[Bryant]

Did anyone else's Vista installation decide to ignore the manual setting for WU (if you set it as such) and proceed to

• update without your consent
  
• reboot without your consent
  
• switch WU back to automatic?

If you did not set Windows Update to Manual (check the screenshot for the three selections which qualify as Manual), ignore this thread. If you did set Windows Update to one of those three options prior to yesterday's update, please go back to the Windows Update settings page and tell me if it's back to Automatic.

 WUfails.png (86.72K)
Number of downloads: 22

[Rafael]

I swear I had mine set to Download updates but let me choose whether to install them. I woke up to a login screen this morning, with an overheating GPU and 'new updates' having been installed...

NITPICKER'S CORNER:
I am not implying WU tried to fry my GPU -- This was likely due to fan configuration slider in NVIDIA's crap control panel flaking out on me. Had my machine not rebooted, however, this wouldn't have been an issue. Was quite the scare for an expensive piece of hardware...

[AlphaAlien]

yeah mine got reset too

[Jon Abbott]

Rafael, on Oct 10 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I swear I had mine set to Download updates but let me choose whether to install them. I woke up to a login screen this morning, with an overheating GPU and 'new updates' having been installed...

You're not the only one. I had mine set to "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them", it's now on "Install Automatically"

I'm guessing an update to Windows Update has caused this.

[palakisbest]

its is like microsoft wants people to hate them

[peacho]

Jon Abbott, on Oct 10 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

I'm guessing an update to Windows Update has caused this.

It would appear so.

palakisbest, on Oct 10 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

its is like microsoft wants people to hate them

I don't know that they want "people to hate them" per say, but they certainly don't seem to consider users (and their settings) very well.

[Zeros and Ones]

that is so wrong. I had mine go back to Auto as well. Thank you very much for this. Nice catch

[Rafael]

Bryant and I are chasing down the WU team to provide an official statement as to WTF happened. Stay tuned!

[steve-]

I had this happen to me a few months ago, figured it was just a fluke thing. I really hope the WU team doesn't come back saying something along the lines of "Oh its a bug we are going to be addressing" because that would be pretty lame.

[Aeden]

Ouch =\. I gather they aren't doing this for Server '03, though, right? You'd think they'd place the security of consumers on the same level as servers...which would then render a defense of "We're trying to protect our userbase, and if that means auto-updating without their consent, we're going to f**ing do it!" null and incorrect...never mind the other considerations.

[steve-]

Aeden, on Oct 10 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Ouch =\. I gather they aren't doing this for Server '03, though, right? You'd think they'd place the security of consumers on the same level as servers...which would then render a defense of "We're trying to protect our userbase, and if that means auto-updating without their consent, we're going to f**ing do it!" null and incorrect...never mind the other considerations.

Actually they are, I had told my father about this and he actually had this problem with his server at work. He was telling me he logged on the other day and had a notice that new updates had been installed even though he has it set not to do that. After checking the settings he noticed it had reset itself to auto download.
Not exactly wise for the situation he's in. He manages the Citrix operations for Blue Cross and auto updating could easily mess a number of things up.

[Bryant]

Astyanax, on Oct 10 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Aeden, on Oct 10 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Ouch =\. I gather they aren't doing this for Server '03, though, right? You'd think they'd place the security of consumers on the same level as servers...which would then render a defense of "We're trying to protect our userbase, and if that means auto-updating without their consent, we're going to f**ing do it!" null and incorrect...never mind the other considerations.

Actually they are, I had told my father about this and he actually had this problem with his server at work. He was telling me he logged on the other day and had a notice that new updates had been installed even though he has it set not to do that. After checking the settings he noticed it had reset itself to auto download.
Not exactly wise for the situation he's in. He manages the Citrix operations for Blue Cross and auto updating could easily mess a number of things up.

I'm pretty sure he has a WSUS server running on the Blue Cross corporate network. If there is a WSUS server running on their network and the server still took a forced update, this problem just got much stickier.

[Bryant]

Astyanax, on Oct 10 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Aeden, on Oct 10 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Ouch =\. I gather they aren't doing this for Server '03, though, right? You'd think they'd place the security of consumers on the same level as servers...which would then render a defense of "We're trying to protect our userbase, and if that means auto-updating without their consent, we're going to f**ing do it!" null and incorrect...never mind the other considerations.

Actually they are, I had told my father about this and he actually had this problem with his server at work. He was telling me he logged on the other day and had a notice that new updates had been installed even though he has it set not to do that. After checking the settings he noticed it had reset itself to auto download.
Not exactly wise for the situation he's in. He manages the Citrix operations for Blue Cross and auto updating could easily mess a number of things up.

I'm pretty sure he has a WSUS server running on the Blue Cross corporate network. If there is a WSUS server running on their network and the server still took a forced update, this problem just got much stickier.

[steve-]

Bryant, on Oct 10 2007, 06:59 PM, said:

Astyanax, on Oct 10 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Aeden, on Oct 10 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Ouch =\. I gather they aren't doing this for Server '03, though, right? You'd think they'd place the security of consumers on the same level as servers...which would then render a defense of "We're trying to protect our userbase, and if that means auto-updating without their consent, we're going to f**ing do it!" null and incorrect...never mind the other considerations.

Actually they are, I had told my father about this and he actually had this problem with his server at work. He was telling me he logged on the other day and had a notice that new updates had been installed even though he has it set not to do that. After checking the settings he noticed it had reset itself to auto download.
Not exactly wise for the situation he's in. He manages the Citrix operations for Blue Cross and auto updating could easily mess a number of things up.

I'm pretty sure he has a WSUS server running on the Blue Cross corporate network. If there is a WSUS server running on their network and the server still took a forced update, this problem just got much stickier.

Actually its an EDS server, don't know if that matters. He works for EDS which has been contracted by Blue Cross...

EDIT: Ah, as it seems he actually meant his own personal server at home (Dell Power Edge w/ Win Server 2003 ENT, no WSUS).

[sjohnson]

Disable the Automatic Updates service. Problem solved.