If you have Windows set to "check for updates but not install", latest version of MSE may change your setting without permission (http://www.infoworld.com/t/anti-virus/microsoft-security-essentials-20-flips-windows-automatic-update-settings-004?)
QuoteMicrosoft released version 2.0 of Microsoft Security Essentials last week.
Microsoft Security Essentials, you may recall, is the antimalware product that Microsoft offers free to individuals and organizations with 10 or fewer users. It's the consumer- and small-business-oriented version of the engine that drives Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection. The new version of FEP is due next month.
At this moment, Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 is not installed automatically. You can only get it by venturing to the MSE site, then manually downloading and installing it. Note that the Microsoft Security Essentials site doesn't even mention version 2.0. But if you click the Download Now button, that's what you'll get.
Last June, I blogged about a bug in an update to Microsoft Security Essentials that was making the rounds. Six months ago, applying the Microsoft Security Essentials patch flipped the user's Windows Automatic Update setting. If you had your PC set up to "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them" (using the Windows 7 terminology), applying the MSE patch du jour in June flipped that setting to "Install updates automatically." The installer's boorish behavior came as a rude awakening to Windows consumers who want to prevent willy-nilly patches from clobbering their sytems. I won't mention last week's Outlook 2007 zapping patch by name.
It looks like they're at it again.
I have independent reports from several Windows users, all of whom are running the latest, patched or almost-patched versions of Windows, that installing Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 flipped their Automatic Update settings.
That's too bad. Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 has much to recommend it. Microsoft claims it has much better means for scanning network traffic. It also claims -- this is borne out by observation -- that the already-slick MSE 2.0 engine runs even faster and less obtrusively.................. (more)
It's a bit naughty, why do they not warn you so you can restore your original setting if required. Saying that it seems a worthwhile upgrade for MSE users.
I'm running Win 7 and there is no change to my update settings after installing MSE 2. It is still set to let me choose which updates I apply. So no problem here.
Yep, it's almost certainly some other patch that's flipped the settings.
Mine are controlled by group policy objects and therefore almost immune to fiddling. ;D
Oh. Not noticed this yet. As I always avoid random unneeded updates (if it aint broke)!
Perhaps it was set to automatically download virus profiles. And as in their wisdom Micrsoft link EVERYTHING together, it changed all the other settings too.
Quote from: Technical Ben on Dec 30, 2010, 10:09:56
Oh. Not noticed this yet. As I always avoid random unneeded updates (if it aint broke)!
MS don't release uneeded updates Ben.
Quote from: pctech on Dec 30, 2010, 10:24:44
MS don't release uneeded updates Ben.
Unless you count Windows Vista. :laugh:
True, it was the NT version of Millennium Edition.
Indeed it was, released by the marketing men, not the engineers.
Indeed.
I was expecting great things from Vista as 'Longhorn' had been under development for so long supposedly.
It was Shorthorn when they first started. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Dec 30, 2010, 10:46:03
Indeed it was, released by the marketing men, not the engineers.
Nothing is released by engineers, marketing is all or nothing I think these days, Rik. Windows 7 is better but a lot of the changes was to rip stuff out as well to take the bloat out and but they did reduce the ram usage at least, but for most, Vista was not that bad people still bought computers and used it happily on mass, I always think the average user will read what's written and nod their heads because that must be right as it was in print by some tech head. Windows sevens boot time is still long enough to go to the pub have a three course dinner and read war and peace. XP is verging on dangerous now as its so old and vulnerable. Seven is a better piece of code, and most windows users should be using it now really for safety online. :)
If MS adopted the KISS principle, life would be easier. ;)
I wish they'd commercialise MinWin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsS_0wSfoU)
As distinct from BloatWin?
Indeed, as the guy himself says, the Kernel is pretty stable, its all the stuff they bolt onto it.
I like simple...
Quote from: Rik on Dec 30, 2010, 10:54:34
It was Shorthorn when they first started. ;D
Something to steer away from. :whistle:
:grn:
Sorry ;D
;D
You're forgiven, my son.
I checked my settings and although they were still set to my preferences I did notice a huge list of updates that MS considered non-critical just sitting there. A number of them seemed rather critical to me especially the one that addresses a USB blue screen issue :eyebrow:
It would be interesting to know how all these issues get missed at beta stage, wouldn't it. My guess is, and this was definitely true at Adobe, that there are so many combinations of hardware and, therefore, drivers with Windows that it's impossible to test thoroughly with a relatively small beta. Only once the OS (or app) is out in the wild do the murkier issues surface.
Quote from: pctech on Dec 30, 2010, 10:24:44
MS don't release uneeded updates Ben.
"optional updates"
For media centre. Don't have/use it. Bitlocker, same. Etc.