From: "Randy" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C51123.8CD47AB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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_0028_01C51123.8CD47AB0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Becuase why automatically patch if the =
patches are not=20
applicable to my installation and causes me to have to recover the
= system=20
becuase a patch causes a regression?

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420dc125{at}w3.nls.net...
     Your whining is =
ridiculous. =20
  First you complain that there is no UI to select individual =
updates. =20
  When it is pointed out that such a UI exists (which you already=20
  knew of) you complain that that is not good enough because =
some time=20
  in the future it may no longer be available to you.  Oh =
well.  I=20
  guess in the event this happens you would either have to forego =
checkboxes or=20
  simply write your own or ask someone to do so for you.  Nothing =
is=20
  stopping you from doing this today if it really was important to =
you.  If=20
  you don't do so then it must not be that important after =
all.
   
     Why
would I want to =
avoid Windows=20
  Update and instead manually update my system only so that I can have =
Windows=20
  Update report that I succeeded in doing what it would have done=20
  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 =
valid=20
    complaint.
     
    When it comes to the patch =
files I don't=20
    need an excuse, the current system is so frelled it begs for =
improvement. If=20
    you don't believe me, why don't you try to list the names of =
the manual=20
    patch files required for post SP2 XP so that you can apply SP2 and =
the files=20
    from your list then go to Windows update and have it say you are =
fully=20
    patched. Go ahead, give it a try, you'll see what I =
mean.
     
    Geo. 
    

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

        "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
        wrote in message news:420c1f21{at}w3.nls.net...
        Windows update doesn't give me =
what I want.=20
        I want independence from the requirement that Microsoft =
maintains a=20
        server that I use to patch. I want this independence so that =
Microsoft=20
        can't stop me from patching by turning that server off when they =
decide=20
        the software is obsolete because should I need to reinstall =
after that=20
        point I would not be able to patch.
         
        I don't believe this to be an =
unreasonable=20
        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 you=20
          don't want user interaction requiring a UI is a bad =
thing.  If=20
          you don't want a silent UI, use Windows Update which gives you =
exactly=20
          what you describe, a set of checkboxes or equivalent to select =
which=20
          updates you want.
           
            
If you look you =
would see=20
          that updates are combined when they affect the same file or =
already=20
          dependent files.  Otherwise, any update is kept as =
independent as=20
          possible from any other.
           
          Rich
           

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C51123.8CD47AB0--

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