Don't all rush but win2kSP3 available from here

[SteveC]

BTW: Seen what windowsupdate collects from your PC now?

Windows Update Privacy Statement
Windows Update is committed to protecting your privacy. To provide you with the appropriate list of updates, Windows Update must collect a certain amount of configuration information from your computer. This information includes:

Operating-system version number and Product Identification number
Internet Explorer version number
Version numbers of other software
Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices
The Product Identification number is collected to confirm that you are running a validly licensed copy of Windows. A validly licensed copy of Windows ensures that you will receive on-going updates from Windows Update. Windows Update does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of personally identifiable information. The configuration information collected is used only for the period of time that you are visiting the site, and is not saved.

To provide you with the best possible service, Windows Update also tracks and records how many unique machines visit its site and whether the download and installation of specific updates succeeded or failed. In order to do this, Windows generates a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) that is stored on your computer to uniquely identify it. Windows Update records the GUID of the computer that attempted the download, the ID of the item that you attempted to download and install, and information about your operating system version and Internet Explorer version.

Because Windows Update does not collect personally identifiable information, the configuration information and GUID cannot be used to identify you.

[cjolley]

How could windows update work without that stuff?
(except the GUID)
I wonder if the consider IP and MAC address "personally identifiable information"?

Is that any different from what they've always collected,
or are they just now admitting it?

chuck

[xortam]

Originally posted by cjolley
... Is that any different from what they've always collected,
or are they just now admitting it?

It was stated from the beginning.

[Victorian]

FYI, something that I just noticed. Even if you turn off the auto update setting, that does *not* turn off the auto update service. You have to change that in the windows admin tools\services manually to either manual or disable.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by SteveC
Does anyone just not really care? I'm going to install SP3 and not bother myself over the EULA. I want SP3 for any bugfixes/performance enhancements/compatibility etc etc, and if MS wants to talk to my PC, why should I care? I admit I've not paid for my copy - I'm using the same licence as my PC at work. Is MS really going to come to me personally and tell me off?

They might now, Steve Cooper who lives in Southend-on-Sea, Essex, UK, was born May 4, 1980, and works in Internet Development / Tech Support.

[Fred H]

Another warning to stay away from W2K SP3:

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35249

VT 2.04 installs fine on SP2...

Fred H

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by Fred H
Another warning to stay away from W2K SP3:

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35249

VT 2.04 installs fine on SP2...

Fred H

Same with Mcaffee VirusScan 5.X. Neither of the tray icons or autoprotect for that matter will load. Yes, I know. Get a real virus scanner. I have no choice.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by SteveC
BTW: Seen what windowsupdate collects from your PC now?

Windows Update Privacy Statement
Windows Update is committed to protecting your privacy. To provide you with the appropriate list of updates, Windows Update must collect a certain amount of configuration information from your computer. This information includes:

Operating-system version number and Product Identification number
Internet Explorer version number
Version numbers of other software
Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices
The Product Identification number is collected to confirm that you are running a validly licensed copy of Windows. A validly licensed copy of Windows ensures that you will receive on-going updates from Windows Update. Windows Update does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of personally identifiable information. The configuration information collected is used only for the period of time that you are visiting the site, and is not saved.

To provide you with the best possible service, Windows Update also tracks and records how many unique machines visit its site and whether the download and installation of specific updates succeeded or failed. In order to do this, Windows generates a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) that is stored on your computer to uniquely identify it. Windows Update records the GUID of the computer that attempted the download, the ID of the item that you attempted to download and install, and information about your operating system version and Internet Explorer version.

Because Windows Update does not collect personally identifiable information, the configuration information and GUID cannot be used to identify you.

This is wrong. It is furthermore unconstitutional. If MSFT is arrogant enough to do everything they say they are doing here, why would any of us believe they are not taking other information off our hard drives? They have essentially declared themselves above the law.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If we truly have no government that will protect us against this sort of thing, if the people in Washington care more for the interests of corporations which do this at will, then we need a new government. Enough said.

[Wombat]

It is wrong. It should be illegal. It is most certainly NOT unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is part of the covenant between government and governed. It doesn't apply to a customer dealing with MS. You are not obligated to hand over this information. The answer is simple: don't use Windows. Or block the data.

[KvHagedorn]

It is most certainly NOT unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is part of the covenant between government and governed. It doesn't apply to a customer dealing with MS.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about that. The Constitution is the LAW, and its provisions are written in plain English. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated Read the Amendment again carefully. It does not specify who must violate these specific rights in order to bring the law into effect. It could be the federal, state, county, or municipal government, but it leaves open the question of whether it might also be a corporation or other entity, including an angry neighbor who believes wrongly that you have stolen from him, fully protecting you and I from vigilantism above and beyond any other law which might be in place. Further, it materially defines "unreasonable:" and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This Amendment is the only thing standing between We The People and Big Brother. Whether "Big Brother" is the government or a large corporation is essentially immaterial.

Tell me this.. if the Government does not have the right to violate this Amendment, do they have the right to put you under duress in order for you to sign away this right? Yes, you have the right to refuse a policeman if he walks up and asks to search your home without a warrant, but say he threatened your job in order to obtain this permission.. this is what Microsoft is doing for many people who are obligated to use Windows to make a living. They are essentially over a barrel. Either let us scrutinize your computer (and report any violation we find or think we find to the authorities to be prosecuted under the new DMCA, which has completely redefined copyright infringement from a minor offense to a major felony) or screw you and your job. Corporate monopolies have such powers, which is why they must not be allowed to exist in any form.

[Wombat]

They aren't violating your rights because <B>you're doing it voluntarily</B>. Next you'll tell me that NDAs violate the First Amendment.

[KvHagedorn]

I covered that. Yes, technically you are "voluntarily" (if people actually read and understood these things one wonders, though) agreeing to allow them to invade your computer and read information from it. Since you bring up NDAS, though... Hypothetically, suppose it was your job to beta test the functionality of W2k SP3 with certain software.. your options are limited: either "volunteer" to agree to this sort of thing or "volunteer" to get another job.

If you have a home computer from which you run a home business and need to install something from Microsoft in order to do your job, you must agree to this, even though your son, unbeknownst to you, put a warezed version of some game on your machine. Instant jail time, buddy.

[Wombat]

Hypothetically, suppose it was your job to beta test the functionality of W2k SP3 with certain software.. your options are limited: either "volunteer" to agree to this sort of thing or "volunteer" to get another job.

Yeah, we do that here. Those EULAs don't apply.

I don't even want to get into the myriad of hypothetical situations.

[KvHagedorn]

Well anyhow, I'm sure Microsoft's lawyers have covered all the bases. That doesn't mean any of this is right, as we both agree. Though perhaps you will agree that in spirit the new EULAs are directly opposed to the values of freedom our forefathers set down in the 4th Amendment.

[[Ch]amsalot]

I installed SP3 yesterday (through windows update web page) and so far, so good. Amazingly, it properly updated my installation history

Be advised it does take a while to install, even if you are up-to-date on the hot fixes. On my 1.4GHz T-bird (@ 1.53), it took around 1/2 hour. I did choose to save the old files in case all hell broke loose which I'm sure added quite a bit to the install time.

The only issue I had was relatively minor... it changed some refresh rates/ resolutions on my dual monitor set up, but that was easy enough to restore.

I'll let anyone know if I encounter any further issues and/or problems.

-[Ch]ams