digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Microsoft Update Brings Thousands of PCs to Standstill

macobserver.com — Microsoft installed a resource hungry search application on thousands of PCs Wednesday, bringing them to a standstill, according to The Register on Thursday. It happened even though administrators had configured their systems not to use the search tool.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bdanaher17, on 10/29/2007, -76/+64That's why Windows has 95% market share. Americans are afraid to change to something new even if it is better. IE Honda who makes 10 million engines a year and people say they aren't American. But they have made cars in the US since 1983. Who is more American Honda who makes their cars in Ohio or GM and Ford with the majority made in Mexico and Canada. Which if the international bankers have their way there will be no borders between US, Mexico and Canada.
    • mikesol, on 10/27/2007, -6/+55Uh, pretty sure that Honda has a huge market presence all across North America, as does Toyota. Unless you live in the middle of ***** nowhere, you're going to see a very high percentage of Japanese cars on the road.
      • DarkSamus, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6that wasn't his point, he's saying that a lot of americans turn a blind eye when it comes to japanese cars just out of pure ignorance
        • superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7But they don't, they buy them, which was the point of the guy who responded...
          • Giga, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3The argument was that while some people buy them, there is a large percentage who don't.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4That's true about almost everything.
    • TBagwell, on 10/27/2007, -4/+21I understand and agree with most of what you said, but how does it prove your point?
    • Orsenfelt, on 10/27/2007, -15/+38This point is ALWAYS brought up. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft are currently supporting 3 Major operating systems, Spanning several hundred MILLION varying computers. Problems will happen. The alternatives might be better just now, They would be in exactly the same positon as MS if they were supporting anywhere near the same amount of setups.
      • Christbait, on 10/27/2007, -27/+13Exactly!!! But now try telling this to smug little Apple fanboys who think their pretty little Macbooks that mommy bought them are the saviour of all things technology.
        • theprez, on 10/27/2007, -3/+13My primary systems have always been Macs. I dugg up Orsenfelt's comment because I believe he has a good point, but you're just an idiot. And what's this story doing in the Apple section.
        • Sidzilla, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1They needed something to distract them from the new blue screen of death that Leopard is causing.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/27/2007, -2/+20Yes, but no. This particular instance is entirely Operatinig System software based, not related to the computer it is installed on. This is their code doing something it wasn't suppose to.

        FTA: [The incident is the second in as many months where administrators thought they had locked down their machines and had obtained configuration control.

        The problem starts when the search software starts to index the PC. It's particularly bad when it happens on a server. "The admins at my place were in a flap this morning because Windows Desktop Search 3.01 had suddenly started installing itself on desktops throughout the company," one administrator said.]

        When you turn something off, you expect it to be off. Not in waiting. Not paused. Not scheduled in the future. Off, as in not a possibility.
    • ivanvanderbyl, on 10/27/2007, -26/+12His point is, get a Mac!
      • elementfire, on 10/27/2007, -9/+12Clearly, you missed his point. His ACTUAL point is:
        VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!!11one /fanaticalPropaganda
        • Laughsatyou, on 10/27/2007, -6/+6ron paul > mac
          • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Hard to say which is better tho they're both improvements these days imo
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/27/2007, -6/+25Americans are afraid of change? That 95% market share is worldwide, not just America. Microsoft actually has a higher share outside the US than from within (most countries).
    • Grahamdini, on 10/27/2007, -13/+7This guy is a dumba$$. Obviously there are better things out there right now, but its not because Americans are afraid to try them (rising mac sales????). Its because businesses cannot just one day say, "Hmm....lets go to Apples tomorrow since all of our software will work perfectly on OSX (sarcasim)." It costs way to much just to switch all at once. Once Apple can get something similar to parallels to open windows apps natively, I bet you would see a huge shift. The windows kernel is old and has a shizton of holes in it, security wise. Apple's OSX is new and better, businesses do what is most profitable in America, they base their decisions on money, its called capitalism.
      • Lennalf, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7I don't know that people are really afraid to buy macs. If computers scare you, macs are actually the way to go. I mean... the tower is IN the monitor (for iMacs). That's pretty ***** awesome for a person who is clueless about how to setup a computer. Personally I am not a Mac guy, but I would probably recommend one for a person who is afraid of technology in general. Using an iMac is almost as easy as using a Nintendo! Plug it in and press "on" and you're basically set... and you never have to worry about compatibility. Just remember to blow on your cartridges when they get dusty...
      • senatorpjt, on 10/27/2007, -1/+9Apple does have something similar to Parallels. It's called Parallels.
        • GawtMilk, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2"Something similar to paralells to open Windows apps natively".

          What he's saying is that it's not there yet. However, if Apple did that it'd be an awful move. The reason Vista is more "bloated" than XP is because it not only introduces faster, more efficient frameworks, it has to support the old ones. We need a worldwide switch to a universal binary that'll work on all operating systems, the ones we use right now are ***** compared to the SSD-optimized "proof of concepts" you see these days.
      • iticu, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3The Vista kernel was basically rebuilt.. it isn't old an dit doesn't have a load of holes in it.
        Maybe if Apple had 40% of the computer users out their programming Viruses for their iMacs, maybe OS X would show as even more insecure than Windows?
    • virtualball, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7Ironically, here in Ohio, there are GM and Ford plants ;)
      • mustang460, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2ford/gm still do 3/4 of there manufacturing here in the states,once people hear about them opening a few plants in mexico/canada rumors run wild
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Actually that is no longer true, there was a Wired article and diagram about how over 55% of GM/Ford is made elsewhere and not in America.
        • EntangledPhysx, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1@shrimpcrackers

          GM/Ford vehicles present in the US? or Is that the worldwide production (such as GM/Ford selling in other countries)?
    • CrushThemTorg, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5Wait ... people aren't always rational actors who act in total self-interest regardless of pre-establish heuristics? Good lord!
    • dukeochutney, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5honda engines are made in japan. along with the majority of essential components (transmissions, suspension). end of speaking now
    • KLowD9x, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3I just don't want a Japanese car. Not saying they're not good, I just don't like how they feel.

      This is why the Germans and the Swedes get my money.

      Not sure what this has to do with the argument you made, but you made the connection the cars.
      • enzomedici, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2Agreed. American cars have a big floaty ride. Japanese cars feel too light. The Germans get it right. German cars ride comfortable, but solid and stable.
        • ganjadude4391, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2You must not haven driven any American cars lately.

          The new Pontiac, The entire lineup minus the Torrent CUV are very tightly tuned. for some reason they decide to make Pontiac the upscale/shorty group. (think BMW light- high end BMW)

          They have the G5 GXP which is top in its class, The interior Could use some work but that turbo on the badly is awesome.

          Than the got the GTO (discontinued) Which dollar for dollar The best money for horsepower in either road and track or car and driver at the time. A Vette engine in a nice 2+2

          Now we got the G8 on the way which looks meaner than the GTO, Remains real wheel drive. Keeps the vette engine, AND gets better gas. All for around 30K.

          And don't forget the solstice. You love it or hate it but its a fun little 6 speed, The nose needs work but the other curves are wonderful. Top selling car, beats the Mazda in its glass (well Mazda is from wheel I believe, while the solstice is rear. Roof needs A little refining to make it Easier for such a nice care but if that s they type of car, that's way to go.

          BTW I drive a jeep, or did, I Kind of blew it up.. long sorry but I'm looking for a new car this is why I bring this up. I am looking at all makes and models but this is American cars and Ive only been to ford Pontiac and Jeep so far, so here's my research for you.

          You know where to find Pontiac if you want to, Or jeep or any other car, you are here enough said.I feel no need to leave a link.
          • KLowD9x, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1You mention nothing but GM.

            I will never buy another GM product.

            If I go American, I go Ford.
    • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -12/+4Just because YOU think it is better doesn't mean it is.

      No one gives a ***** about your worthless life or what OS you think is better. The reason why so many people use Windows is becyase they NEVER have had a problem with it. Not once. Meanwhile, Macs DON't do everything the ywant as easily. (And guess wat dumb *****...people switch from Macs to PCs every day too.) If you are too ***** stupid and ignorant to use a Windows PC without problem, then that is not Microsoft's problem. I never have a problem with it. You do. Yet somehow you think that makes YOU smarter? Remember this for the rest of your life. You will NEVER be superior to anyone at anything.
      • BakedGoods, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I lol'ed. Bingo, c'mon now, jealous much?
      • iticu, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2"No one gives a ***** about your worthless life or what OS you think is better."
    • elvenseven, on 10/27/2007, -7/+3If mac and Linux natively supported Windows software of course I'd change. Get it?
    • czeman, on 10/27/2007, -5/+6GM sucks. Every try to change the spark plugs in one of those pieces of *****? You need a contortionist socket set. I will never buy GM again. I'll stick with Honda. My Civic takes a beating and takes it well! Oh, and the spark plugs are on top of the engine and easy to change!!! Now if they would just make the timing belt and easy change, I'd be 100% happy!!!
      • kday, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2I've always thought most American cars were more simple under the hood. It seems that many German and Japanese cars (typically the smaller ones) like to make cram everything as tight as possible under the hood while using excessive screws and pretty covers, making it a pita to work on anything. I'll give it to you on the Civic though. The layout ain't bad.

        With that being said, I do agree that many GM engines have spark plugs in odd places. On some GM engines, you actually have to ROTATE the engine to change the spark plugs. lmfao.

        What the hell does car engines have to do with a Microsoft update anyway?
        • ganjadude4391, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1There are cars out there you got to take en engine totally out of the engine. It is nuyes.

          And wo cares some times it just nice to talk about cars.
        • lonnieh, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2"It seems that many German and Japanese cars (typically the smaller ones) like to make cram everything as tight as possible under the hood while using excessive screws and pretty covers"
          i find this to be very odd as well as you'll be seeing less under the hood of a german or japanese car or truck.
          /silverado&rendezvous owner
    • czeman, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Check the market share for Windows in web hosting. You'll find that Linux has the market share there because (Windows != Mission-Critical).
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1Then check the market share for OSX in webhosting, its not even 1%. The reason for that is cost. Not only that Linux and BSD is more compatible with a wider range of hardware and much easier to customize than OSX or Windows.
    • superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Where are you from, the 1980's? Your anti-American rant holds no water when you realize Americans love change, don't mind buying japanese cars at all (they have been very popular for a FEW DECADES now!). That sad, change is for the young and always has been which is why you see the percentage of college Mac users skyrocketing where the general population lags behind percentage wise.

      You are also being misled by accepting figures that include things like cash register PC's as total market share, which blindsides you do large consumer increases in Mac sales which are more to the home - until they aren't.
  • deadbaby, on 10/29/2007, -39/+160That's what you get for using Windows. Read your EULA -- Microsoft owns the OS -- you lease it. They can do whatever they want. Until more people actually start switching away from Windows they don't care if it pisses you off or not. If you keep coming back for more they'll keep treating you like *****.
    • chalkboy, on 10/28/2007, -13/+43ALL retail software is this way
      • iFungus, on 10/27/2007, -9/+20I'm thinking of... oh yeah. GPL.
        • nextyoyoma, on 10/27/2007, -3/+16RETAIL
        • StarlessKnight, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10@nextyoyoma: You *can* buy Linux (see: Red Hat). You really don't need to, but you can.
        • BlackJackJester, on 10/28/2007, -1/+7@StarlessKnight - yea..and you aren't paying for the OS, you're paying for their support of the OS
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6Actually I'm pretty damn sure Apple or some other company would do the same exact thing once their market share rises too high. Actually few people on Digg remember Apple being total bums in the mid to late 80's resulting in a huge loss of market share. Same thing here. If Microsoft ***** up, good, as long as we don't get another "Stork King" later.
    • FatShady, on 10/29/2007, -13/+34Yeah - actually it was an accident. Try getting your Windows news from somewhere other than MacObserver.
      • plasticquart, on 10/29/2007, -14/+8yeah, this accident directly impacted many many many systems on company networks (and individual networks too) and when this completely new application started scanning all of these systems... guess what -- cluster *****.

        I type this on a Vista machine and have owned/administered every major Microsoft OS ever... and I hate to say it, but Microsoft officially sucks huge hairy balls. Completely incompetent, the whole lot of em.

        And given the countless hours of my life I wasted tracking down and fixing issues w/ MS-OS systems... well, if Bill Gates were in front of me right now, I would punch him square in the face -- repeatedly. And he would/does ***** deserve it.

        Oh, here is a fun one I keep running into... Widows Update on various systems just stops working now. Their BITS stuff is complete ***** and prone to a myriad of failures.

        Idea: Create easy way for users to update/patch/upgrade their software. Sounds good.

        MS implementation of said idea: Create a cluster ***** of a site that, to even access on your machine, requires several updates JUST SO YOU CAN ACCESS THE UPDATE SITE (windowsupdate.com).

        *****. Morons.

        Go forth and die.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Individual networks? I don't know a single home user with a WSUS server.

          They package hundreds of these updates, one for each OS, and one for each platform (32/64/IA-64). All it takes is a single bit set wrong on a file when they send out the WSUS update, and this happens.
          • plasticquart, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2By "individual networks" I was referring to SMB or small IT support networks. Get up from you system, go outside and look around. They exist.

            Now, as for "All it takes is a single bit set wrong on a file when they send out the WSUS update, and this happens"... So what you are saying here is that when you ***** something up.... that it can ***** other things up? well no *****. And it is certainly no excuse.

            Thankfully MS rarely ***** ***** up. /sarcasm

      • mentor972, on 10/28/2007, -5/+4Accident or not, Mac Observer or not, they still ***** everything up as usual. Aren't you Windows users fed up yet? I got fed up with Windows years ago and switched. Best computer move I ever made.
    • mikesol, on 10/28/2007, -5/+56Mac OS is licensed in almost exactly the same fashion. Unless you run Linux, which many of us do, you're under the same terms.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/27/2007, -12/+5Yea because with a apple things are much better(see iphone). Or with linux you get no guaranteed support because updates are dependent on the donated time of programmers living in their parents' basements.
      • chsbrgr, on 10/27/2007, -0/+10Yet strangely the volunteer irc/forum support you'll get from your linux peers is usually simple, quick and effective. Ever been on the phone with Microsoft? Basement dwellers FTW.
      • AntiTheist, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3linux owns, ... and those "programmers living in their parents' basements" will eventually be the END of microsoft, so have a fun ride on your virus infected windows system while you still can
      • BassJunkie, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Funny how those programmers who donate their time to developing software can stick to release dates unlike the programmers at MS who presumably have at least 8 hours a day to work on coding? How late was Vista? and for what exactly, a bit of a change in the look, that god damn awful UAC "system" and a ton of bloat that means you'll probably need to upgrade your reasonably specced system to get it to run anywhere near as fast as XP did!

        Compare this to Ubuntu which has 6 month release cycle and whilst the new features in Ubuntu might not be as impressive as those touted on Vista I know I'm not going to need a hardware overhaul to use the latest version!
    • benjpw, on 10/27/2007, -7/+2I run Windows because I like using my computer easily with minimal tweaking and I like playing games.

      It works, I enjoy it, the end.

      "BUT BUT MS IS EVIL.... MAC AND LINUX ARE SUPERIOR... MAC HAS ANIMATION AND LINUX JUST GOT NEW SOUND CARD DRIVERS."
      STFU, Realize that some of us just like Windows - even if it isn't the best.
      • Lennalf, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Think Starcraft 2 will be simultaneously released on Mac and PC? I will be interested to see...
      • mvent2, on 10/27/2007, -2/+5Apparently you also like MS telling you what you can and can't have on your PC. Enjoy your Genuine Advantage.
    • Myztry, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2The End User owns the right to use the product. The EULA is what's called an adhesion contract, and is only valid in part as empowered and limited by the contract and consumer laws of any country.
      Why do you think it's so essential for Microsoft (and others) to use technical means to enforce the EULA? Because the terms lack enforcement ability due to blatant breaches of many laws and rights. Remember that the Law empowers Contracts, and not the other way around.
      Unfortunately Contract breaches aren't a policing issue, and require Courts to resolve.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3"If you keep coming back for more they'll keep treating you like *****."

      The same goes for hookers.
    • selif1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Honestly, Microsoft is probably causing more conversions to Linux than anything else
  • stalefries, on 10/31/2007, -26/+137Just today, a friend of mine was telling me that his brand-new Vista laptop had decided that it was no longer "genuine". All he had done was upgrade his webcam's driver. Why did he have to upgrade the driver? It wasn't compatible with Vista.
    • FatShady, on 10/31/2007, -43/+12Yeah - I think your friend is full of *****.
      • Cockslap, on 10/27/2007, -19/+2Thats about the most intelligent post in this entire ***** storm.... ***** you bill gates, send me my new xbox 360!
    • insomniac8400, on 10/31/2007, -19/+7Are you retarded? Either he had no driver for it, or he was installing the driver for the first time. Vista isn't going to let you use an xp driver. Of course the genuine check is complete *****, but at least don't make ***** up.
      • ZaZ2137, on 10/31/2007, -2/+17actually vista does allow installation of xp drivers in certain cases, in this case he doesn't even say that it was an xp driver he had to upgrade, he just said the driver wasnt compatible with vista which could be one of 10000 reasons why it wasn't, get educated before you make retarded comments
    • Myztry, on 10/27/2007, -5/+9Off course it's not Genuine. Your have just installed a copy produced at a disc replication plant. The genuine Master disc is no doubt in a vault somewhere.
    • r00tus3r, on 10/29/2007, -8/+28To all the morons in here saying his friend is full of *****, there has already been a topic on digg about this, it's a known issue. Legit copies of vista can suddenly unvalidate themselves when you install new drivers. Jeeze, do some reading before you start talking.
      • FatShady, on 10/27/2007, -2/+11"do some reading before you start talking"
        That's good advice. The issue (and related article) that you're talking about is in reference to video drivers, not webcam drivers. The video card counts toward the activation hash. Things like webcams don't.
        Good work proving your point, though.
  • digitallysick, on 10/29/2007, -14/+68Happened to us here , after the update all the computers came to a crawl. They were infested with a desktop search feature, the the indexing eats up the cpu. I had to uninstall it and the last updates. Looks like an attempt to take from "google desktop" search. Bottom line it wasn't needed, or asked for, it wasn't a security update, it should have been optional and not shoved down our throats
    • insomniac8400, on 10/27/2007, -3/+9Why would you have indexing enabled to begin with? In my experience the search feature in windows is rarely used. Definitely not used enough to justify having indexing enabled.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/27/2007, -5/+4It is certainly useful on Vista where the search actually works well and the indexer runs in a low priority I/O thread. In older OSes though it was practically useless. As they don't have the concept of I/O prioritisation, it will bring XP boxes to a crawl. If you are already using something else like GDS, then there is no benefit either.

        Secondly why is this in the 'Apple' section not the 'Microsoft' section? (Hint: If you want a balanced world view, don't get your Windows news from MacObserver.)

        Thirdly, this is blog spam to a tongue in cheek article from TheRegister.

        Fourthly, Microsoft's explanation made sense to anyone who understands what WSUS does. In a nutshell, it is used by organisations (not home users, they use Automatic Updates), to roll out software updates and fixes across their organisation. If it installed itself, you (or someone else or your policy) must have authorised the original rollout back in Feb. Because of a bug, it failed to actually rollout back then, but that bug was fixed and now it will.

        Now if you want to get pissed at Microsoft for something, attack their WGA server failure that put everything into 'grace' mode. Criticise their stupid deactivate bug that registers a hardware change if you update a system driver and potentially forces you call them to reactivate.
    • Leiterfluid, on 10/28/2007, -2/+9I manage the WSUS server at my organization, and this update never touched any of our machines. I think this problem is due to administrators putting too much faith in the auto-approval settings, rather than reviewing each update and approving only the relevant ones. This was not categorized as neither a critical nor security update.

      Leave it to lazy administrators to blame-shift something they either misconfigured or misunderstood to Microsoft.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Well of course, but "Lazy admin approves optional feature which slowed down machines it installed on" would hardly make front page now would it.
  • sjbdallas, on 10/28/2007, -46/+11Gimme a break, I think it's more likely some admins screwed up and are trying to make it look like it's microsoft's fault.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/27/2007, -7/+25This wasn't a sysadmin screwup, it was a Microsoft patch engineer screwup. They pushed a patch through Windows Update that patched the indexer, but for some reason also patched the system's configuration to run the indexer, even if it was disabled by the sysadmin. So, as soon as all of the machines were patched, they started griding away indexing their drives.

      It's not a serious mistake, but I can definitely understand a few admins being disgruntled over this kind of Microsoft behavior (first forcing the patch down their throat, then it automatically re-enabling the Indexer; these admins are going to have to re-disable it and purge any indexes created, which could take an enormous amount of time). Microsoft shouldn't be in the position to force a user to use a product, not after its antitrust convictions on two continents for doing just that.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/28/2007, -3/+3They pushed the patch through WSUS, not Windows Update....and admins should be manually approving their updates anyway.
        • popfrogs, on 10/28/2007, -4/+3RTFA dude. This went through WITHOUT REQUIRING APPROVAL.
          • MioTheGreat, on 10/28/2007, -2/+5Only for those who had the little updates set to automatically go.
    • obxjdt, on 10/28/2007, -3/+2Keep sucking on that egg....SUCKER!
  • BrandonPerry, on 10/31/2007, -13/+42HA! I can't wait! I work in a computer repair shop and have been in Germany for two weeks! When I get back to work on Monday I will have a gold mine!
    • truegodofwar, on 10/31/2007, -5/+30Microsoft. Filling the pockets of geek squad workers everywhere.
      • BrandonPerry, on 10/27/2007, -3/+6I whole heartedly agree (but I don't work for Geek Squad).
      • chsbrgr, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6So true. Windows fails so reliably that there are armies of geeks working full-time repairing it.
        • StarlessKnight, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Well IT Break-Fixers gotta have something for them to fix. You really don't want them to start creating their own problems to fix, you might never look at your Inbox the same way again.
  • johnny222, on 10/28/2007, -16/+4Whoa, big block of comments.
  • xkorbin, on 10/29/2007, -5/+175Am I the only one who questions why this is in the apple category?
    • B1663r, on 10/29/2007, -41/+42Apple fans have to FUD windows into order to feel good about their $130 service pack. Yay!!! Think different and all that.
    • dukeochutney, on 10/27/2007, -15/+5as said apple users have to tell themselves repeatedly they're still cool for being 'different'. more importantly anyone stupid enough to use that pos called vista needs to go buy a mac since theyre already poser morons. i use xp day in and day out and i use automatic updates. and guess what nothing happened. vista is crap nothing new about that.
    • Falldog, on 10/29/2007, -1/+11No better way to get it dugg up up up
      • xdeliriumx, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4Yes, an obvious cry for other Apple fanboys to dig it.
    • miniboss, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5If you've used Leopard a few days you'll know why this is in the Apple section. While Leopard is a very nice upgrade, it's far from reaching the level of hype Apple marketing and its users put on it. So in order for Leopard to live up to the hype then they need to lower the bar. And that means throw stones at Windows.

      t's a bit sad that Apple users can't just be happy with their OS and instead waste so much time slamming Windows and digging down people who don't follow the mob.
  • neiltc13, on 10/28/2007, -11/+47I wish I could bury things multiple times. This deserves to be down for Inaccurate, Spam and Wrong Topic.

    The REAL page the submitter should have linked to:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/25/windows_up ...
  • Yoshizaki, on 10/31/2007, -17/+14Good Time to Switch to Ubuntu if this happens to ya.
    • FatShady, on 10/27/2007, -5/+13I heard that's the OS Ron Paul uses.
    • MagicCake, on 10/27/2007, -8/+2Unless this also makes every one of my games stop working too, then no, it's not.
  • locnguyen, on 10/28/2007, -22/+25Who here can honestly say they're not surprised Windows did this?
  • mikesol, on 10/29/2007, -36/+111First of all, it didn't bring every ***** computer to a standstill. I administer 100 desktop machines and while my network utilization jumped a lot, it hasn't been enough that I've even had to do anything about it. On a competent, switched Gigabit network, it's not a problem. Perhaps on something slower it would be, but in that case you would not have your WSUS server automatically approving every update, would you?
    Secondly, I can't see it bringing a local machine to a standstill. It's doing fine on my oldest running machine here, a P2-450 with 256mb RAM. All it does is activate the Indexing Service and provide a nice interface to it, as far as I can tell.

    Thirdly, this is a story on the Mac Observer. The bias is obvious, and the headline is oddly sensational: THOUSANDS OF PCS! Well, I hate it break it to you, but there are ***** tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of PCs. Thousands is small ***** potatoes. You could make a headline like "RUNNING OUT OF DRIVE SPACE BRINGS THOUSANDS OF PCS TO STANDSTILL!" Who cares?

    Fourthly, it's basically Microsoft being nice and rolling out a new feature to an old OS. If you don't like it, ***** off and disable it.

    • plr4ever, on 10/27/2007, -27/+11Its not the software or the system resources for me, its the damn fact that microshaft doesn't respect the end-users and throws s***y-a$$ software in their faces.


      Long live linux, you microshaft using blockheads.
      • wolferz, on 10/27/2007, -5/+3If open source community is composed of people like you who insult any one that doesn't rag on Microsoft endlessly, and that community is composed of the developers testers and suppliers of technical support for users of open source software, then doesn't can't it be said that some of the developers, testers, and support providers of the open source community are being even less respectful of end users than Microsoft. Of course one can say that your just a bad apple making the rest look bad but the last decades worth of experience has painted a different picture of the open source community. It is one that shows most active members of the community are in fact just like you running around with a stick up their ass, throwing insults at any one who doesn't talk like them, act like them, and think like them, and generally being immature.

        Ironic then that you should make a comment like "long live linux" when you and people like you are the cancer that is killing open source.
        • AntiTheist, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4nothing is killing open source, ... and if some guy wants to say ***** microsoft, i see nothing wrong with that,
      • chugger1992, on 10/27/2007, -5/+7using dollar signs for S's and calling "Microsoft" "Microshaft". Creative. I however, do feel very insulted. Now I will switch to Linux because of that post right there.
    • JenadaeXX, on 10/29/2007, -10/+7Calm down sparky...
    • cmost, on 10/29/2007, -12/+9Well, aren't you a mindless tool! I'm glad your precious Gigabit network was fine. I bet your workstations are fairly recent too, you lucky bastard. Too bad you're in the vast minority. The point is that Microsoft installed something because it decided the software was necessary and essential. Microsoft didn't give a rat's ass what its customers thought about it, what they wanted; nor did it care! Long live open source, BSD UNIX and Linux.
      • wolferz, on 10/27/2007, -4/+2lol funny you make a comment about some one else being a mindless tool. Its funny because this story has already appeared on many other news sites and they all seem to include information this one conspicuously leaves out. Namely that Microsoft didn't intentionally do this but it was in fact a mistake.

        So tell me, who is the mindless tool? The guy that remains skeptical of a biased story from a biased source, or the one who very clearly based his entire opinion on a single biased story from a single biased source.
        • cmost, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0I don't read. It pollutes the mind. :-) Obviously this report was blown a bit out of proportion by someone with an axe to grind against Microsoft. My retort was simply to point out that with Windows (and Microsoft in general) you sort of get what they give you and you don't have a lot of choice in the matter. That's all. Cheers mate!
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Microsoft did not install this "because it decided the software was necessary and essential"

        One of the people on Microsoft's Windows Search team at Neowin posted that the problem was caused by the WSUS people screwing up the package deployment.
      • Sidzilla, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1My network is fine, also. And no, some of my servers are 5 years old so I am not running 'bleeding edge' stuff. This was just a minor blip that the Apple fanboys with their new BSoD and the Linux nerds who are still waiting to have sex somewhere other than a chat room on the internet are grasping on to to make "Microsoft sucks" noises to try and bring meaning to an otherwise pointless existence.
    • Archer1980, on 10/29/2007, -6/+6HA i'll digg you up even though you missed a few points. If you are incharge of a network, and you didn't test the updates for at least a week before installing them, do yourself a favour and go work at McDonalds or something where you'll actually be useful. I saw this update coming, i knew what it did, and in our office we just incrementally downloaded the updates so that it didn't bog down everything and gave us a chance to dissable the indexing. I mean, really, is it THAT hard to understand? Lastly, out of the Hundreds of millions of PC's that are getting this update, the only ones that will really notice it are networked computers that are indexing massive amounts of files across multiple PC's. Home users know nothing about what this is, what is does, all they care about is 1) how do i search for my files, and 2) How can i find them faster and more effectively. Microsoft is catering to those individuals, the ones that don't have a clue and need to be guided ever step of the way. If you want to complain about these updates, learn what you are doing, or switch to a different operating system and stop bitching about something you just don't seem to understand.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Home users don't use WSUS, so are immune to this bug.
        • cquinnd, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3WSUS (at least the latest version) is also immune to this bug. It is up to the admin to determine deployment.
    • digitallysick, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3it brought our companies windows xp machines to a stand still
    • awevibe, on 10/29/2007, -4/+1damn, go out a little
    • rejoined, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Good points there mikesol, and you didn't sound at all like a fanboy either while delivering it. But the forced updates did create a lot of hassles, and this is WSUS Product Team's explanation of the whole issue:

      "With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the “auto-approve revisions” option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed."
      http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archive/2007/10/25/w ...

      Now, tell me you understood what was said in that paragraph. I guess technical explanations get wrapped in lawyer talk these days at MS.
    • superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Don't you feel just the least bit of outrage that an update you never accepted started ANY action on computers that you administer? Acceptance of any acton like this is insane on the face of it. If ever there was a time for a class action suit, this is it.
      • mikestro, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2But that's not entirely the case here. Review how WSUS works, how auto-approval works, and then review how the dependency process works within WSUS as well.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1> Don't you feel just the least bit of outrage that an update you never accepted started ANY action on computers that you administer?

        Absolutely, that is why we fume when bugs like the WGA outage occurs. But that is NOT the situation here. To understand this situation, you need to understand what WSUS does and does not do.

        WSUS does not just arbitrarily install updates. It allows administrators to approve or deny updates, and also the option of automatically approving the updates. This package was optional from the offset. Unless you have turned it on, it would not have installed in the first place. Furthermore, unless you had selected to auto-approve changes to this package, this particular update would not have been installed either.

        The problem here is largely social engineering, where lazy administrators blindly accept any update without considering the consequences on their IT resources. So if you had not told it to download this update, it wouldn't have. Now had you told WSUS to not install anything, and it went ahead and installed this update, then a class action may have been possible (although you can bet their EULA would protect them). But that was obviously not the case.
    • TechCF, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1This should be an OPTIONAL update/download
      • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Yes, it should be and was indeed optional.
    • zeejay, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1It brought my quad Xeon box to a standstill forever - right in the middle of a big-ass encoding session I was doing. I didn't want it, was not warned about what it would do, yet there it was. From my "regular user" perspective, it sucked, period.
  • truegodofwar, on 10/27/2007, -27/+16This is why I use ubuntu. *I* decide which updates to install. *I* own my operating system. Not Micro$oft.
    • plr4ever, on 10/27/2007, -6/+11Amen brother.

      Who ever hears of ubuntu installing crappy cpu-intensive software?

      NOT I!!!!!!
      • dwbell, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3I love linux and have used nothing else in years but doesn't ubuntu come with beagle installed by default?
        • plr4ever, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1True, but it doesn't slow down anyone's system that i've heard of, and i peruse the forums often.

          Plus, im willing to be that beagle is better written than microsoft desktop search
    • virtualball, on 10/27/2007, -6/+6ATTENTION: We are not twelve-year-olds on Halo 3 or on Newgrounds, can we please say "Microsoft" and not "Micro$oft," "M$," "Microsuck," "Microshaft," etc.? C'mon people....

      /me is a mac fanboy
    • varun1s, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4I installed Ubuntu two months ago on brand new hardware and couldn't be happier.
      a) Every driver installed automatically! Saved countless hours of setup issues and finding driver cds. My Canon ZR850 handycam worked without installing a single driver! Windows can't do this! I was impressed!!!
      b) Didn't need to install acrobat/office/firefox/email/antivirus/firewall/cd burning app/bittorrent/photoshop/itunes/sudoku/backup app/codecs/java/quicktime/flash/real. Ubuntu came with everything for the above needs.
      c) No background running apps
      d) Synced calendar/addressbook to phone via bluetooth to occur automatically once a day. No bloated phone sync app required.
      e) Faster! Very important.
      f) Everything was free -- as in speech and beer, both.

      I saw how easy it is to backup files AND settings in linux (everything can be backed up by zipping the three folders, and restored by extracting the zip) I saw that life in Linux was so much easier than in windows. Every time you install new windows (reinstall or upgrade) you have to install and configure everything all over again. With linux, you just have to extract the zip file back and everything comes installed or freely available to install.

      I just want to get things done on the computer -- easily and reliably. Linux, in that respect, turns out to be a very well thought-out operating system. It's just sad that not many people have tried it.
      • kday, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2I love Linux..... for server purposes. I'm a web designer/developer, and I work on *nix servers all the time. For the desktop, it's getting better, but it's still not great. There is just too many times I have to open up the terminal to complete a simple task.

        I just want to get things done on the computer -- easily and reliably. OS X, in that respect, turns out to be a very well thought-out operating system. It's just sad that not many people have tried it.
        • varun1s, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Oh not another OS X fan! I'm not even going to argue with your cult. If you think Microsoft is controlling, then wait till you meet Apple.

          So I should expect to pay typically around $1500 because it runs on Apple hardware only, then buy Microsoft Office for mac. Then only to pay not only for a new OS, but also for each major upgrade!! Imagine Microsoft asking you to pay for Service Packs 1 and 2 each. If you think windows was controlling and expensive, then wait till you meet mac.

          I'm happy that you found your love of life. Unfortunately, I don't have as much waste-able money.
    • javaroast, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2????
      c) No background running apps
      You might want to double check that one. sudo ps -ef. Bet you a bunch of stuff is running
  • Po0py, on 10/27/2007, -12/+19Whilst I usually roll my eyes at Mac sites pointing out flaws in windows OS's this time I can forgive. I can recall two times in the last six months when I have left my vista system running overnight, locked down, but upon waking up I find that the system has rebooted due to an update that I did not ask for. Sometimes Microsft seems to shoot themselves in the foot with these things. They need to learn how to be more conscientious.
    • MagicCake, on 10/27/2007, -2/+7Hmm... Maybe take another look at your Windows Update options. I'm pretty sure mine never does that; the most it does is put a little window in the corner asking if I want to restart now or in 10 minutes, 1 hour, or 4 hours (or something close to that). If I remember correctly, that window stays there until I deal with it.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6Po0py's right, I've had Windows do the same thing with me. The basic Windows Update interface has no option regarding restarting the computer. It's "Download and Install, Download and Notify, Notify for Download and Install, and Off" only. I'll look for a registry entry, though, later; that'll probably fix it. No doubt it's a "this is an absolutely critical, mandatory patch! Your system is idle, let's restart!" setting.
      • wolferz, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3Actually there have been a few cases now were windows updates has installed updates regardless of your update settings. This is the second one that I've heard of. The behavior your talking about is being ignored by these updates.

        That said to my knowledge these updates do NOT cause the computer to restart. At least they never caused mine to.
        • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Nope, there was only one, which was an update to the automatic update tool to allow it to check for updates. Even that one was not installed if you had it switched off, it was only installed if you asked for notifications because without it, you would have stopped being notified. This one was not installed unless someone approved it.
  • Ocelot13, on 10/27/2007, -13/+30i have all the latest updates on vista and it runs fine.
    why must there be windows bashing all the time?
    • HighVoltage0, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Actually Windows Desktop Search is using Vista Technology. It's basically just the search bar that Vista users use after the press the Windows Logo. Useful for some people, not so much for others.
      • Christbait, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5Yeah, it's pretty useless.
        • wolferz, on 10/28/2007, -3/+2Actually I've found it quite handy. It makes finding the exact files I want much simpler and faster than the old search system. I no longer have to browse to the file or spend extra time keeping the 50 or so gigs of documents, 150 or so gigs of music, and 400 or so gigs of videos organized. I just toss them all in one of three appropriately labeled folders (with minor organizing based on tagging or folders if the situation warrants). It also makes an excellent run prompt, allowing me to run any manner of program or start menu shortcut without having to open the run prompt or browse through the start menu. It's one of those great little time savers that if you have the power and space its great to have.

          It's another case of "different strokes for different pokes..." but then you already knew that didn't you. See both linux and os x have had this functionality for a long time. With that in mind it's just too blatantly obvious that if all three of the leading desktop OS's have such functionality that it MUST be useful to SOMEONE and that means it CAN'T be useless. It can be useless to you maybe but not useless in general. In context of the previous post then it becomes clear that you are taking the stance that such functionality is useless simply out of a desire to paint Windows Vista in the worst possible light. I wonder if you were even aware of your deception or if you had even deceived yourself...
    • mayonaise15, on 10/27/2007, -2/+11The fact that it slowed down the machines is kind of secondary. The fact that this update got installed at all is the bigger issue.
    • czeman, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4You're one of the lucky ones. I ran Vista for about a month and it was great, but all my software wasn't compatible yet and I was getting sick of waiting for the updates. I went back to XP Pro. I run Ubuntu on my other machine.
      • Ocelot13, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2like yea, ok people dont like vista. no need to bash it. people dont like other peoples os'. we already know this. no need to point it out.
        i've been using vista since march, ive had no major problems with it. tonight i partitioned off a 20 gig section of my secondary hd and installed gutsy gibbon on it.
        i have vista and ubuntu now.
    • mictester, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2I have a "fully updated" Vista machine here, and another 30 in my office. It's appallingly slow, doesn't run my older applications, and hasn't got proper drivers for most of my (standard) hardware. The pushed "desktop search" reduced performance to nothing. It is now unusable. We only kept Vista on the machines for the humour value - we run Ubuntu in the office, but the new machines came with Vista pre-installed, so we kept it there to see if it would work...
  • HighVoltage0, on 10/27/2007, -4/+5The sysadmin at my work had the option whether or not to install it, he asked me to check it out to see if it was a resource hog. On my personal machine it's not, but I can only imagine that the search bar indexing on a file server would bring everyone to their knees for several hours. BUT you can force indexing to snooze for X amount of time, I don't know what the big deal is. The only time I slowed down a little was when it first started indexing files, but after wards everything is running normally. I'm not a fan of Microsoft but I think people are freaking out for no reason.
  • campo, on 10/28/2007, -14/+16thousands to a stand still? not too bad considering windows is installed on a billion computers

    that's like .001% of windows machines affected....darn. And I'm a die hard mac fan too.
    • mvent2, on 10/28/2007, -4/+4I hate it when people say something trollish and pretend to like a competitor to attempt to sound unbiased. From now on I'm burying anyone who tries that BS.
      • tjkombo, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1I don't think he is being "trollish". He is stating a fact, thousands of computers are .0000001% of the entire PC market. Sounds like your comment is to bash someone for simply looking at the facts. Just cause you like a certain product more than another doesn't mean you bash just cause its the competition. He is simply being unbiased. I hate these kind of articles myself because they are usually written with such biase. In fact your being biased.
  • HelplessSEAL, on 10/27/2007, -8/+15just how did that sys admin say "m$" out loud? I'm not that great with the senseless Microsoft bashing lingo, someone needs to explain
    • kirk06, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4Read the rest of the goddamn line and you'd see it said "responding to the problem on the Internet."
    • LordofChaosIori, on 10/29/2007, -0/+11"I'm slightly pissed off at m-shift+4 right now."
    • MagicCake, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Maybe he's such a big douche that he says "M dollar-sign" every time he needs to bash Microsoft...

      Actually, it said that was from a blog post from one of many peeved admins. Still not sure why he felt the need to write the $, but whatever.
    • dusanmal, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3In couple of different ways. Either literally as in M Dollar or Micro Dollar ... or figuratively where $ is for the expletive, tame versions would be M ***** or Micro Suck,... All corresponding to the same fact that such company does not care about the users who have paid for their software.
  • wilhel1812, on 10/28/2007, -8/+1sweet!
  • ryborg, on 10/27/2007, -8/+2Sending down updates and changing your environment, despite having configured against taking updates, should be illegal.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2This only affected WSUS servers who were rigged to automatically install some updates without the Admin's approval. The WDS 3.0.1 installer was incorrectly flagged as a type of update that would make this whitelist.

      It was just a little screw up in the packaging process for WSUS. And PCs to a standstill? I've installed WDS on old XP machines with 256megs of RAM. It does not bring PCs to a standstill.
  • Churnd, on 10/29/2007, -15/+12Do you realize that if you... yes, you... hadn't pirated that Vista OS you're using to read this post right now, Microsoft wouldn't have to be this way? If that doesn't make sense to you, think harder. If that pisses you off, you're in denial.
    • l00s3r, on 10/29/2007, -4/+14The Pirated versions don't have this problem, it's only the legit copies. Ironic isn't it?
      • fuckingusername, on 10/29/2007, -4/+5no and no
        simple automatic updates off, its that easy
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/28/2007, -2/+3You're wrong too. It only affected WSUS servers. No home users were affected.
          Also, Vista was not affected.
          • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1To whoever dugg mio down:
            Are you suggesting that home users use WSUS, because WSUS != automatic updates.
            Vista was not affected because the indexer runs as low priority I/O, so if someone else wants the hard drive, the indexer effectively stops while that happens.
    • StarlessKnight, on 10/28/2007, -1/+8What does Windows Update, regarding Windows Indexing, have to do with piracy? They incorrectly flagged an update, it got pushed through WSUS, and hilarity ensued. Are you talking about WGA?
    • BuckFush, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3Plus the pirated version doesn't get deactivated. Does that piss you off?
    • stotty, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2I'm pissed of that you accused me of pirating. My copy of Vista is legit. And no one is holding a gun to their corporate head over this foul play.
  • dilpil1, on 10/27/2007, -11/+7Can we also talk about how annoying it is that Microsoft used windows update to push their desktop search?
    • Sidzilla, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1No more so than getting Google ***** installed with my Java update. They are all crooks and liars.
  • soopafly, on 10/28/2007, -14/+4*ehem* *ehem* mee mee mee meeeeeeeeee...
    BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!!!
    FIN
  • GruntboyX, on 10/27/2007, -10/+17Ok....First of all This update occurred on a WSUS system. Basically it only effected corporate systems. Now while a few admins might be pissy. In a corporate environment you have no rights to "your" PC. Im sorry, you dont own it and if IT wants to be a total prick and revoke admin access to your machine so you cant install software, you have no right to complain. Just a little perspective..

    Secondly. This is happening...on thousands....God my corporation has thousands of PC's. A couple of incorrectly managed IT infrastructures can produce "thousands" of oppies. Now if it happened on every Damn PC . I might be a little pissed. But this affects only Corporate installations. And as a user i couldnt care less. It doesnt effect me doing my job. And my PC is more than fast enough to handle some drive hashing.

    finally as a user of MDS. It is defaulted to index only when the PC is not active....so i doubt seriously it grounded PC's to a halt. And to top it all off. If your corporation is still using machines that would be effected by a desktop search client..you have a real ***** IT department, and a poor company. In this economy i doubt youll have a job by the end of next year.

    • jweinraub, on 10/28/2007, -5/+5First of all I did not authorize this to be installed. MS decided to install it anyway which is what the article was about. And second, learn your ***** grammar - it is affected not effected!!!
      • hackerzrul, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3(cough)
        http://xkcd.com/326/
        (cough)
        • kindwarrior, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Thank you, youve saved me some typing.
      • sappari, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0Yes "effect" can also be used as a verb but in this case, "affected" is the correct term. "Basically it only effected [sic] corporate systems" would mean the update created corporate systems.
      • stotty, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1If you are going to post a comment about grammar, please do not start a sentence with the word 'and'. Swearing and using multiple exclamation marks doesn't really inspire confidence in your authority either.
  • sathia, on 10/28/2007, -9/+3I'm sick of M$ dear Appl€ fanboy

    /ironic
  • Namingway, on 10/27/2007, -10/+2Umm...? People use automatic updates?
  • dinh, on 10/27/2007, -5/+5Well even if this happened, you would've been smart enough to set Windows Updates not to install them automaticly without your review.
    • AntiTheist, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2good luck with that, MS has the admin rights so it wont matter what you disable, if they want to install something on your pc, they will
      • dinh, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Tell me why I don't have it then you ignorant *****.
        • AntiTheist, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2i bet you run vista, don't you, you ***** noob,
          • dinh, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Oh yes I do. Its sad how people cry about Windows because they don't have enough logic to use it.
    • mvent2, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6But that requires... configuration! Gasp, Windows isn't ready for the average user!
      • dinh, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Everything requires a configuration. Look at Linux.
  • chris9902, on 10/29/2007, -6/+21It's refreshing to see as you read down the comments people start to understand what they're talking about instead of the mouth pieces who just troll digg all day getting the final say.

    And why is this in the Apple section? can't you idiots even pretend to be unbiased to Lord Jobs.
  • fuckingusername, on 10/27/2007, -10/+5is this a marketing tool for leopard?
    hmm? phhht!
  • mrjit, on 10/28/2007, -4/+10Any knowledgeable self respecting admin uses WSUS with verified and tested updates only. The admins that don't, but have the option to, need to go back to plugging in cables.
    • jb4300, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5This is a prime example of a good comment, mrjit. It is reasonable, true, not to mention potentially educational, and adds a bit of humor while being to the point. People that are replying vehemently to this so-called problem in relation to WSUS are either hacks that would rather complain about the OS they are "forced" to use than learn to use them properly or users that have such an admin.
  • dwhs, on 10/29/2007, -11/+6Windows is a computer disease
  • mobilehavoc, on 10/29/2007, -3/+26Anti-Microsoft submission in the Apple category? Yup, welcome to Digg
  • Christbait, on 10/27/2007, -4/+6Urrm... thousands of PCs makes up an extreme minority of all MS computers in the world given how it is widely used more than any other OS. My Vista and my XP machines are both running fine.

    I bet these are all the pirated copies that stupidly accepted the updates.
    • StarlessKnight, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Summary: No.

      Excerpt: "With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the “auto-approve revisions” option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed."
  • AntiTheist, on 10/29/2007, -9/+1lolz, you think you have true admin rights on your uber Vista system??? NO, you DON'T, ***** does....honestly, the idiots that actually use Vista should shut the ***** up and take it in their stupid ***** asses, ... haha i bet they still think they are the admins of the OS,
  • CrazyZ, on 10/27/2007, -5/+1Who in their right mind would use WSUS in a corporate environment!? Why weren't they using SMS or Shavlike etc.. We never let any outside force push patches. WE push them after testing in a sandbox....
    • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Um, who in their right mind would use WSUS *outside* a corporate environment. WSUS != Automatic Updates.
      WSUS does not push patches through unless you approve them.
  • JasonCox, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Our WSUS server rolled our this update today. I've no complaints so far except "How do I shut this [search] box off?"
  • gugin, on 10/28/2007, -1/+15I remember the days when digg.com had intelligent people commenting.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Pretty simple. The more popular Digg gets the more popular it gets with teenagers. And a higher percentage of teenagers prefer to speak rather than listen/learn.
    • roberto_deneero, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1I remember the days when digg wasn't blog trash 24/7. I bury all stories such as "Top 10 Leopard Features" (How the hell do YOU know what 10 features I'll like best?!).
    • grumpyrain, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1Sigh. If this was in the Microsoft category, it would have been buried as inaccurate before it hit the front page, because most people who look at that category actually know how WSUS works. The number of commenters who believe one of the following ERRORS is amazing.

      * Microsoft installed it without approval;
      * Microsoft recommended the update as critical or security related
      * Vista is effected
      * Home users are in any way effected.

      If this happened to you, scream at your IT for being incompetent, lazy or too overworked to do due diligence. If they did the job they should be doing, this would not have occurred.
  • Weblodude, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2and this surprises me because?
  • quikboy, on 10/27/2007, -2/+10Apple-fan site overexaggerates on a not so good Windows update for a really small group of users.

    Yep, Apple-fan sites really do like to hate on MS, and push this kind of stuff into Digg. Do we really need to see any more of this?
  • markkemperman, on 10/27/2007, -2/+10mmm, 'Microsoft Update Brings Thousands of PCs to Standstill'. Sounds familiar, some of us Mac users got a similar update today with a similar effect, called Mac OSX Leopard...
    • hotdamn, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2Yeah dude, I had a total standstill for like 45 minutes.

      Then the installation finished and I moved on with my life.
    • cowboy86, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4Well I see this as good as any place to insert this comment.

      Mac=Men After *****
  • Cherubim, on 10/27/2007, -5/+5More unsubstantiated sensationalist crap from Digg.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1I think it would be handy if each digg post had a poll attached to it where everyone can vote on whether it's eg accurate/blogspam, and have the stats shown clearly at the top and/or in the front page.
  • hackerzrul, on 10/27/2007, -5/+2I am going to be heavily flamed but i don't like this update problem, they should have optionally done it or not reactivated the indexing. I love Microsoft Xp and Linux Ubuntu which is what i use. I use Mac because i have to but i really don't feel like i really like it.
  • cultist667, on 10/27/2007, -4/+6This may be why when I was watching movies yesterday and the stupid pc froze and rebooted while I was on the can. You can't even take a ***** anymore without M$ ***** with your pc.
  • BlackJackJester, on 10/27/2007, -5/+6Too bad Microsoft is on Fortune's 100 best places to work, and Apple is nowhere to be seen.
    • shm1, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2That's because Apple employees are busy churning out real operating systems instead of being interviewed by journalists.
    • znicket, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2That is one strange comment. Microsoft issues an update that is problematic and you start talking about that Fortune magazine considers Microsoft to be a decent place to work. Oh, and the fact that Fortune Magazine does not consider Apple to be a good place to work. What is the ***** relevance to the topic at hand?
  • mynameisjody, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5Wow. I love how in the MS letter they just play it off like the system administrators made a mistake. Oh, it's your fault - you weren't paying attention. Despicable.
  • mcgirt, on 10/27/2007, -9/+10Microsoft is crap. They can't make non-bloated, innovative software to save their life. I can't believe people actually defend Microsoft. Yes Apple fanboyism can be repulsive but Microsoft really does suck.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Microsoft are just a business and nothing more. If you look at their whole history from the outset it's full of heavy handling of competitors and sneeky practices rather than contributing innovation. But hay, people can't buy enough of their software and Microsoft are rich beyond their wildest dreams so good luck to them.
  • gmalonzo, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4Sorry I can't read any of your comments. My computer is currently down.
  • Myztry, on 10/27/2007, -2/+7What did you expect? Every time Microsoft needs people to have something to attempt to supplant competition, it abuses it position to enforce it upon the consumer.
    They can't exactly wait another 5 years to 'Bundle' their inferior search as a means to lock in the consumer, and people aren't going to install an inferior product by choice.
    Now watch the Microsoft products arrive that 'need' a Microsoft Search App to function for some unfathomable reason. It's people on stupid fault for still persisting with Windows.
    Yes, you need Windows like a good puppet. A whole lot of effort is put into making sure that you 'need it' as opposed to it best suiting your requirements. It's nothing new. The DOJ only had limited success.
  • macgecko, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Oh come on Microsoft is the just the best! Be a good little lemming now and look-up the tech note on how to fix your wonderful OS.
    • dravidian, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Oh let me guess - you're an apple user and you think differently right?
      • plr4ever, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Or Linux, Dont forget linux!!!!!!!!

        they always forget linux :(
  • weedmonk, on 10/27/2007, -12/+4The virulent iFaggots are queefing away today. Its not enough the MSM who're so ***** stupid they can't compute on PC's are sucking steve jobs pasty ballz and fellating leopard. Its pissed them off that "M$" made $4.9Billion in Profit which put that fag ass coroporation is Cupertino to shame.

    Mac Observer? YOU GOT TO BE ***** ME.

    Kevin Rose is biggest iFaggot of them all.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.