Messenger Uopdate *****WARNING*****

If you have M$ messenger active, be warned.

Microsoft have broken most of the rules with the latest update for this
module.

It pops up a window that says there's an update available, you can answer
yes or no, or cancel

If you take Yes, it downloads, installs, and then ***WITH NO OPTION AT
ALL**** reboots the machine. If you have any other task or application open,
it will be aborted, and the machine WILL reboot, there is NO OPTION TO DEFER
the reboot.

I've seen some unfriendly patches in my time, this one is about the worst,
in that it gives no indication as to where it comes from, what it's changing,
or why, and then has the potential to completely disrupt the user's work and
activities, as it forces a reboot without the option. That's not just
unfriendly, that's downright arrogant and nasty, and goes against the concept
of safe updates on line. The only reason this did not bite too hard is that
my normal on line session does not have admin settings, so I had to change to
another account to run it, which meant that I had very little else active at
the time, had this happened in a "user" session, I would have been seriously
inconvenienced, at best, and maybe worse, as this application should not have
assumed that it could reboot without checking first.

I shall not be trusting M$ in future on this, there is NO WAY that a patch
of this nature should reboot without first asking the user to confirm that
it's OK.

Steve

There have been updates in the past where a reboot was necessary.. failure
to do so could cause problems.. in this case, it was taken out of the hands
of users..



--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Steve Garry" <sgarry@simpilotdotnet> wrote in message
news0DDB657-31BE-4E72-A106-...
> If you have M$ messenger active, be warned.
>
> Microsoft have broken most of the rules with the latest update for this
> module.
>
> It pops up a window that says there's an update available, you can answer
> yes or no, or cancel
>
> If you take Yes, it downloads, installs, and then ***WITH NO OPTION AT
> ALL**** reboots the machine. If you have any other task or application
> open,
> it will be aborted, and the machine WILL reboot, there is NO OPTION TO
> DEFER
> the reboot.
>
> I've seen some unfriendly patches in my time, this one is about the worst,
> in that it gives no indication as to where it comes from, what it's
> changing,
> or why, and then has the potential to completely disrupt the user's work
> and
> activities, as it forces a reboot without the option. That's not just
> unfriendly, that's downright arrogant and nasty, and goes against the
> concept
> of safe updates on line. The only reason this did not bite too hard is
> that
> my normal on line session does not have admin settings, so I had to change
> to
> another account to run it, which meant that I had very little else active
> at
> the time, had this happened in a "user" session, I would have been
> seriously
> inconvenienced, at best, and maybe worse, as this application should not
> have
> assumed that it could reboot without checking first.
>
> I shall not be trusting M$ in future on this, there is NO WAY that a patch
> of this nature should reboot without first asking the user to confirm that
> it's OK.
>
> Steve
>

Ok Mike, your post supports exactly what the guy said. It is arrogant of
Microsoft to assume everyone is an idiot that can't choose to restart of
delay a reboot based on the update. Instead of taking out ot the hands of
users (very ignorant and arrogant) simply tell them that a reboot is
necessarry before you shut them down and risk loss of data (which of course
you have a disclaimer somewhere on file to avoid responsibility for - but
wait doesn't lack of proper information not leave you liable in some way?). I
am intelligent enough to decide if a reboot must be made if provided
information stating that it is. But, having the information saying it is
gives me the opportunity to "close and save" my work meaning if I lost data
it would be due to my stupidity and not Microsofts arrogance. Does that kind
of make a clear point?

"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:

> There have been updates in the past where a reboot was necessary.. failure
> to do so could cause problems.. in this case, it was taken out of the hands
> of users..
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "Steve Garry" <sgarry@simpilotdotnet> wrote in message
> news0DDB657-31BE-4E72-A106-...
> > If you have M$ messenger active, be warned.
> >
> > Microsoft have broken most of the rules with the latest update for this
> > module.
> >
> > It pops up a window that says there's an update available, you can answer
> > yes or no, or cancel
> >
> > If you take Yes, it downloads, installs, and then ***WITH NO OPTION AT
> > ALL**** reboots the machine. If you have any other task or application
> > open,
> > it will be aborted, and the machine WILL reboot, there is NO OPTION TO
> > DEFER
> > the reboot.
> >
> > I've seen some unfriendly patches in my time, this one is about the worst,
> > in that it gives no indication as to where it comes from, what it's
> > changing,
> > or why, and then has the potential to completely disrupt the user's work
> > and
> > activities, as it forces a reboot without the option. That's not just
> > unfriendly, that's downright arrogant and nasty, and goes against the
> > concept
> > of safe updates on line. The only reason this did not bite too hard is
> > that
> > my normal on line session does not have admin settings, so I had to change
> > to
> > another account to run it, which meant that I had very little else active
> > at
> > the time, had this happened in a "user" session, I would have been
> > seriously
> > inconvenienced, at best, and maybe worse, as this application should not
> > have
> > assumed that it could reboot without checking first.
> >
> > I shall not be trusting M$ in future on this, there is NO WAY that a patch
> > of this nature should reboot without first asking the user to confirm that
> > it's OK.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
>
>

There is no doubt that somebody got it wrong in this case, and I would agree
that it does come across as a little arrogant.. I was surprised by its
actions too, and was online in the middle of something..

I think that whoever decided it should be done this way was driven by a
sense of 'helping out at any cost', and forgot any sense of decency.. these
newsgroups are frequented by some who are directly employed by Microsoft,
and one can only hope that they take the feelings of you and others back to
the drawing board and work with them..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Sean Love" <Sean > wrote in message
news:ADB88E72-C598-4A6A-A6BA-...
> Ok Mike, your post supports exactly what the guy said. It is arrogant of
> Microsoft to assume everyone is an idiot that can't choose to restart of
> delay a reboot based on the update. Instead of taking out ot the hands of
> users (very ignorant and arrogant) simply tell them that a reboot is
> necessarry before you shut them down and risk loss of data (which of
> course
> you have a disclaimer somewhere on file to avoid responsibility for - but
> wait doesn't lack of proper information not leave you liable in some
> way?). I
> am intelligent enough to decide if a reboot must be made if provided
> information stating that it is. But, having the information saying it is
> gives me the opportunity to "close and save" my work meaning if I lost
> data
> it would be due to my stupidity and not Microsofts arrogance. Does that
> kind
> of make a clear point?
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:
>
>> There have been updates in the past where a reboot was necessary..
>> failure
>> to do so could cause problems.. in this case, it was taken out of the
>> hands
>> of users..
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Steve Garry" <sgarry@simpilotdotnet> wrote in message
>> news0DDB657-31BE-4E72-A106-...
>> > If you have M$ messenger active, be warned.
>> >
>> > Microsoft have broken most of the rules with the latest update for this
>> > module.
>> >
>> > It pops up a window that says there's an update available, you can
>> > answer
>> > yes or no, or cancel
>> >
>> > If you take Yes, it downloads, installs, and then ***WITH NO OPTION AT
>> > ALL**** reboots the machine. If you have any other task or application
>> > open,
>> > it will be aborted, and the machine WILL reboot, there is NO OPTION TO
>> > DEFER
>> > the reboot.
>> >
>> > I've seen some unfriendly patches in my time, this one is about the
>> > worst,
>> > in that it gives no indication as to where it comes from, what it's
>> > changing,
>> > or why, and then has the potential to completely disrupt the user's
>> > work
>> > and
>> > activities, as it forces a reboot without the option. That's not just
>> > unfriendly, that's downright arrogant and nasty, and goes against the
>> > concept
>> > of safe updates on line. The only reason this did not bite too hard is
>> > that
>> > my normal on line session does not have admin settings, so I had to
>> > change
>> > to
>> > another account to run it, which meant that I had very little else
>> > active
>> > at
>> > the time, had this happened in a "user" session, I would have been
>> > seriously
>> > inconvenienced, at best, and maybe worse, as this application should
>> > not
>> > have
>> > assumed that it could reboot without checking first.
>> >
>> > I shall not be trusting M$ in future on this, there is NO WAY that a
>> > patch
>> > of this nature should reboot without first asking the user to confirm
>> > that
>> > it's OK.
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>>
>>
>>