You write: "MRT was designed to remove a very limited set of virus/malware programs that interfere with the normal Windows Update process .... The MRT is an essential tool to making sure your Windows Update process completes successfully ... No one visiting this site ... should disable MRT using the instructions given above."
This sounded authorative, at first, but then, hang on, MRT removes ONLY a subset of well known Virus/Malware and 1) There is no mention of the rationale in the details MS give. It sounds like a great rationale to me so why not? 2) Any decent virus/malware program will have already removed these threats (IF they are present) If it/they haven't THAT is the problem. 3) Why doesn't MS make sure AV etc program makers are advised of any viruses they'd like removed ...?
I have, I think, a very good set of malware detection and removal tools (eg Malawarebytes, Spybot) a good antivirus program (Avast) and a fine firewall (Privatefirewall). I also use Firefox (never IE) and have the NoScript addon. I scan periodically using the F-Secure online facility. My "proof" of the efficiency of my security is that I have to date never had any infection. This is in a way irritating as I would love my MS problems to have come from some common virus or malware!
Rather than go to the trouble of designing a special piece of software for a (generally) non-existant problem (assuming most people have decent enough anti-virus etc progs installed) it would have been more efficient to simply check for the presence of specific viruses that would hamper any update process AS A PART OF THAT update process, and then to notify the user IF there was a problem. If there were a problem MS could ask if the user wanted the virus/malware removed by MS or their own AV/malware etc progs. The user could then a) check with their own AV etc progs and if they have failed get a better system, b) never believe MS again if they're none present, c) let MS have it away with their system.
Software companies are businesses not philanthropic charities. Ethics etc are an optional extra. Bearing in mind both the way that MS came to power and has maintained that power, should give everyone pause for thought when blindly trusting that they (the user) can trust that they (MS) will look after their (the user's) interests. What is truer is that that they (the user) can trust that they (MS) will look after their (MS's) interests.
There seems NO LOGIC to justify installing the tool, and none that justifies the WAY that it is promoted and published by MS. In fact logically the conclusion would have to be more foul play from MS.
More information about formatting options