Talk:WindizUpdate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This article should be deleted

Only software pirates using non-genuine copies of Windows would have any use of this service. There is no legimate reason why anyone with a valid copy of Windows would need to use another method of updating their software than through Windows Update. This article should be deleted. Scott 110 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should delete the article on get-away cars too because only criminals would have anu use for them. 80.189.221.147 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a REALLY ignorant thing to say, Scott. Just today I worked on a computer with a legitimate Windows key that was unable to use the official update site. I agree with the above poster: Perhaps we should delete the article on get-away cars too because only criminals would have any use for them, huh? Jeez. niteskunk 16:52, 2 September 2006 (EST)

There is no legimate reason why anyone with a valid copy of Windows would need to use another method of updating their software than through Windows Update. When I go to Windows Update, I get to watch the little green slider for 3-5 minutes before I am even offered any updates. Windiz Update shows them to me in 30 seconds or less. --Ron Ritzman 03:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the spinning things sometimes takes over 10 minutes on my laptop and brings everything to a screeching halt while it is at it (no joke) - it is probably just a bug. Now, whether it will be fixed..... RN 03:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also...

This article not NPOV. It lambasts Microsoft for vendor lock-in, accuses Windows Genuine Advantage of privacy invasion while openly implying that users with blacklisted serial keys should be entitled to updates - there is no mention of software piracy at all. Also, the fact that Windows 95 and 98 not being supported by Windows Update is inaccurate - users with older copies of Windows will see older versions of Windows Update when they visit the site, not the V6 version Windows XP and 2000 users see.Scott 110 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point. I've added Template:Noncompliant. --Yousifnet 00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed. //Fractal3 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article states that windows update is only compatible with IE. That is a fact, not POV.

It states that some user are attracted to WindizUpdate becuase they believe that WGA violates their privacy, and that others use it becuase they have a pirated copy of windows. The article doesn't make the claim that these people are right. Therefore it is not POV. It would be POV if the article said that it was wrong to offer updates to people with pirated copies of windows.

[edit] Legality

Irrespective of the motive people have to use this website and whether it deserves a wikipedia page, is it actually legal? Also, are the updates actually written by the third party or are they copied from Microsoft? This information could greatly contribute to the article and allow people to make an informed decision as to whether or not they should use the website. --ChrisJMoor 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

please read the whole article next time. Windiz instructs your browser to download the updates from microsoft and/or akamai (now mentioned more then once in the article). I confirmed this personally months ago, and the updates' checksums were verified ok(manually) too. If you find a clause somewhere that makes all of or some parts of windiz illegal please update wikipedia. Fractal3 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I did read the whole article, there was no mention of any legal issues, which was my original question. So you are saying that the browser actually downloads the patches from the microsoft website and these are, in fact, not authored by a third party? How WGA is circumvented is probably beyond the scope of this article, but the question of its legality remains which should be addressed in the article.--ChrisJMoor 11:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If all download links were WGA enforced then Windiz probably wouldn't be able to have your computer download from Microsoft without implementing WGA in its service. Presently you don't need WGA to download security patches (at least). For example: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=f4c8e767-4ed2-4e36-aa43-612f3017efc7&displaylang=en Anyways, if there exists some legal clauses against having software scan your computer and recommend security updates, and have the software instruct your computer to download (from Microsoft) and install them automatically, then Microsoft could kill Windiz easily, I'd think. Fractal3 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So not illegal but Microsoft would prefer it if it was, (probably). The actions you are describing are indeed legal, but the end result could be construed as stealing software and possibly even reverse-engineering it (the windizupdate plugin specifically circumvents a system that was intended to block the official update service - right?). Now filesharing isnt illegal, but becomes so if you use it to share copyrighted files. See my point?

I'm not criticising this article for its validity or making judgement calls about people that use it. I'm just saying that it could do with a section on legal stuff. The fact that some people have argued over the subject (see above) is proof that this needs addressing. The internet seems to be scrawled with the following phrase on the subject: 'The legality of this service , however , is questionable'. I'd add it myself but I havent a clue with legal stuff. Can anyone help?--ChrisJMoor 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

chris said "specifically circumvents a system that was intended to block the official update service"

No. Windiz doesn't circumvent WGA in any way that I know of, as I said, people can still download security patches from the microsoft website (as i showed above) without needing WGA, as its not used. Fractal3 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)