And that's pretty much my take on why Microsoft has decided to "force" the upgrades on users. Basically if left up to the enduser, workstations probably will *never* get updated, as it would be seen to be a distruption to what they want to be doing (even if it means that the disruption caused by *not* installing the patch could be much worse). Granted, I may not agree with such a way of handling things, but given some circumstances, I can't see too many other alternatives if it ends up being the case that endusers don't want to have to deal with the burden of maintenance (and responsibility) of their own computers.

>OK, let's look at a real example. With Windows XP you had full control over this. The IT department where I worked decided to not update servers with a particular patch. They got nailed. A SQL Server worm got into the corporate network and shutdown every SQL Server instance. It took several days to recover. This was not a small company, It was huge, international company. If the company would have allowed one single patch to go through, this would have not happened.
>
>YMMV
>
>>Straw-man argument. I would rather be informed about and asked what I would like or not like to be installed on my computer.
>>
>>>So, you'd rather download patches after it lets malware into your system?
>>>
>>>>I should have to free download patches or not. This's my own computer and this's my own Windows license.