Windows Defender Updater

I would like Windows Defender definition updates to be automatic. Right now
my system is configured for Windows Update to only download and update by my
permission. Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
its own Windows Defender Updater, that has nothing to do with Windows Update.
Since Windows Defender uses Windows Update, I have to give it permission to
update definitions and that is simply stupid. Yes I want to decide what
Windows Updates to apply to my system by my permission only, but I would like
Windows Defender definition updates to be applied automatically. So
obviously a Windows Defender Updater needs to be created by Microsoft.

Thanks for the feedback.

As an alternative, some have requested that Windows Defender
definition/engine updates be made a special class of update which would
install automatically even for systems set to download and notify only.

I don't believe this is possible in the current version of Windows Update,
but perhaps it will be in a future one.

--

"Geminate" <Geminate@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15C81853-F308-435C-A8B4-8369E235B9B6@microsoft.com...
>I would like Windows Defender definition updates to be automatic. Right
>now
> my system is configured for Windows Update to only download and update by
> my
> permission. Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> its own Windows Defender Updater, that has nothing to do with Windows
> Update.
> Since Windows Defender uses Windows Update, I have to give it permission
> to
> update definitions and that is simply stupid. Yes I want to decide what
> Windows Updates to apply to my system by my permission only, but I would
> like
> Windows Defender definition updates to be applied automatically. So
> obviously a Windows Defender Updater needs to be created by Microsoft.

"Geminate" wrote:

> Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> its own Windows Defender Updater

I strongly disagree!
With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple applications
like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, can share
the same service and we save memory and resources.

"Geminate" wrote:

> Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> its own Windows Defender Updater

I strongly disagree!
With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple applications
like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, Office, can
share
the same service and we save memory and resources.

I agree completely!
Or at least allow a manual update that does not us WU/MU and does not
trigger a System Restore Point for something as minor as a Def update.

?:-)
Tim
Geek w/o Portfolio

"Geminate" wrote:

> I would like Windows Defender definition updates to be automatic. Right now
> my system is configured for Windows Update to only download and update by my
> permission. Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> its own Windows Defender Updater, that has nothing to do with Windows Update.
> Since Windows Defender uses Windows Update, I have to give it permission to
> update definitions and that is simply stupid. Yes I want to decide what
> Windows Updates to apply to my system by my permission only, but I would like
> Windows Defender definition updates to be applied automatically. So
> obviously a Windows Defender Updater needs to be created by Microsoft.

I strongly disagree with You.

Windows Update is a terrible waste of resources. It creates a needless SRP
every time it updates for the most minor thing. I DO NOT WANT Office updates
and Windows updates to come down together. If I did I would use MU, which I
do not.
I really don't want to have one giant download with 17MB of Windows updates,
9MB of Office Updates and 2MB of WD updates.

If we followed this philosophy we should also let WU download the updates to
our antivirus software, and our one or two backups, our other antispyware
programs, and their backups, as well as the Java of the week and everything
else and never bother to test any of them for problems, gliches, or false
alarms.

I download what I want, when I want it, because I want it. MS has yet to
show itself worthy of my trust to let it do AnyThing without my permission.

?:-\
Tim
Geek w/o Portfolio




"BillD" wrote:
> I strongly disagree!
> With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple applications
> like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, Office, can
> share
> the same service and we save memory and resources.

> "Geminate" wrote:
> > Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> > its own Windows Defender Updater

"BillD" <BillD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F111BEA1-256B-4226-B1B0-2A5C4F909CF8@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Geminate" wrote:
>
>> Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
>> its own Windows Defender Updater
>
> I strongly disagree!
> With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple
> applications
> like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, can
> share
> the same service and we save memory and resources.


You obviously never bother to interrogate the proposed updates proffered
by Windows Update BEFORE installing them to know if you want them or
not. For the lazy user that deliberately wants to remain blind
regarding updates, that would be peachy dandy for them. The rest of us
want to know what is getting changed on our computer. Yes, my antivirus
program has an auto-updater but it also offers me choices on how it will
function, and it is independent of any other auto-updater on my
computer. Imagine how stupid it would be if all programs were tied to,
say, the auto-updater in Adobe Reader.

Auto-updates of detection signatures is far different than auto-updates
for software changes. Some of us actually need to know in what state is
the host on which we test and obviously cannot let any program go making
software changes willy nilly whenever the vendor decided to make a
change. The detection signatures aren't a software change. Software
changes can incur problems with your current setup is a mission-critical
host or simply must be in a known state, problems which become new upon
the auto-update and so no one will have the experience needed to figure
out what just went wrong.

Only idiot users allow Windows Update to make changes at random to their
hosts. Gee, it was working yesterday but not today. Well, what did you
do? Nothing. Wrong. You let someone else modify your computer without
your knowledge but with your permission. Duh!

This is why I said automatically update definitions ONLY. Perhaps some
reading and comprehension lessons are required.

"Vanguard" wrote:

> "BillD" <BillD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F111BEA1-256B-4226-B1B0-2A5C4F909CF8@microsoft.com...
> >
> >
> > "Geminate" wrote:
> >
> >> Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> >> its own Windows Defender Updater
> >
> > I strongly disagree!
> > With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple
> > applications
> > like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, can
> > share
> > the same service and we save memory and resources.
>
>
> You obviously never bother to interrogate the proposed updates proffered
> by Windows Update BEFORE installing them to know if you want them or
> not. For the lazy user that deliberately wants to remain blind
> regarding updates, that would be peachy dandy for them. The rest of us
> want to know what is getting changed on our computer. Yes, my antivirus
> program has an auto-updater but it also offers me choices on how it will
> function, and it is independent of any other auto-updater on my
> computer. Imagine how stupid it would be if all programs were tied to,
> say, the auto-updater in Adobe Reader.
>
> Auto-updates of detection signatures is far different than auto-updates
> for software changes. Some of us actually need to know in what state is
> the host on which we test and obviously cannot let any program go making
> software changes willy nilly whenever the vendor decided to make a
> change. The detection signatures aren't a software change. Software
> changes can incur problems with your current setup is a mission-critical
> host or simply must be in a known state, problems which become new upon
> the auto-update and so no one will have the experience needed to figure
> out what just went wrong.
>
> Only idiot users allow Windows Update to make changes at random to their
> hosts. Gee, it was working yesterday but not today. Well, what did you
> do? Nothing. Wrong. You let someone else modify your computer without
> your knowledge but with your permission. Duh!
>
>

Hey someone gets it!

"Tim Clark" wrote:

> I agree completely!
> Or at least allow a manual update that does not us WU/MU and does not
> trigger a System Restore Point for something as minor as a Def update.
>
> ?:-)
> Tim
> Geek w/o Portfolio
>
> "Geminate" wrote:
>
> > I would like Windows Defender definition updates to be automatic. Right now
> > my system is configured for Windows Update to only download and update by my
> > permission. Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> > its own Windows Defender Updater, that has nothing to do with Windows Update.
> > Since Windows Defender uses Windows Update, I have to give it permission to
> > update definitions and that is simply stupid. Yes I want to decide what
> > Windows Updates to apply to my system by my permission only, but I would like
> > Windows Defender definition updates to be applied automatically. So
> > obviously a Windows Defender Updater needs to be created by Microsoft.

Gee what are you running, a dinosaur? I have more memory and resources than
I will probably ever need, it's called a modern PC, try one or better yet -
build one.

"BillD" wrote:

>
>
> "Geminate" wrote:
>
> > Windows Defender shouldn't use Windows Update, it should have
> > its own Windows Defender Updater
>
> I strongly disagree!
> With Windows Update only 1 process is needed and so multiple applications
> like Windows Defender, Windows Mail (in Vista), Windows updates, can share
> the same service and we save memory and resources.