To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Do you have any evidence or at least sources for that claim?
The article itself makes that claim:
It only says "seem". It has not been confirmed to be true for all four settings, and it is a fact that the WU-client cannot connect to WU-servers when running without Administrator rights.
I know from my experiences with my firewall that WU does not attempt to do anything when turned off. And I know that because my firewall freaks out when I run WU and forget to un-restrict WU
Edited 2007-09-14 19:12 UTC
I don't have evidence for the thing he discribed, but I set it to "Notify, but don't download or install".
Yesterday evening I booted Windows and two updates were shown: The one security update and that "tool to remove baad software" (no, I don't know the correct english names for that
). I clicked on cancel since I wanted to do this later, after doing some work.
Half an hour later there was just ONE update left. Guess which one it was.
Okay, that's not really much "evidence" since you can't really prove that without making a video. Guess you just have to believe me here.
Wooot O_o ??? You have an IE7-uninstaller!!1?
Hmm.. I've had my own problems with the notification-thingy when manually launching Windows Update. The notification thing tend to conflict with the manual launch, so I'd need the output from Windows Update's list over installed updates and failed updates for your machine. HOWEVER: You MUST NOT give me that information. I'll haunt you in your nightmares if you do
Launch Windows Update manually and check the list over succesful updates and failed updates and see if it shows something. Until then I can only conclude you had a problem with the notifier.
I have had conflicts with manual launch of WU and the notifier running, but I haven't experienced what you describe. But that malicious software thingy is probably selfinstalling





Member since:
2005-10-02
Do you have any evidence or at least sources for that claim?
It runs counter to the explanation from Microsoft (and the complaints) and it runs counter to my experiences with Windows 2003 Server.