Discussion on:

How do I... Stop Windows XP from nagging me about updates?

I just spent a weekend undoing the consequences of an XP SP3/Net 3.0 "upgrade" to my new Thinkpad T61 which had been running XP SP2 without problems.

After the SP3 upgrade, I lost the CD/DVD drive, and MS support, in attempting to remedy the problem, managed to edit the registry so that the computer would not start and the HDD was so corrupted it had to be reformatted. I have now reloaded SP2 and the computer works perfectly. I have turned off the update feature.

With repeated statements MS is going to terminate its support of XP (as well as statements that it will not support, except on a fee basis, prior software programs such as MS Office 2002), is there a real necessity to update and risk potential problems that one might suspect are being left unresolved on the theory the user will have to upgrade to Vista anyway? I am beginning to come to the view that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I am still curious whether there is some real necessity to upgrade. I also read your article on Itunes 8 upgrades, and it too, seems to offer nothing but increased problems.

Switch to Linux!

This is not an valid or reasonable option for a great many folks.

Oh, if one is just a simple home user who does little besides surfing the Net, exchanging chat and emails with friends, etc. Switching to Linux is a possibility. Maybe. However I know a significant number of folks who've tried a number of Linux distributions and who have given up on it out of frustration. Such users being of the type of person who just want to USE their computer and a few apps and who have no interest at all in becoming computer geeks or learning much about an OS ... any OS.

In the working world ... a switchover from Windows to Linux can be MUCH more daunting, problematical, and expensive.

For instance, where I work we use quite a number of applications ... MUST use them due to the nature of the business we engage in ... for which there are no Linux equivalents. And the developers of the apps have no intention, in the foreseeable future, of developing such. For the apps we use where a Linux equivalent exists, the fact is that for the most part they are no better, and mostly they're not quite as good as, the Windows apps they'd replace (although they do often have the benefit of being either lower in initial purchase price or free). So why the heck would we spend the rather enormous costs in manpower, re-training time, etc it'd take for us to do a company wide switch?

Egad, even if we made the switch we'd still have to be purchasing/licensing apps made solely for the Windows platforms and then attempt to run them under Wine or some equivalent.

Not to mention that some won't run at all, or reliably and with acceptable speed, under Wine. We know, we have experimented. To top it off, we do business with thousands of customers (businesses) who are using Windows themselves. Exchange documents with them that were created by Windows apps, many of them employing and using macros, scripts, VBA, etc internal to the documents.

And, due to the nature of the work we do, a great many of our employees need to work on a daily basis on systems belonging to our customers ... nearly all of which are Windows systems. Installing specialized apps, scripting, writing batch files, doing reconfigs, tweaking network connections, etc.

Of the hundreds of projects I've worked on in just the past few years (each project being a different customer organization) I haven't seem more than a handful of non-Windows machines. And those were relegated to specialized usage only, and not the normal platform used by the majority of the customers' employees for daily business.

Switching to Linux may sound like a reasonable action and a valid alternative. But as of right NOW ... its not really an option for the majority of folks in the larger business or government communities.

Notice, I'm not engaging in any discourse as to which OS is a better one. I don't slam either OS. But I must deal with realities.

You just made the case for heterogeneous environments over proprietary ones such as Windows. The nature of your needs and issues are exactly why one vendor does not adhere to standards. And this is done so they can captivate and hold hostage a good segment of the market as they provide their stakeholders a sizeable chunk of the $$$$ pie.

For many years we've all been striving to remove the single source vendor need but an organization such as Microsoft has ensured that this would be a monumental task for a good portion of businesses, yours is the case in point.

We've converted to Linux/Unix and where we "must" have a MS based product we virtualize in the short term while developing the alternative for the long term. The costs savings from MS licensing alone pays for our strategies.

I'm not a "UX" nut but I don't need nor want a vendor to hold me/my business hostage just so they can justify their existence. If MS would cooperate (play nicely) with other technologies - and there are some signs that MS has begun to do so - then they would be acceptable as an option to be considered. Until then, I and many others like myself, will do what it takes to keep our organizations as technology fit and flexible as possible, with or without the Microsofts of the world.

Well then ... perhaps it's time for us to sue Microsoft for unfair business practices, creating a monopoly, driving out competition, and replacing it with inferior products?

Oh wait... they've already tried that.

All it did was make a bunch of attorney's on both sides..... RICH beyond wildest dreams.

It did nothing to curtail their business practices. They tried to threaten to cut support for XP... it didn't work. So then SP3 was introduced.... and (imagine that) people are now having problems with stuff that was NEVER a problem up through SP2???
Business as usual at Redmond ... Gates or no Gates... doesn't seem to matter.

Draw your own conclusions.

I have copied your reply and will send it verbatim to my geek son-in-law, who is nagware in human form on the subject of Linux and what he calls Windoze.

feed the troll....

thx

Switch to Linux!
Hell yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!

From upgrading 300+ PCs to XP SP3, from various home and business clients (ie. not in a single managed corporate environment) I recommend the following:

- Make sure the PC is free of malicous software.
- Remove any non-Microsoft anti malicous software applications.
- Use MS update to install SP3 or
- If you're installing the redist of SP3, go to MS update first and get as far as the download/install prompt for XP3. The point of this is to install the Genuinine Microsoft and any other mandatory patches

Basically Microsoft seems to assume your PC is ready to install SP3, where many aren't

Getting to this understanding has caused me some frustrations of my own

I have recently updated 500 machines, with no glaring side effects. These machines have a wide variety of applications loaded on them. I don't get the issue.

I was all full of flame at first, but I did put a bit of effort into writing a NICE reply to the guy. But...

"in attempting to remedy the problem, managed to edit the registry so that the computer would not start and the HDD was so corrupted it had to be reformatted." ... as Jamie (from Mythbusters) would say "thar's your problem"...

I'd go as fast as to say theres a couple of oximorons in his statement (will some extra moron perhaps?)

mainly because after the download and it started installing, I got an error window saying it couldn't install the update because of not enough allocated space on my system - or maybe it was my hard-drive space. I'm currently using 20gig of hard drive space so I figured the SP3 update wanted more than I had, I then had to cancel the entire download and loading process which had to take quite some time in doing, then restart the computer. I then got another window, after the reboot, from Microsoft saying my system encountered the "blue screen" (which it never did), but to go to the Microsoft website to get info on the fix. I didn't need to do that. All that happened was that the install cancellation reverted my system back to the way it was before the download/loading and the restart must've cleared it up. I then put a comment on Microsoft's website after the fix-info to tell them what happened and that I'd never install the SP3 again on my system. Since then (this was about a month ago), I hadn't seen the SP3 come up yet, but other updates were seen, which I let install. I used this "fix" to stop the auto-updates just in case the SP3 comes up again. Until I can switch my other hard drive (I also have a 40gig drive installed but use it as a file capacity saver, but I want to switch my 20gig drive system for the 40gig for more space - maybe then I can use the SP3 update) I'll have to contend with this "fix" for now. I'm just a little skeptical about switching over to the other drive, hence I'll lose the entire XP system from the 20 to the 40 plus other programs installed. I have to get over my skepticism somehow before I do that.

but please use paragraphs once and a while; some of us are getting to be old farts that can't see well enough to read as well as we would like! =)

Lets face it.. if it were just you, and your computer, say the power cord coming into the PC and you were in a void.. you would probably not need to upgrade.

In a "void" the only type of upgrades you would need are for classic "bugs" in the software. Bugs being those problems in programming that have had some flaw in logic, or "do these three things at once, and you crash the pc" ... those types of upgrades are fewer and further between. Much of that is because the code gets vetted better today in more situations ... so much so you might make the argument that something like a rev2 should be enough for well designed apps/os's.

But its because we don't live in a void, and because we do allow other things to get at our computers, that we have to upgrade code, to protect our machines from things that come into them externally to us or our electrical power. (not that we are really good at being the great protectors either - USB below)

Have a USB port? You can become infected, you can have every ounce of memory scanned, potentially revealing passwords which are in memory read and saved on a USB drive just from simply plugging one in..

Have a floppy? the USB dongle is now the floppy of the past.. stick one in, get an infection. Many security assessment companies report in penetration testing they find their easiest access into systems by spreading usb devices around and letting people just "find them" .. curious they put them into their PC's and BOOM ... they've been duped into running an application, because no one likes to really open "my computer" and then right click the funny thumb drive, and then choose open.. no no.. we want that thing to be seen automatically, we want it to have the same rights as a CDRom disk that we stick in.. and it auto launches things of its choosing..

Network the PC? good god man THEN you REALLY don't know how much attack surface you've presented to the would be "cracker" out there to come and take over.. just for the fact that maybe you're more well off, and have that latest quad core super computing box that they could use for their bidding..

Are there ways to mitigate the necessity? perhaps to lessen the risks?

Firewalls, Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, Anti-bogeyman programs.. They have their purpose ... they negate some of the issues that seem to need patching weekly ... but unfortunately, putting a band-aide over a 50 foot gaping sink hole in the middle of your PC called RPC which goes as deep as your OS ... well... that's really why we patch ... for its the next big "oops" that potentially gets us..

how safe do you want *your* data to be? You could just use a USB stick yourself, or get one of those boot CD's (there are some for windows as well - BartPE) and use the system in a pseudo void.. but then you're having to do extra work, and most of us hate doing that..

My system updated to SP3 automatically and now one of my very important, non-Microsoft certified programs simply shuts down with a message about DEP (Data Execution Protection) whenever I try to print something from that software.

The program worked perfectly prior to the update and still works on any XP machine that has not been updated to XP3.

Removing the offending program is NOT an option.

You need to add the application to the DEP list/remove from there etc..

Right click "My Computer"
Left Click Properties
Go to Advanced -> Performance -> Data Execution Prevention

Turn on DEP for all EXCEPT .... and add the program to the exception. It could also be something with the printer driver/spooler if it only happens from print jobs.

also you can look to see if that application has any updates, or support for this issue.

If you choose your updates when installing manually a check box appears asking something like "Do not remind me of unwanted updates" check the box, no problems.

I have steadfastly refused to install SP3 as reading between the lines all that MS are wanting is to comletely control your computor. I carried out your instructions to stop the nagging but the sheild was still there as expected,I clicked it and a list of about 15 updates was listed including the dreaded SP3 I removed the tick from the list, pressed OK and immediately the window was cleard except for SP3 that again had the tick in a the box.
MS is refuseing to give any more up dates until I accept SP3 this is trying force everyone in to downloading SP3 this should ring warning bells that SP3 is for thhe benefit of MS and not you or I.

Classic, I did this some years ago.
I even removed the NAGGING update feature (all of it)

With Windows you have no control.

Cheers

I cant see any reason why not just do it! Update...
Microsoft has probably good reasons for advising you to update...
Asger

You can't see any reason to not just do it? You bet Microsoft has good reasons for advising you to update. Call me paranoid, but I've been in computers since 1973 and have seen it happen time and again.

What might those reasons be? How about making sure you HAVE to ditch XP in a year or so and move to Vista.

I stopped accepting updates (including SP3) as soon as Microsoft announced that they were 'obsoleting' XP. Since they can't sell much Vista and won't give it away, the last option is to MAKE you use it by engineering XP to go away.

Anyone who touts the glory of Vista has never used a fast, efficient desktop OS. Sort of like the 'true Blue' folks during IBM's mainframe stranglehold; if it came from IBM it HAD to be the best! Now, substitute Microsoft for IBM.

I now have a dual-boot machine with XP SP2 and Ubuntu Linux, which is now a dream to install and run, unlike other older Linux distros (disastros?). As soon as XP stops working, its goodbye to Windows for me. I can get 3-4 times the bang for my buck running Ubuntu than Vista on my laptop. Next stop after that when my laptop gives up? A Macintosh, which is, after all, what Windows was trying to be.

suspected of at least sloppy updates just to get people to want to give up and buy Vista.

I've suspected this for a while, but probably closer to the truth, Redmond execs probaby saw the consumer complaints as a godsend to motivate XP users to the new machines.

I will have to get Vista eventually, I haven't an option, but I am also personally migrating to FOSS solutions, and hope I can wean my clients off of MS forever.

Funny you should mention that word. Recently installed SP3 and their WGA tool - got the watermark on my desktop (I have a valid certificate and cd key) and SP3 shot the hell out of my machine. Removed SP3 (watermark remained) and went to do a restore - guess what - every one of my restore points had been removed. However using repair/chldsk /f fixed that b***dy watermark. (unfortunately I needed SP3 for a particluar fix, so i'm ledt with the frequent BSODs.)

Next new machine will definitely have Linux (probably Ubuntu) on it

I am a House Call technician for our computer club. I have successfully installed SP3 on at least 50 computers.

Yes, I have run into these problems and easily fixed same:
1. If you have an Compaq or HP desktop computer that also has an AMD processor. Turn off Automatic updates. If this is too late, and your computer has gone bananas, restart in Safe mode by repeatedly pressing F8 key on start up. Go to the Control Panel and double-click Add or Remove Programs. Select Service Pack and Remove. The computer will be restored to the prior condition. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/6m6y9s
A former Microsoft Manager offers a free fix for this problem, see: http://tinyurl.com/5vukb7
Please be aware, there is free unlimited installation and compatibility support is available for Windows XP, but only for Service Pack 3 (SP3). This support for SP3 is valid until April 14, 2009.

I see no conspiracy here, just a dumb mistake by HP by not placing the correct product on their computers.

2. Symantec user should ?...should switch off the "SymProtect" feature before trying to install XP SP3 http://tinyurl.com/5kqw5w

Still no conspiracy, just Symantec!

builds that did the same thing because they had AMD CPUs. Some of them were even marked "patched" on the startup post for the processor!

However not everyone had AMD processors and still got hard drive corruption from SP3.

A different fix was in order for everyone of them.

If you only want to stop SP3 from installing there is a simpel regsitry hack that does the job:

http://www.technipages.com/xp-prevent-windows-update-from-installing-sp3.html

If you only want to stop SP3 from installing there is a simple registry hack that does the job:

http://www.technipages.com/xp-prevent-windows-update-from-installing-sp3.html

This is fine.....BUT how do I stop Msoft sending me emails about updates..I have all the ones I need but cannot get unsubscribed !!

Thoy

I had XP Auto Update set to Download but Don't Install. Several weeks ago, I found that SP3 had been downloaded and the gold shield was asking me to pick a time to install it. I searched all over for some way to get rid of the SP3 download with no success including rebooting, going to Windows update, etc. Finally I gave up and elected to proceed with the install. On the first screen that I believe asked me to accept the license terms, there was a clickable sentence saying something to the effect of Don't Remind Me About This Again. I clicked that and SP3 went away and I have not as yet been prompted by an SP3 download. I have been prompted for other Windows Update downloads. I also set Auto Update to notify only so I did not get into the situation again.

Check my Reply Below.

"Better way to stop the nags - Pictorial"

I show you how to do it.

I installed SP3 and it crashed my computer. I uninstalled, reviewed the possible problems associated with the update, and installed again. Same thing happened. I removed the update and will NOT be installing it again.

If I do your process of stopping the nagging. Will my WSUS server still push updates to my clients? Another question in my WSUS all of my clients are at 99% is that because they have not installed the last of their updates?

WSUS has all of the update details for every client machine. You can review those machines to see if they are missing an update using the WSUS reports. And yes it would affect WSUS updates, because WSUS uses the same process which is just redirected to the WSUS server.

wanted to test the updates in the lab. We just pushed them later.

Have you been running it automatically? If so does it slow the network/client unit down?

We have been running the WSUS for about 2 months and have had no problems with it slowing down the network or client. We download it to a server, test it then push it to the clients. Nothing is directly to the client off the Internet.

I appreciate the input!

To install SP3 the system must be SP1 or better and the WGA crap must be recently updated or SP3 will not install properly.
Had this same problem until I found the right sequence. Go to Windows update to run the "priority" or "security" updates only. There will be 2. One is usually the Malware removal and the other is the WGA aggravator. Let them both run to completion and then run the SP3 install. I hate it also but I've found that SP3 does protect against some specific malware issues we've run into at work. Otherwise at home I run Debian Linux.

I put up with all of MS's crap but I still like to see people circumvent it, just for the satisfaction of knowing Redmond can't get in everyones shorts!

It is better if You just ignore certain updates, that way you won't be bothered by the ones you don't want, but, will still get notified of new updates/patches especially the security and criticals!

Try this..

right click updates icon


Tick off Custom Install (advanced)and click Install

Uncheck the updates you do not want installed and click close

You will be prompted with a "Hide Updates" Window
Put a Tick next to Don't notify me about these updates again and click OK



You can get the Updates back by clicking the link at the bottom of Automatic updates."offer updates again that i have previously hidden"

A restore updates window will pop up. Click on yes to restore hidden updates.

Then the next time Automatic Updates checks in, it will offer it again.

masses. I'm not a good enough communicator to do this work.

Thanks for the clear procedure! The key is to uncheck the updates to install and then click 'Close'. If you just cancel, Windows will not realize you're serious about not installing it, and will try again later.

As my favorite instructor used to say, "Ask me how I know!"

I have 40 XP systems to maintain. I have found that installing SP3 works far better it you use the full version (All 324Meg's of it):

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=5B33B5A8-5E76-401F-BE08-1E1555D4F3D4&displaylang=en

I had a number of problems using MS's update site, which installs an abbreviated version of SP3.

That has been my experience also. The automated "download only what's needed" live install version is too freaking buggy and unreliable. What's worse is that some of the fixes not covered by the process get offered up as required updates. dotNet 1.1 service pack 1 seems to get clobbered continually by this and also does not get installed properly if dot Net 3.0 or 3.5 is already installed.