Talk:AutoPatcher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Discussion on Merge of AutoPatcher_XP into AutoPatcher
Autopatcher XP is only the version of Autopatcher that has updates relevant to Windows XP. There is no reason to create a separate article for either Autopatcher XP, authopatcher 2000, or autopatcher NT4
-Approve I see no reason to keep two seperate pages - perhaps include a section detailing the different "variants" of AutoPatcher (2000,XP,2003, etc) and what the differences are. Also drop a re-direct on the AutoPatcher_XP article. Kcbnac 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Releases
I've removed the file information of the new releases - it's not encyclopaedic.
[edit] Firefox and Windows Update
According to the article Microsoft said "that Firefox could now access the Windows Update website for pre-Windows Vista systems". Is that true? I can't get it to work. --212.130.183.202 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- According to Daniel, Microsoft certainly said that, however it's not true. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Takedown Reason
Should this article from Lunarsoft be included about why AutoPatcher received the takedown notice? --Tarun. 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- How come Lunarsoft could get an "official" MS response but Neowin and the AP Team couldn't? Personally I wouldn't put too much weight on it... -- M2Ys4U (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the staff of that website took the time out and pulled some strings to get the news. Obviously they got the scoop. Few days after that was posted, there are forum posts showing exactly what parts of the EULA were violated. Regardless a reason has been found and is out there. --Tarun. 01:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- You(?) like talking the the third person, eh? I'm still not sure whether Lunarsoft is a good enough source, it appears just to be a small tech blog to me. Can the quotes be proven? They may well be legitimate but anybody could make up a quote like that and just blog it. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the staff of that website took the time out and pulled some strings to get the news. Obviously they got the scoop. Few days after that was posted, there are forum posts showing exactly what parts of the EULA were violated. Regardless a reason has been found and is out there. --Tarun. 01:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
