Talk:AutoPatcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to Daniel, Microsoft certainly said that, however it's not true. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Takedown Reason[edit]

Should this article from Lunarsoft be included about why AutoPatcher received the takedown notice? --Tarun. 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AutoPatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AutoPatcher&oldid=1199211717"