From: "Tony Ingenoso" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C50FEB.A07858E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The customer is always right.  Microsoft seems to have lost sight of this
basic business principle.
  "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turning that server off when they decide the software is obsolete = because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_01C50FEB.A07858E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








The customer is always
right.  =
Microsoft seems=20
to
have lost sight of this basic
business=20
principle.

  "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 =
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. I=20
    want independence from the requirement that Microsoft maintains a =
server=20
    that I use to patch. I want this independence so that Microsoft =
can't stop=20
    me from patching by turning that server off when they decide the =
software is=20
    obsolete because should I need to reinstall after that point I would =
not be=20
    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 you=20
      don't want a silent UI, use Windows Update which gives you exactly =
what=20
      you describe, a set of checkboxes or equivalent to select which =
updates=20
      you want.
       
         If
you look you =
would see that=20
      updates are combined when they affect the same file or already =
dependent=20
      files.  Otherwise, any update is kept as independent as =
possible from=20
      any other.
       
      Rich
       

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C50FEB.A07858E0--

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