Can microsoft legally do this?

Latest windows XP updates first offered to install a windows verification
tool, in the agreement it says this is optional. Additionally in the
agreement they tell me that installing their memory and cpu hogging
verification application is for my benefit, I disagree, I already know my
copy of windows is genuine it has hologram and everything supplied by
sony, I use my machine for real time (audio) applications so do not want
their memory and cpu hogging applications installed.

So I said I do not agree with this program being installed, the process
then goes on to fail to install all the other updates and does not even
have the decency to give me an error code or tell me its because I have
not installed the "optional" verification program.

I tried the process again twice, same result, failed to install updates

So I thought it must be because I had not installed their verification
application, sure enough when I agree (not voluntarily but as a necessity)
to have them snoop on my private information such as HD serial number etc
the update process then successfully installs all the applications.

It seems to me they are liars and worse than that they do not even admit
anywhere that you need to install their memory and cpu hogging
applications to be able to get further patches to microsofts incredibly
ropey operating system windows XP

I paid for this operating system and I understand it is the law that a
product must do what it says on the box, the amount of bugs that
remain in microsofts shoddy product windows XP should be fixed and I
personally don't believe they should have any right to snoop on personal
details to be obliged to fix the errors in the operating system under
consumer law.

When I purchased the machine the contract did not state I needed any
verification tools to get updates so it seems they have introduced unfair
terms to the contract that were not there originally?

Am I right? What can be done?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Since January 18th, no high-priority updates...
    ... Since I do not intend to install NIS 2006 again, I thought it does not matter ... I checked about what you say (time of the Automatic Updates) and changed it ... I uninstalled NIS 2006... ... 2 February 2006 Windows Update Agent Unable to Connect: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: no signal error
    ... from biosupdate to the other updates. ... And also when i finally get into windows and just doing regular tasks as ... Select "review and install updates" and "install ... If you removed any softwares in step 7, restart computer. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Latest Update Wreaked Havok - Cannot Restore
    ... track of what you install in order to be able to uninstall it. ... been diligent with your critical updates, ... Windows Update ... You should at least turn on the built in firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: Windows updates fail after install of SP2
    ... I'm sure I didn't delete any log files since my last update though; especially anything to do with Windows Update. ... Are the updates now showing in Add/Remove Programs in the Control ... I thought I would turn automatic updates on so that it would automatically download and install updates but that didn't seem to do anything either. ... The issue of updates not being offered after the application of SP2 is a new twist on an old theme ... ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Windows 98 box is "owned"
    ... Microsoft officially is no longer issuing *new* updates for Windos 98, ... on Windows update, although you will find all the "critical" (as defined ... Perhaps it is time to say screw it and install ... You noted that your mother has ZA. ...
    (Security-Basics)