Kerry Brown wrote:

> If nothing else the issue has created a lot of healthy debate. It has

> made me think about updates in general, not just with Microsoft OS', in

> a whole new way.

 

Sooner or later this will save you some hunting. )

Please note that the procedure is from an MS website

so they are making an effort however obscured.

 

Vista (or the Vista OPK) contains an updated expand.exe command

line utility which can be used to view the newer Vista hotfixes

in (*.msu packed by IPD I think).

 

If you are extracting a hotfix package, follow these steps:

Double-click the Hotfix.exe file.

In the Microsoft Self-Extractor dialog box, click Continue.

In the Select the folder where you want to unzip the files

to box,

type C:\MSUFolder, and then click OK.

If you are not extracting a hotfix package, create a folder that

is named C:\MSUFolder, and then save the MSU file to this

folder.

 

At a command prompt, type the following commands.

Press ENTER after each command.

c:cd c:\MSUFolder expand -F:* Saved_MSU_File_Name.msu

c:\MSUFolder

expand -F: Saved_MSU_File_Name.cab c:\MSUFolder

 

The C:\CABextract folder now contains subfolders.

Examine the files in the subfolders to determine which files

are updated by the MSU.

 

PS Typically *.cab are no problem to open.

7zip freeware compression utility will open/extract *.wim files.

LessMSIerables can extract *.msi files (includes source).

 

NT Canuck

'Seek and ye shall find'

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Kerry

> I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website.

> In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by

> myself and others, and it will be again.

>

 

 

Ah the great hero Jupiter steps up to defend the users despite

constantly denying there's a problem and telling them to read the EULA

again...

 

And it obviously doesn't influence Microsoft at all, does it? What an

inflated ego you have.

Kerry Brown wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:%23xnE8KN%23HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>

>> Oh BTW there is a simple reason it's not MVP in the sig. I am

>> certainly NOT an "Expert" with every aspect of computing and did not

>> want to appear to be an authority on something I'm not. I did help out

>> with OE and IE but have lacked the time to contribute properly for

>> quite a while...

>>

>> I think it is common to forget that a user who comes here may have

>> just clicked a link and never used a newsreader before, or the awful

>> CDO thing, and a lot probably feel a bit shy of asking questions. I

>> don't think "Didn't you read the manual before you installed it?" is a

>> terribly helpful reply :)

>>

>> This group and MS Access (Because the group name implies "Public

>> Access to Microsoft") seem to be in a league of their own when it

>> comes to talking down to folks :)

>>

>> If I'm wrong sometimes then I'm wrong, but I treat everyone the same

>> be it George W Bush or Bill Gates, nobody I ever met had a halo or

>> IMHO deserved one, including me :)

>>

>

> I thought long and hard about including MVP in my sig. There are many

> reasons not to but in the end I decided that even though I like to think

> I'm not easily swayed it's certainly possible that the MVP award may

> have changed the way I think about Microsoft. People need to know that I

> may be biased if they take my advice on something.

>

 

 

I try very hard to remain unbiased. I have had concerns about other OS

also. For example Open Source is "Supposed" to be good in terms of peer

review etc. But - does anyone except a developer really look at a Linux

Kernel and study the source code in depth except for the part(s) they

are immediately involved with? Or, do they just take the bits that are

not altered this time around and recompile again?

 

What are the chances of something malicious sneaking in?

 

I know that's not supposed to happen but could it?

 

Look at the number of updates to Java recently, true it's not an OS but

it does play a major role in some areas.

 

So yes, I think the purpose of the MVP award was well intentioned, and

one can declare honestly there's no obligation to MS except of course

the non disclosure agreement. OTOH they don't tell me much they don't

want others to know anyway, but I would honor that agreement as far as

proprietary info goes. As for criticism where we think it is due I think

the MVP award explicitly expects constructive criticism. Otherwise why

include the parts about being independent.

Adam Albright wrote:

 

|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:59:07 -0700, FIsc <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com>

|wrote:

|

||On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

||| Silicon neuron wrote:

|||

||| > Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista

|||without users' > knowledge, even when the users have turned off

|||auto-updates.

|||

||| Actually, this is not being done without user consent.

|||Just the opposite. Every user of each operating systems has

|||been given advance notice that such things could happen, and has

|||consented to it.

|||

||| Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could

|||happen:

|||

|||

|||==================================================================

|||======

|||

||| You may switch off these features or not use them.

||

||And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even

||when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with

||their own rules?

|

|

|Microsoft is infamous for proclaiming "rules" only to break the rules

|themselves. Classic example and what's getting a lot of noise now is

|UAC and standard user. For YEARS Windows and every Microsoft product

|was by DESIGN written to run as administrator. Until Vista, Windows

|installed itself with one user, will full administrative rights unless

|you changed it. Now the boys of Redmond bellow loudly that's not a

|good idea, yet it was Microsoft that not only started the practice but

|encouraged it. The biggest hypocrites of all are found at Microsoft!

 

 

You're absolutely right on that one. I couldn't believe my eyes when I

first understood what UAC was all about. But then again, Mr Gates was

the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb memory.

Look at Vista, 640k isn't even enough to issue a BSOD these days.. :)

 

--

//ceed

Kerry Brown wrote:

> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation

> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and

> BITS to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find

> any. If you read between the lines and read several articles spread

> across technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this

> conclusion. Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly

> shows how to disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at

> worst deliberate misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with

> Microsoft updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I

> now know they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest.

> I want to decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I

> check a box that says to turn something off it is off.

 

Someone said update control is in here somewhere.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/3a8c83c3-4eac-4cc3-86fc-a54e67de9c121033.mspx?mfr=true

 

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=208e93d1-e1cd-4f38-ad1e-d993e05657c9&DisplayLang=en

 

technet document..

"this is because those files are updated

via a separate channel."

 

There seems to have been a separate channel (not wsus)

that was used for those stealth updates ...

Just great, stealth updates and now secret channels.

 

NT Canuck

'Seek and ye shall find'

This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

against whatever you want.

Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

subject is noted yet again.

 

"constantly denying there's a problem"

Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:%23X0t47N%23HHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Ah the great hero Jupiter steps up to defend the users despite constantly

> denying there's a problem and telling them to read the EULA again...

>

> And it obviously doesn't influence Microsoft at all, does it? What an

> inflated ego you have.

"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb

memory"

That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message

news:xn0fba4o1yovm6001ceedsaid@news.individual.net...

> You're absolutely right on that one. I couldn't believe my eyes when I

> first understood what UAC was all about. But then again, Mr Gates was

> the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb memory.

> Look at Vista, 640k isn't even enough to issue a BSOD these days.. :)

>

> --

> //ceed

Adam Albright wrote:

 

|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

|<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

|

||Ford can't.

||There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

||right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

||If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

|

|Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you

|willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they

|want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that

|is, but we both know you don't.

 

I still don't get this "fanboy" term. It doesn't really tell me

anything other than that you do not trust (and/or like) people who

likes Vista or MS for that matter. It seems very personal for some

reason. Why is it so bad that some people, like me, get Vista to work?

Is it because it's not fair since you don't?

 

In your world I guess I would be a fanboy, but I think it's a good

thing because it means I get return on my Vista investment. But you use

the term as an insult. I just do not get the logic behind that.

 

And now you will probably call me all kinds of nasty things again

including fanboy. It is kind of amusing that someone like you who

obviously knows a lot about computers and software wastes so much time

being mad.

 

--

//ceed

Look who is calling the Kettle Black - Just FYI

 

This is so funny. The brain dead right wing wacko who: Posts about his

jobs at the USPS. Just FYI

Who Posts About His right wing wacko political views. Just FYI

Who cries about Republican Senator Fred Thompson. Just FYI

Who tells people to remove Vista on the desktop and install Windows 2008

Server. Just FYI.

 

This moron Kevin Putzke is telling people they violated some rules? Just

FYI.

 

Pretty damn funny there Kevin baby. You violate the rules each and every

time you post. Just FYI.

 

What a moron.

 

http://priceless420.com/Pr090807hotelmoron.jpg

 

By the way the link show you where Kevin vacations. Just FYI.

 

Just FYI

 

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:B6735978-616F-4C49-B8D6-E03AF8C190E6@microsoft.com...

> You Just Violated The Microsoft Connect TOS (Terms Of Service), Just FYI.

>

> P.S. You Are Not Supposed To Post Your Beta ID In The Public Newsgroups,

> Just FYI.

>

> "Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" <Kevin.Brunt@MSproducts.com> wrote in message

> news:46E9A183.14926934@NEWSGROUPS.COM...

>>

>> This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any

>> systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!!

>>

>>

>> Silicon neuron wrote:

>>>

>>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>>>

>>> By Scott Dunn

>>>

>>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without

>>> users'

>>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>>>

>>> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely

>>> installed,

>>> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.

>>>

>>> Files changed with no notice to users

>>>

>>> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users'

>>> systems

>>> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files

>>> that

>>> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP

>>> and

>>> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these

>>> files

>>> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.

>>>

>>> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's

>>> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be

>>> set

>>> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with

>>> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to

>>> be

>>> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.

>>>

>>> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check

>>> the

>>> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary.

>>> What's

>>> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU

>>> wasn't authorized to install anything.

>>>

>>> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who

>>> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another

>>> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows

>>> Update, as

>>> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that

>>> case,

>>> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software

>>> had to

>>> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such

>>> a

>>> notice never appears.

>>>

>>> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the

>>> issue

>>> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that

>>> it

>>> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've

>>> set

>>> your preferences to require it.

>>>

>>> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet

>>>

>>> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals

>>> no

>>> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to

>>> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you

>>> were,

>>> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the

>>> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get

>>> a

>>> stealth install or nothing.

>>>

>>> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files,

>>> which

>>> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at

>>> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a

>>> Microsoft

>>> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:

>>>

>>> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update

>>> itself.

>>> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update

>>> is

>>> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for

>>> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is

>>> blocked

>>> until this update is installed."

>>>

>>> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft

>>> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:

>>>

>>> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific

>>> issues

>>> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS

>>> [Windows

>>> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be

>>> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is

>>> available."

>>>

>>> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching

>>> began

>>> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide

>>> any

>>> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.

>>>

>>> System logs confirm stealth installs

>>>

>>> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP

>>> and

>>> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables

>>> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,

>>> according to the post.

>>>

>>> In Vista, the following files are updated:

>>>

>>> 1. wuapi.dll

>>> 2. wuapp.exe

>>> 3. wuauclt.exe

>>> 4. wuaueng.dll

>>> 5. wucltux.dll

>>> 6. wudriver.dll

>>> 7. wups.dll

>>> 8. wups2.dll

>>> 9. wuwebv.dll

>>>

>>> In XP, the following files are updated:

>>>

>>> 1. cdm.dll

>>> 2. wuapi.dll

>>> 3. wuauclt.exe

>>> 4. wuaucpl.cpl

>>> 5. wuaueng.dll

>>> 6. wucltui.dll

>>> 7. wups.dll

>>> 8. wups2.dll

>>> 9. wuweb.dll

>>>

>>> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no

>>> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC

>>> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior

>>> that's

>>> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in

>>> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"

>>>

>>> How to check which version your PC has

>>>

>>> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine

>>> executables in

>>> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number,

>>> 7.0.6000.374,

>>> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by

>>> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version

>>> tab

>>> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)

>>>

>>> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in

>>> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:

>>>

>>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll

>>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll

>>>

>>> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows'

>>> Event

>>> Log:

>>>

>>> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.

>>>

>>> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.

>>>

>>> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.

>>>

>>> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them.

>>> Event

>>> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column.

>>> "Windows

>>> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for

>>> system

>>> patches.

>>>

>>> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the

>>> Event

>>> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were

>>> stealth-updated

>>> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on

>>> machines that received the patch on other dates.)

>>>

>>> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each

>>> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties

>>> dialog

>>> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information

>>> at

>>> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU

>>> updates

>>> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation

>>> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update:

>>> Automatic

>>> Updates."

>>>

>>> No need to roll back the updated files

>>>

>>> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the

>>> updated

>>> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no

>>> reason

>>> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the

>>> latest

>>> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to

>>> perform

>>> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant

>>> in

>>> the future.

>>>

>>> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching

>>> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to

>>> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart

>>> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a

>>> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.

>>>

>>> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information

>>> on

>>> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send

>>> me

>>> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.

>>>

>>> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is

>>> also

>>> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a

>>> monthly

>>> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)

>>> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.

>>

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

 

|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

|640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

 

It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it

doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have

wanted to deny that also.. :)

 

Take a look here:

 

http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

 

--

//ceed

"NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:u0aXLaO%23HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Kerry Brown wrote:

>

>> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation

>> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS

>> to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any.

>> If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across

>> technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion.

>> Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to

>> disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate

>> misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft

>> updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know

>> they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to

>> decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box

>> that says to turn something off it is off.

>

> Someone said update control is in here somewhere.

> http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/3a8c83c3-4eac-4cc3-86fc-a54e67de9c121033.mspx?mfr=true

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=208e93d1-e1cd-4f38-ad1e-d993e05657c9&DisplayLang=en

>

> technet document..

> "this is because those files are updated

> via a separate channel."

>

> There seems to have been a separate channel (not wsus)

> that was used for those stealth updates ...

> Just great, stealth updates and now secret channels.

>

 

 

Windows Server Update Services is a service to run on a server to replace

using the Microsoft servers for client updates on a network. The server is

configured to download the updates from the Microsoft servers then deploy

them to the clients as approved by the network administrator. I have

customers who use WSUS. I use it on my test network to test updates for

customers before they approve them for their networks. I haven't had time to

see yet if the update in question was deployed by WSUS. I imagine it was but

the WSUS process is very open to the network administrator. As far as I know

they have complete control over what gets deployed to the clients but I also

thought this about the normal update channel so who knows.

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

http://www.vistahelp.ca

Without any evidence, it is a myth at best.

 

"But it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies..."

But it can when there is no evidence of it having been said other than

commonly misquoted.

Find something that gives a specific time place, verifiable source such as a

transcript etc.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message

news:xn0fbaia4zyd30004ceedsaid@news.individual.net...

> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it

> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have

> wanted to deny that also.. :)

>

> Take a look here:

>

> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

>

> --

> //ceed

norm wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> norm wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> norm wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

>>>>>

>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Well norm, I don't think so.

>>>> If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and

>>>> that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.

>>>

>>>

>>> Good enough for what? You?

>>

>>

>> Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your

>> uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for

>> yourself, right?

>

> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As

> opposed to what from your quarter?

 

You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your

accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

 

You can attempt to walk this around

> in circles all you want.

 

Nah, you're the one doing the wheel act, not me.

 

What is unsubstantiated? You stated (quite

> strongly) that you believe in God.

 

So?

 

With that belief comes responsibility

> for one's words and actions.

 

Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to

assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking

the fool.

 

Your words and actions belie such a belief.

 

Ha! Who the hell do you think you are? I'll be the determiner of my

beliefs and my actions related to those beliefs, not you!

> You are a hypocrite by definition.

 

Now you're statement are becoming hypocritical. You're one really

confused person!

 

The other possibility is that you do

> not believe in God, even though you state that you do.

 

Now you wandering into make-it-up land!

 

In that case, you

> are simply a liar.

 

You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than

you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.

Live with it! You're wrong!

>

>>

>>>

>>>> And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't

>>>> make me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a

>>>> hypocrite by your's or anyone else's definition.

>>>

>>>

>>> Sure you are.

 

That statement's not working cause it's just not true. Nor can you make

it true.

>>

>>

>> hahaha...sorry norm, but that's just not true. Your opinion is owned

>> only by you and it's totally meaningless especially to me, the person

>> you're trying to hang it on.

>> Try again

>>

>>>

>>>> And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.

>>>> Too bad!

>>>> Try harder.

>>>

>>>

>>> Don't need to.

 

Then you lose! Plain and simple.

>>>

>> Then you give up and concede that you're wrong, right?

>> Otherwise your argument just fell completely apart.

>>

>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>> Oh, and one other thing.

>>>> You have no idea who I am either!

>>>

>>>

>>> Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition.

>>

>>

>> Wrong again. You're the only one pushing the definition...and without

>> any proof..other than you say so...so by "anyone's definition'...is

>> simply not true is it?

>> Try harder.

>> Frank

>>

>> And you still have no idea who I am.

>

> You are correct. I have no idea who you are. I know what you are. A

> hypocrite, and if not that, a liar.

 

Purporting to prove I am something I'm not by simply saying it doesn't

make it true.

In fact, knowing the truth, that I'm not a hypocrite, now makes you both

a liar and a fool.

You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far

you're not keeping up!

Frank

ceed wrote:

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>

> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

> |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

>

> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it

> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have

> wanted to deny that also.. :)

>

> Take a look here:

>

> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

>

 

 

Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

 

“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

 

Which is vastly different from saying:

 

"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

640kb memory".

 

Frank

On 17 Sep 2007 04:58:36 GMT, "ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

>|<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>|

>||Ford can't.

>||There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

>||right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

>||If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

>|

>|Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you

>|willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they

>|want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that

>|is, but we both know you don't.

>

>I still don't get this "fanboy" term. It doesn't really tell me

>anything other than that you do not trust (and/or like) people who

>likes Vista or MS for that matter. It seems very personal for some

>reason. Why is it so bad that some people, like me, get Vista to work?

>Is it because it's not fair since you don't?

>

>In your world I guess I would be a fanboy, but I think it's a good

>thing because it means I get return on my Vista investment. But you use

>the term as an insult. I just do not get the logic behind that.

>

>And now you will probably call me all kinds of nasty things again

>including fanboy. It is kind of amusing that someone like you who

>obviously knows a lot about computers and software wastes so much time

>being mad.

 

You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly

shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often

illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what

they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and

take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't

participate.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:43:32 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>norm wrote:

>> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As

>> opposed to what from your quarter?

>

>You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your

>accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

 

Ok fool. You've called me a drunk countless times. PROVE IT right

here, right now, or you just admitted you are a liar.

>Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to

>assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking

>the fool.

 

You still are too stupid to understand nobody comes off as a bigger

fool than you do, Frankie numbnuts.

>You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than

>you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.

>Live with it! You're wrong!

 

Speaking of substance, it was YOU that needed to tell us you have

property in Southern Europe, you claim to run a business, have

multiple stockbrokers and you claim you are wealthy and recently

you've began to claim you are hansom. All shameless bragging and

surely signs of a nut case off his meds. That's all you are Frankie, a

certifiable nut case.

>You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far

>you're not keeping up!

 

 

You dance for us just fine Frankie, the fool that you are.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:56 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

>against whatever you want.

>Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

>subject is noted yet again.

 

You're describing yourself if anyone wishing to invest a little time

using Google will confirm.

>

>"constantly denying there's a problem"

>Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

 

You really, I mean REALLY are such a pompous ass. Really!

Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that

says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates

above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,

and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

 

John John wrote:

> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on the

> EULA legalities. But...

>

> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For

> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal

> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal. If

> you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge me

> 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your terms,

> you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you to court

> you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract you would

> still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an illegal

> contract.

>

> John

>

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>

>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have

>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not

>> have been what customers want.

>>

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

> against whatever you want.

> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

> subject is noted yet again.

>

> "constantly denying there's a problem"

> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

 

After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but

you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

 

Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

 

 

-Michael

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:55:51 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>

wrote:

>* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

>> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

>> against whatever you want.

>> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

>> subject is noted yet again.

>>

>> "constantly denying there's a problem"

>> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

>

>After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

>of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

>hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but

>you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

>supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

>assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

>You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

>

>Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

>

Charlie isn't the only one that knows Jupiter's type. His type infests

newsgroups all across Usenet. While the "cause" they so viciously try

to defend changes depending on the newsgroup, the defender always has

the same unmistakable traits. Characters like Frank and Jupiter are

easy to spot and suffer from the Don Quixote or tilting after

windmills syndrome.

 

Simply said they have a foolish need to confront and engage in

conflict with an imagined opponent or threat rather than engage in

meaningful discussion. This idiom alludes to Miguel de Cervantes's Don

Quixote, Spanish novel written in the seventeenth century. The title

character, Don Quixote, attacks a group of windmills with his lance at

full tilt when he mistakes them for a group of ferocious giants.

 

Here the cause is obviously to defend Microsoft's honor or practices

no matter how wrong or foolish they may be and to deny any problems

exist with Vista. Anyone exposing Microsoft failings is attacked,

often viciously and without cause by Don Quixote types.

 

For sure a silly and foolish exercise since anyone with any

intelligence at all knows Windows regardless of version is rift with

all kinds of bugs and performance issues. Don Quixote types simply

can't stand anybody factually pointing out flaws in their beloved

object of hero worship and thus act very foolishly trying to defend

what they think is being attacked. Of course they never know their

actions are seen as hilarious by nearly everyone else.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

> against whatever you want.

> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

> subject is noted yet again.

>

> "constantly denying there's a problem"

> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

>

 

JJ, why are you in such denial about coming across to other posters as

stuck up? Whether you see yourself that way or not, others, many others

here do see it that way and are voicing their opinions. You will

probably never be taken seriously here unless you change that perception.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Adam Albright wrote:

 

-----drunken diatribe deleted as a public service-----

 

Dance for us georgie-boy...lol!

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly

> shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often

> illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what

> they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and

> take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't

> participate.

>

I suggest you lighten up and try and fix the one little install of Vista

business you badly screwed up.

Or else stop complaining and go back to XP, like the rest of the losers

have done.

Frank

Charlie and a few others also have shown they need to stoop to personal

attacks and name calling at times.

A very few other do little else.

Neither of which are necessary or appropriate.

But I guess you accept it and turn away since it suits you.

 

"...just another Microsoft hyper-shill."

"You may try to fool some of the newer..."

Since I am not attempting to fool you, it is good you are not fooled by

something you imagine.

Not at all trying to fool anyone, but name calling to avoid the issues seems

the thing for a few critics.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message

news:OtUKarT%23HHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

> of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

> hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this

> group, but

> you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

> supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

> assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

> You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

>

> Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

>

>

> -Michael

Frank wrote:

 

|ceed wrote:

|

|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

||

|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more

|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

||

|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But

||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I

||would have wanted to deny that also.. :)

||

|| Take a look here:

||

||

||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

||

|

|

|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

|

|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

|

|Which is vastly different from saying:

|

|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

|640kb memory".

|

|Frank

 

If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right? :)

 

--

//ceed