Talk:AutoPatcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 

Discussion on Merge of AutoPatcher_XP into AutoPatcher[edit]

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)

New Releases[edit]

I've removed the file information of the new releases - it's not encyclopaedic.

Firefox and Windows Update[edit]

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)
They can but you need to use activex controls which firefox doesn't have by default and need to download. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Takedown Reason[edit]

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)