From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_021D_01C51126.A7995340
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_021D_01C51126.A7995340
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You have
full control over =
whether to=20
install or not.  It sounds like you haven't used Windows =
Update.  Why=20
are you making claims about something with which you are not =
familiar?  If=20
you have used it then you should know you have control.
 
Rich
 

  "Randy" <{at}> wrote in message news:420e8909$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  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=20
    time in the future it may no longer be available to you.  Oh=20
    well.  I guess in the event this happens you would either have =
to=20
    forego checkboxes or simply write your own or ask someone to do so =
for=20
    you.  Nothing is stopping you from doing this today if it =
really was=20
    important to you.  If you don't do so then it must not be that=20
    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.=20
      If you don't believe me, why don't you try to list the names of=20
      the manual patch files required for post SP2 XP so that you =
can apply=20
      SP2 and the files from your list then go to Windows update and =
have it say=20
      you are fully patched. Go ahead, give it a try, you'll see =
what I=20
      mean.
       
      Geo. 
      

        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:420c3afe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          
So that nonsense =
about wanting=20
        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 message=20
          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 off=20
          when they decide the software is obsolete because should I =
need to=20
          reinstall after that point I would not be able to =
patch.
           
          I don't believe this
to be an =

          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 =
thing. =20
            If you don't want a silent UI, use Windows Update which =
gives you=20
            exactly what you describe, a set of checkboxes or equivalent =
to=20
            select which 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=20
            as possible from any other.
             
            Rich
             

------=_NextPart_000_021D_01C51126.A7995340--

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