that we hear what you have to say and are taking your feedback seriously.  (I, for one, want to avoid similar events in the future, as reactive posts such as this one are not what I want to spend my time blogging about.)

  8. Posted on: September 15, 2007 at 12:01AM  

    Thanks for the info Nick.

    It's nice to see Microsoft is openly acknowledging problems when they are found, after all that really is the first step on the road to better software.    

  9. Posted on: September 15, 2007 at 4:15PM  

    I dont know whether there was some automatic update been done without my knowledge, but my system(vista ultimate) is still alive and is working perfect as it should be working. So, unless updates screw my system, I am never bothered about these kinda issues. With Vista, updates are so good that it increases the performance of my system rather than degrading.

    But it is good that a explanation was given :)

  10. Posted on: September 18, 2007 at 8:08AM  

    I too am glad to see that Microsoft admits that maybe doing stuff like this is a mistake.

    I hope that in the future Microsoft puts away this "we know this better that our customers" attitude that too often raises it's head. In some cases community can affect things, like happened with startup sound of Vista. Thank god, it drove me grazy after just ten startups! And if I recall correctly it was one Nick White who told that users don't now realize how subtle the sound is and how Microsoft knows better (ok, maybe not the last part...)

    Still there is a problem eg. with some updates _forcing_ reboot unless you do some magics unclear to a basic user. This is really a _wrong_way_!! Really, what if I'm having some serious number crunching going on that must not be stopped in any case? The nagging screen is ok, but forcing a reboot just because MS thinks it knows better that the user is wrong. Can you please do something for it?

  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

Trackbacks

  1. Posted by: Josh's Windows Weblog on September 13, 2007 at 7:41PM

    Nate Clinton a program manager for Windows Update has posted the details on the " Silent" update

  2. Posted by: E-Bitz - SBS MVP the Official Blog of the SBS "Diva" on September 13, 2007 at 7:48PM

    Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

  3. Posted by: death metal music video codes html myspace on September 16, 2007 at 8:27PM

    death metal music video codes html myspace

  4. Posted by: free web layouts myspace backgrounds graphics on September 16, 2007 at 8:27PM

    free web layouts myspace backgrounds graphics

  5. Posted by: free html backgrounds layouts myspace on September 22, 2007 at 1:49PM

    free html backgrounds layouts myspace