From: "Randy" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C51174.299AB350
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since you have both a reading comprehension problem and making stupid =
assumptions in the process, it is pointless to continue this dialog any =
further.


  "Rich"  wrote in message news:420eaa58$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     You have full control over whether to install or not.  It sounds =
like you haven't used Windows Update.  Why are you making claims about =
something with which you are not familiar?  If you have used it then you =
should know you have control.

  Rich

    "Randy"  wrote in message news:420e8909$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Becuase why automatically patch if the patches are not applicable to =
my installation and causes me to have to recover the system becuase a =
patch causes a regression?
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:420dc125{at}w3.nls.net...
         Your whining is ridiculous.  First you complain that there is =
no UI to select individual updates.  When it is pointed out that such a =
UI exists (which you already knew of) you complain that that is not good =
enough because some time in the future it may no longer be available to =
you.  Oh well.  I guess in the event this happens you would either have =
to forego checkboxes or simply write your own or ask someone to do so = for
you.  Nothing is stopping you from doing this today if it really was =
important to you.  If you don't do so then it must not be that important =
after all.

         Why would I want to avoid Windows Update and instead manually =
update my system only so that I can have Windows Update report that I =
succeeded in doing what it would have done automatically?

      Rich

        "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:420d52a2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        I have a choice of windowsupdate or patch files. Windows update =
has been made quite easy, I think the manual patch files could use a bit =
of work. One is not an excuse for the other and I think my issues with = 67
different patch files for post SP4 W2K is a valid complaint.

        When it comes to the patch files I don't need an excuse, the =
current system is so frelled it begs for improvement. If you don't =
believe me, why don't you try to list the names of the manual patch = files
required for post SP2 XP so that you can apply SP2 and the files = from
your list then go to Windows update and have it say you are fully =
patched. Go ahead, give it a try, you'll see what I mean.

        Geo.=20
          "Rich"  wrote in message news:420c3afe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
             So that nonsense about wanting a bunch of checkboxes was =
just another excuse for you to complain.

          Rich

            "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:420c1f21{at}w3.nls.net...
            Windows update doesn't give me what I want. I want =
independence from the requirement that Microsoft maintains a server that =
I use to patch. I want this independence so that Microsoft can't stop me =
from patching by turning that server off when they decide the software = is
obsolete because should I need to reinstall after that point I would = not
be able to patch.

            I don't believe this to be an unreasonable position.

            Geo.
              "Rich"  wrote in message news:420bf6fb{at}w3.nls.net...
                 No it would not be simpler.  Most installation is =
silent with no UI.  When you don't want user interaction requiring a UI =
is a bad thing.  If you don't want a silent UI, use Windows Update which =
gives you exactly what you describe, a set of checkboxes or equivalent = to
select which updates you want.

                 If you look you would see that updates are combined =
when they affect the same file or already dependent files.  Otherwise, =
any update is kept as independent as possible from any other.

              Rich

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C51174.299AB350
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Since you have both a reading comprehension problem =
and making=20
stupid assumptions in the process, it is pointless to continue this = dialog any=20
further.
 
 

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420eaa58$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     You
have full control =
over whether=20
  to install or not.  It sounds like you haven't used Windows =
Update. =20
  Why are you making claims about something with which you are not=20
  familiar?  If you have used it then you should know you have=20
  control.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Randy" <{at}> wrote in message news:420e8909$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Becuase why automatically patch if the =
patches are=20
    not applicable to my installation and causes me to have to =
recover the=20
    system becuase a patch causes a regression?
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420dc125{at}w3.nls.net...
        
Your whining is=20
      ridiculous.  First you complain that there is no UI to select =

      individual updates.  When it is pointed out that such a UI =
exists=20
      (which you already knew of) you complain that that is =
not good=20
      enough because some time in the future it may no longer be =
available to=20
      you.  Oh well.  I guess in the event this happens you =
would=20
      either have to forego checkboxes or simply write your own or ask =
someone=20
      to do so for you.  Nothing is stopping you from doing this =
today if=20
      it really was important to you.  If you don't do so then it =
must not=20
      be that important after all.
       
         Why
would I want to =
avoid=20
      Windows Update and instead manually update my system only so that =
I can=20
      have Windows Update report that I succeeded in doing what it would =
have=20
      done automatically?
       
      Rich
       
      

        "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
        wrote in message news:420d52a2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        I have a choice of =
windowsupdate or patch=20
        files. Windows update has been made quite easy, I think the =
manual patch=20
        files could use a bit of work. One is not an excuse for the =
other and I=20
        think my issues with 67 different patch files for post SP4 W2K =
is a=20
        valid complaint.
         
        When it comes to the patch =
files I=20
        don't need an excuse, the current system is so frelled it begs =
for=20
        improvement. If you don't believe me, why don't you try to list =
the=20
        names of the manual patch files required for post SP2 XP so =
that=20
        you can apply SP2 and the files from your list then go to =
Windows update=20
        and have it say you are fully patched. Go ahead, give it a =
try,=20
        you'll see what I mean.
         
        Geo. 
        

          "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420c3afe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            
So that nonsense =
about=20
          wanting a bunch of checkboxes was just another excuse for you =
to=20
          complain.
           
          Rich
           
          

            "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
            message news:420c1f21{at}w3.nls.net...
            Windows update
doesn't give =
me what I=20
            want. I want independence from the requirement that =
Microsoft=20
            maintains a server that I use to patch. I want this =
independence so=20
            that Microsoft can't stop me from patching by turning that =
server=20
            off when they decide the software is obsolete because should =
I need=20
            to reinstall after that point I would not be able to=20
            patch.
             
            I don't believe this to be =
an=20
            unreasonable position.
             
            Geo.
            

              "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420bf6fb{at}w3.nls.net...
                 No it would =
not be=20
              simpler.  Most installation is silent with no =
UI.  When=20
              you don't want user interaction requiring a UI is a bad=20
              thing.  If you don't want a silent UI, use Windows =
Update=20
              which gives you exactly what you describe, a set of =
checkboxes or=20
              equivalent to select which updates you want.
               
                 If you look =
you would=20
              see that updates are combined when they affect the same =
file or=20
              already dependent files.  Otherwise, any update is =
kept as=20
              independent as possible from any other.
               
              Rich
               

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C51174.299AB350--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5