Computer help forum: How to remove updates from Windows XP

So how long will it do indexing.... it's already 6 PM. It's been more than 6 hours?

I did look in Add remove programs and there's nothing that says Updates.

There's nothing like Time Machine on XP, right?

Here's the article I use.

http://winhlp.com/node/10

This issue will cause blips and strange audio issues. MSFT never implemented a self healing feature on this one.
Bob

Well, it worked yesterday. How can it break just like that? It is clear that the updates I installed overnight messed it up... I need to somehow remove them...

We also covered the XP DMA issue but I'm unclear if you did the work.

It's a simple procedure with no reboot required. I've seen folk format a PC over this one when something I do in seconds would usually clear it up.

Be clear. Did you do the XP DMA thing or not?

And out of curiosity, why didn't you do the XP DMA thing?
Bob

I tried reading the document that you linked to but I couldn't understand it well, so I didn't do anything...

What I did instead is a system restore, like you suggested and it worked. (For those who is interested it works somewhat like Time Machine.) As soon as the computer loaded up, updates started popping up again, which I declined. Luckily the Firefox loaded up without a hitch and started playing Pandora without any hiccups again! And that's all I was asking for.

PS. Luckily there's also an option (well hidden but present) to disable XP updates for good. Again I don't recommend it for everyone, but for my case it solved the issue.

Thanks for your help!

At one time they had the simple DO THIS page. Folk wanted to know more about what was going on and the simple DO THIS faded and all the extra information is there but it's still a simple DO THIS at the end of the day.

I'm unsure if anyone can satisfy both types of folk today.
Bob

But is it really my fault that Microsoft can't make an operating system that doesn't require a complete system overhaul every 30 days? Plus what choice do I have -- install all those updates and not be able to use my computer? I brought this up to my other friend and he pointed it out (quite rightfully so) that those updates were like a "virus" -- installed surreptitiously, messed up my computer and didn't give me an option to get rid of them. That's pretty much a definition of a malware, isn't it?

We still have a few XP machines and after all this, you didn't do the XP DMA work.

Maybe it is time for the next big thing or OS to remove control even farther from the user? That is, maybe we do need appliances or toasters?
Bob

After a fashion, yes, it is your fault. It's the fault of everyone who keeps buying Windows, knowing full well it has all of these various defects. Everyone who keeps clamoring for more and more features, and for everything to be "easier to use", and complaining loudly every time some obscure program from 20 years ago stops working with a new OS version.

You are certainly not alone, but you do bear at least SOME of the responsibility. I'm not going to absolve you of the guilt you rightfully feel for being part of the problem you are bemoaning.

Do the security updates Apple pushes out make Mac OS X equally inferior to Windows? What about the security updates made to iOS for the iPhone/Pad/Pod? By your line of reasoning, Apple is no better than Microsoft. One could even argue Apple is worse, since they tend to be quite a bit less transparent about this sort of thing.

Microsoft has done a lot of growing up since it got slapped around by the US government a decade or so ago. Its customers won't really let it go in and address the real problems, because it would break huge numbers of programs, along with plenty of other changes that would have people howling for Steve Ballmer's head on a platter even more than they already are. Still, they've addressed the issue in a pretty straightforward and consistent manner. They have regularly scheduled dates when updates are pushed out, unless some issue is severe enough to warrant an exception, this allows their enterprise customers to be able to plan for this eventuality. It's one thing for you and me to reboot our one or two computers, but what if you have tens of thousands of computers to patch? You can't have tens of thousands of people just sitting around twiddling their thumbs for 10-15 minutes, think about the millions of dollars you'd lose. Just say you're paying an average of $10/hr, per person, who's sitting around for 10-15 minutes, and you have tens of thousands of people like that. That's what, maybe $2-3/person, so say just ten thousand people, you're flushing $20-30K down the drain. Now spread that across every Fortune 500 company out there.

It's an imperfect system, but given the constraints Microsoft is under, it's a remarkably good system. But we're getting sidetracked here. The point is, you and everyone else out there who wants every version of Windows to somehow be both exactly the same as the old version, but still better, are part of the problem. If Microsoft could get rid of a lot of the legacy Win32 API that has been hanging around since the Win9x days, before the concept of security had really entered into people's consciousness, they could certainly cut down on the number of vulnerabilities in the OS. And if people weren't always complaining about having to enter in passwords or deal with file permissions, Microsoft could shore up defenses there as well.

The simple reality is that people, such as yourself though you're hardly alone, like to bemoan the security problems with Windows, but your commitment really only lasts until you are personally inconvenienced. You say you want improved security, but when the only way to achieve that is for you to give up that ancient 16-bit copy of WordPerfect (as a random example that may or may not be true) you've been clinging to for dear life, that's a bridge too far. You can't be bothered with things like file permissions; that's something only geeks/nerds/IT people care about, not "normal" people like yourself. You just want things to work, no questions asked, yet somehow be secure, and never mind that they're polar opposites.

I'm afraid you're going to have to look elsewhere if you want someone to absolve you of your guilt on this one, because as far as I'm concerned you're in it up to your neck the same as millions of other people out there. As soon as you, and the millions of others out there like you, start accepting a little responsibility for your actions, and offering to make even a few minor concessions, the security situation with Windows will improve dramatically. I, for one, will not be holding my breath in anticipation.

@Jimmy Greystone: I'm so annoyed by people like you, who think that they know everything. First off, before criticizing something make sure that you read my question. Where did I say that "I keep buying Windows?" I wasn't saying that I'm comparing a price of a PC to a radio either, did I? I simply said that I have this old Windows XP computer that I have since old times that I now use for a sole purpose of playing Pandora. So please make your assumptions straight.

Also since you brought up people using older Microsoft products, I agree with you, you can't judge them for a product that came out in 2002. But I can judge them for a product that they sell now -- Windows 7 -- can't I? So if you're such a big fan of Microsoft, how would you explain this little snafu? I left Windows 7 Ultimate desktop at 7 am this morning to do its backup (drive C, to an external HDD, 1.8TB in size). On the side note, for some reason Windows was not smart enough to wake up at its scheduled backup time (Sunday at 11 pm) and do it then. OK, let's assume that Microsoft didn't think about such a small detail. So when I checked back at about 6 pm the backup was still going on. Mind you, this is not the first backup made on that PC. When I tried to load a browser it literally took about a minute to show a Google page. (And that is a year old computer.) I then started poking that little flag icon by the clock in hopes of getting some explanation of what's going on ... to no avail ... Now what shall I do? I'm checking the external HDD and it shows 36 GB remaining (out of 1.8TB)!!! How can that be. The drive that's being backed up physically does not have that much data So basically something that costs way over its worth (Windows 7 ultimate, $200+) cannot do such a simple thing as a user friendly backup??? And you're defending them? I can do all that, minus the headache for $29.99 with Mac OS X Lion? Come on, how can that not be obvious ....

And lastly, Microsoft was slapped by US government because they were clearly running a monopoly. How about jamming that non-W3C-compliant IE crap into everyone's throat? Or how about charging those outrageous prices for a horrible/buggy/hole-ridden Windows? They could do all that ... well, because they can. Or should I say, could. You'll see how quickly they will go down the drain with their Windows 8. Check this thread in a year or so...

That is because "people like me" have a way of hitting nerves by cutting right to the heart of things. That's why rather than actually addressing any of the issues I raise, you just try and pigeonhole me as some kind of Microsoft fan. I'm not for the record. I tend to hate Apple and Microsoft pretty equally, just for different reasons.

Apple is an absolute terror on the business end of things. They routinely kick their "partners" in the teeth, and I swear are systematically tightening the screws on their AASP network so that it's impossible for anyone to actually survive as an AASP if there is an Apple retail store in the area, and the AASP could pose even a remote challenge to that business some day. So just out of nowhere Apple will completely make up some new rule, which isn't codified anywhere that you can actually see, and they'll never tell you anything about it except that you're in violation of it, so make changes. Then after the AASP invests resources into making this change, Apple will decide that they liked the old way better, or have come up with some new place to move the goalpost. It's literally like those Charlie Brown cartoons where Lucy keeps pulling the football away at the last second. There's the way Apple has been systematically dismantling their computer business in favor of iOS devices, and the continued iOS-ification of Mac OS X. Tim Cook will almost certainly become infamous for his comment about how Apple has too much money when the 4-5 year product development cycle Steve Jobs had going starts to run dry. Tim Cook, BTW, is the guy responsible for shipping all kinds of manufacturing jobs overseas. That's been kind of his thing during his entire career. Make use of slave labor in oppressive countries like China to save money. Ten years from now, I expect that Apple will be on the skids once again, only this time there won't be anyone like Steve Jobs to come pull them back from the brink. Intel will likely be the one who buys up a lot of the assets Apple has in mobile CPU technology. Mac OS X and iOS will probably be about as worthless as Palm's webOS was by the end.

Microsoft was absolutely a monopolistic company that abused that position to no end. I was one of those supporting the idea of splitting Microsoft up into three companies. One for the OS, hardware, and mobile stuff (which didn't really exist at the time, but would have been a natural fit), one for all Internet properties, and a third for desktop apps. I think it would have even been good for the company, to help focus each company on a much more narrow scope of products. The Windows developers could really focus on Windows and the Win32 API, not have to worry about shoehorning in a program like Internet Explorer because it couldn't compete on its own merits against Netscape Navigator. I also think that since Bill Gates has largely left the company, Steve Ballmer has done an impressive job of driving it into the ground. Steve Ballmer is a business guy, he's not a tech guy, and so while Microsoft has been quite profitable, it has mostly been because of a dizzying array of new licensing options, which are designed specifically to maximize profits from large enterprise companies that are pretty much addicted with no real way out. I'm right there with some of the major investors calling for Steve Ballmer's head as CEO. At the same time however, after Microsoft lost the anti-trust case, even though it only got a slap on the wrist (and a light one at that), it has become a pretty fundamentally different company in a lot of regards. A lot of the dirty tricks they pulled on competitors in the past are largely a thing of the past. They've made some very impressive improvements to IE's standards compliance, added ODF support to Office, and in large part their products have just plain improved. You just have to get past your fixation on Microsoft circa 2000, and look at Microsoft today.

Basically, what it boils down to, is I could rant and rave about how Bill Gates did this, or Steve Jobs did that, but what good does that really do anyone? I just come off looking like some ignorant lunatic on a tear. Which is the difference between us. I can point to specific actions, like how Apple's flurry of patent lawsuits shows it is running scared of Android in a big way. Its competitors are catching up fast, and Apple is using the courts to try and stave off judgment day as long as possible because they've painted themselves into a corner again like they did the last time around. Technologically speaking, Mac OS X has not changed a great deal since 10.0 was released, and the introduction of the iOS offspring of OS X just makes it all the less likely the desktop version will improve any time soon. Compared to XP, Mac OS X is a major step forward, but Microsoft really stepped up and ripped out huge chunks of the Windows innards with Vista, replacing them with shiny new bits that not just match Apple, but go a step or two beyond. Vista gets a really unfair reputation because most of the impressive bits weren't shiny whiz-bang new features, they were all under the hood improvements. Like significant hardening of the driver model, major revamping of the process scheduler to be more multi-core friendly, Aero was the big visible feature which represented a near total rewrite of the Windows UI as a 3D DirectX program instead of the antiquated 2D GDI+ for XP. Using DirectX meant that the GUI could be hardware accelerated, instead of CPU rendered like XP. Windows 7 took the Dock idea Mac OS X inherited from NeXTStep that Jobs was involved with during his forced hiatus from Apple, and went further with it in Windows 7, addressing the issue of selecting a specific window for a running program. You pretty much have to use expose on OS X, a feature that kind of fell to the wayside a long time ago. Microsoft took the idea of the dashboard and while Vista's implementation was pretty bad, Windows 7 took it to a pretty natural conclusion.

To be fair, Apple's Time Machine backup system is pretty slick... When it works. It's really fragile, and any little change will cause it to throw a fit. If you have say a time capsule backup drive, and for some reason you lose your wireless connection... If Time Machine tries to run a backup before you reestablish the wifi connection, it will fail, and will just sit there and pout about it until you go in and manually reconfigure it. Then, for reasons unknown to me, half the time it seems like it will decide to completely ignore your existing backups and just start all over again creating a brand new initial backup. And how long do you have for me to go on about the various Spotlight annoyances, and how if there's some kind of unexpected shutdown of a system, it decides it has to reindex the entire system again.

I could go on with several more examples, but I think I've pretty well shown that there are reasons to dislike both companies, but also that if you look at the company Microsoft has become after the anti-trust trial, it's almost unrecognizable. Apple is the company bullying everyone now, and being so vertically integrated, they are far more monopolistic than Microsoft could have ever hoped to be.

And none of this does anything to argue against my earlier points that you are just as guilty of supporting this sort of thing as millions of other people out there. You can stick your head wherever the sun doesn't shine as much as you want, put your fingers in your ears and yell "La la la! I can't hear you!" Doesn't change anything. You know this as well as I do, or else you wouldn't have taken offense to my pointing it out. You wanted people to absolve you of your guilt, not remind you of it, so I guess it's too bad for you that admitting there is a problem is the first step to actually resolving it.

I'm actually agreeing with you on many points this time. No company is perfect, they're all run by humans. It just happens to be that presently Apple seems to be creating less inconveniences for its users. That's it.

This link has a funny video on the subject:
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2012/05/01/windows-8-the-view-from-the-inside/?rob-insidewin8=

I'll top post about it soon.