Keeping you up to date: say no to .NET — again

Topic

New Reply

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD=”width: 510, bgcolor: white”].NET is one of the most troublesome updates we deal with. In case you think you need June’s .NET security updates, I’m here to tell you they’re trouble — skip them.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Reply | Quote

Replies

I found that Firefox 4 broke a lot of Firefox Extensions, the worst outbreak of this sort of misbehavior I have yet seen in Firefox. I almost switched to Chrome. But Firefox 5 has fixed many of these issues, and I can now say that Mozilla appears to be back on track with Firefox development with regards to allowing Extensions developers to keep pace with the new rapid-release schedule. I am particularly pleased that Long URL Please and FEBE are back up and running. And there’s a relatively recent Abine Privacy Suite which really helps with online privacy issues without slowing down Firefox or blocking necessary web site content from loading. Chrome now stands as the only major Windows browser which does not make it easy to opt out from Web Trackers.(Guess why!)

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I can understand some of the caution for a business to evaluate all upgrades, especially to the core suite of Office, especially when macros and complex links are involved. However for most users, small business or home, at least in my experience, this release of SP1 is welcome to fix all the unwelcome bugs. I cannot believe that in an evolving product such as Office that so many issues are introduced with each need version, it simply smacks of poor development and quality control. The worst bug, which I cannot see as being fixed yet on the full list of issues xls issued by MS, is the Outlook 2010 IMAP slowness problem. Having migrated from 2003 to 2010 in the past year this has been one intolerable issue. To delete an email, for example, involves a response time of around 3 seconds, whereas with Outlook 2003 and even the new and free Windows Live Mail client, the delete is instantaneous! Don’t MS departments talk to each other?! I have been sorely tempted to use WLM but I must have the calendar and contacts integration / syncing, so that’s a non-starter. Anyway, hope that I am pleasantly surprised to see the IMAP issue fixed in SP1, but I doubt it. Here is the link to the MS spreadsheet of issues fixed… http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/1/2/512CC712-4070-4CFF-BC4A-B3AFF0E21A1E/Microsoft%20Office%202010%20Service%20Pack%201%20Changes.xlsx

Reply | Quote

I installed Office 2010 SP1 on 3 PC’s, 2 64 Bit OS (win 7) and 1 32 Bit OS (Win 7) My Office 2010 is the 32 Bit version (I do not use large spreadsheets that would have required the 64 Bit). All installed successfully and all are operating very well. No problems at all.

Reply | Quote

Office 2007 ‘fixed’ the issue of only 64k rows (and far fewer columns) in Excel. I’m not aware of any ‘big file’ ability that comes with the 64 bit version of 2010; however, I’ve followed MS’s own reccomendations and went with 32bit on my 64 bit Win 7 PC’s (2 so far). Just the home version. I did install Office 2010 SP1 via Windows Update; very smooth and very quick, and I’ve gone through the Excel list of bug fixes. That list is a real reminder of why one avoids pre SP1 versions of MS software! Still, I’d rather use 2010 SP1 then 2007 for the most part; my feeling is that this is what 2007 should have been after a couple of service packs. I do have one gripe; every new version, every SP, MS moves and changes some things for the shear sake of moving and changing things. 2010 is not hard to use; I just resent having to relearn where everything is annually or so.

So personally, from what I’ve seen so far, I see no reason why not to install 2010 SP1. Piles and piles of needed bug fixes.

Of course, I’d love to be able to use Office 2010 64 bit, if it actually was ‘usable’!

Reply | Quote

Office 2007 ‘fixed’ the issue of only 64k rows (and far fewer columns) in Excel. I’m not aware of any ‘big file’ ability that comes with the 64 bit version of 2010; however, I’ve followed MS’s own reccomendations and went with 32bit on my 64 bit Win 7 PC’s (2 so far). Just the home version. I did install Office 2010 SP1 via Windows Update; very smooth and very quick, and I’ve gone through the Excel list of bug fixes. That list is a real reminder of why one avoids pre SP1 versions of MS software! Still, I’d rather use 2010 SP1 then 2007 for the most part; my feeling is that this is what 2007 should have been after a couple of service packs. I do have one gripe; every new version, every SP, MS moves and changes some things for the shear sake of moving and changing things. 2010 is not hard to use; I just resent having to relearn where everything is annually or so.

So personally, from what I’ve seen so far, I see no reason why not to install 2010 SP1. Piles and piles of needed bug fixes.

Of course, I’d love to be able to use Office 2010 64 bit, if it actually was ‘usable’!

See 64-bit editions of Office 2010 for some pros and cons according to Microsoft.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

They do lay it out in detail… Yes, I see the 2GB limit on the 32bit version. It makes sense. I had read through something like that a few months back when first installing 2010. Oddly enough, I can see use for the larger file sizes, though not for most people. My big thing is having software that takes advantage of my hardware and OS.

Reply | Quote

Just wanted to say thank you for the Mac OSX blurb. While I use Windows most of the time, my Macbook Pro does get a bit of use as well, mostly for school-related things (web design) and I really don’t relish having it bricked by a bad update.

Eric the Grey

Reply | Quote

Office SP1 installed without any issues (32 bit edition on x64 and x86 Windows 7 installations) and I have had reports that some bugs in Office are solved by SP1. One particular issue, that has been discussed on the Lounge, regarding Outlook 64 bit as the default email handler, reachable from other apps, has been reported to be solved.

Reply | Quote

Sorry to see you are continuing to recommend people install IE 9, ignoring the fact that most users don’t have the skills for all the tweaks you suggest. At the very least, you could say that you advise such people to WAIT until IE 9 has been improved to the point where all that is not needed!! That would be a responsible thing to say rather than urging them on to install and just saying Oh, if it doesn’t work, uninstall it. Who knows what could have happened to their computer after the install and after they played around with all sorts of stuff! I wonder if you really have any idea of the lack of capability of some users, even if they do get this newsletter (or receive a copy of your article from a friend).

At this point, I am reading all of your material with a great deal of skepticism because of that. Nothing against you – but, I wish someone else would start writing the patch and install updates recommendations. I apologize, I’m sorry, but that’s how I feel. Wish it weren’t so.

Reply | Quote

IE 9 installs and uninstalls quite uneventfully, at least that has been my experience in multiple PCs. With such a large number of Windows users, it’s possible that some users have issues. Heck, I can’t install Windows 7 SP1 on my desktop, which will make me perform a repair install when the time comes. Personally I really don’t think the advice to install IE 9 is wrong. Surely not worse than recommending any other install or update, as they can go wrong as well.

Reply | Quote

I would also be willing to bet that many of those persons with upgrade install problems did NOT heed the MS advice to disable or shut down all apps, including security apps. I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected from the internet.

Reply | Quote

the ‘post’ link in Susan Bradley’s article in Issue 295 • 2011-06-30 points to the 2011-04-27 15:27 table. please correct this.

Regularly updated problem-patch chart

This table provides the status of problem patches reported in previous Patch Watch columns. Patches listed below as safe to install will be removed from the next updated table. On heavy patch weeks, you’ll find the table in the most recent Windows Secrets Lounge Patch Watch column post.

Reply | Quote

On the PC I applied Office 2010 SP1 to, I run Windows Firewall and MSE. I did nothing special before letting WU do its thing. When I do it on PC’s with Norton IS, I will probably put a hold on the AV.

Reply | Quote

“It seems like only a few short months ago that I was urging you to install Firefox 4. Well. It was only a few short months ago. Three to be exact.”

FF 4 was a disaster. The only good thing I found was that it ran faster, with less latency than 3.6.X, particularly with many open tabs. Broken Add-ons and especially the *frequent crashing* problems were an absolute deal breaker. I had to revert to FF 3.6.17 and that is where I will stay until I get reasonable assurance that FF5 will not misbehave.

Reply | Quote

The updates to Firefox disable so many add-ons that they would invalidate my reason for using Firefox in the first place, many of which are security related. AIRoboform, Google taskbar, the ClearCache button, my banking Virtual Account login for disposable online credit card numbers, and more …. Firefox 4 updated didn’t fix these, and the same holds true for Firefox 5. Until I start to see compatibility for the add-ons that make Firefox my default browser, I’ll stick with what I’ve got!

Reply | Quote

RE: the Dot Net 4 part of your patch tome….
I am happy to FINALLY get some relief with this issue.. .Finally , suggestions that offer some possibility of hope…!
Dot Net 4 has completely HOSED my system (vista basic SP2).. and I have tried the asking at the MSDN forums, other M$ forums, other help forums, as well as trying to reinstall all the updates, have run several restores, patches, tips and tricks, until the damage done to my system from trying to FIX it is worse than the original ‘infection’.. and , really, is there any other way to describe this ‘update’? I have been unable to install applications, run many programs etc etc.. and Microsoft apparently didn’t have a clue on how to fix it.

I’m going to carefully try every tip in that article.. and cross mah fingas!
Doc

Reply | Quote

I have to agree with the comment above that some of us are not advanced computer users! Sometimes my questions are prefaced with that admission. Too bad we didn’t see this patch warning until today (when it came to my inbox), since the patches were already downloaded earlier this week. The dot net patches apparently did not cause me problems, but I always wonder what dot net does and if I even need the thing!

The main question I have is whether others have had a slow and jerky scrolling problem start after downloading FF 5? There doesn’t seem to be any other problem (except that something has slowed the computer). Anyone else noticed the scrolling problem?

Reply | Quote

I have reverted to FF 4 as I found that FF 5 will not open links on my home page, http://www.sympatico.ca unless I open them in a new tab. Apparently, I am not the only one as there is a comment to this on the Mozilla web site.

Reply | Quote

I rely heavily on your expert patch-or-don’t-patch opinions, and I find the almost-most-useful information in the Patch Summary Table at the end of the Patch Watch issues. PLEASE provide a fully cumulative table, with every opinion’s current status, every time. I mean one that goes back indefinitely. You may wish to differentiate the most recent changes (e.g., from Wait to Install) or the newest, not-previously-addressed opinions in some way (separate, partially-redundant table, color, italics, or whatever). I am also requesting that the patches be listed in numerical order, perhaps with a linked, correspondence table. In this way, when I consider a given Windows Update patch, I can simply look up your current, vitally-valuable opinion rather than having to work through prior published issues.

Boy, would this make things easier for us users!

Thank you for your consideration.

. . . SMS

Reply | Quote

I have to agree with the comment above that some of us are not advanced computer users! Sometimes my questions are prefaced with that admission. Too bad we didn’t see this patch warning until today (when it came to my inbox), since the patches were already downloaded earlier this week. The dot net patches apparently did not cause me problems, but I always wonder what dot net does and if I even need the thing!

The main question I have is whether others have had a slow and jerky scrolling problem start after downloading FF 5? There doesn’t seem to be any other problem (except that something has slowed the computer). Anyone else noticed the scrolling problem?

Better asked in the “Other Browsers” forum. It is likely there are more users to help there.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Anyone else experiencing Internet failures after installing Win 7 SP1? http://www.miqrogroove.com/blog/2011/sp1-breaks-dsl-internet/ Looks like it comes with some kind of “new” DHCP client that isn’t compatible with DSL modems.

Reply | Quote

Anyone else experiencing Internet failures after installing Win 7 SP1? http://www.miqrogroove.com/blog/2011/sp1-breaks-dsl-internet/ Looks like it comes with some kind of “new” DHCP client that isn’t compatible with DSL modems.

You’ll get a better response if you start a thread in the Window 7 forum.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Hello all and greetings from LeonSprings, Tx,

I probably will get threats again and warnings, I thought this was one of our Freedoms, FreeSpeech, so here it is again. I have been on Win7 64bit on a Dell Inspiron, refurbished, that came with Vista 32bit (not 64) and Dell will not support me any longer because I decided to upgrade to Win7 64bit. I have no problem with doing mine own thingy . . and having my system as protected as I possibly can. So far all Microsoft Updates have installed without any difficulty and aginst profesional advice also have Microsoft Security Client, Avast! Antivius, Spybot Search & Destroy, Superantispyware, and some other, as this is getting to be longer than I want. They are all running together on my system since my original install of each over the last year and will be continued that way for my systems protection.

I have noticed most that are posting problems or suggesting to not install some software because of problems they have incountered are not letting anyother know what their system is, 32bit or 64bit. I would suggest they let us know about their system. I have not checked over the donot install list in the last newsletter,but; can say most of what was referenced in the body of the newletter, KBxxxxxxx, have been installed without any problems, plus Mozilla FireFox 4 with udate to 5 and it still works just fine without some of the Add-ons that were disabled. At this time the only one that has not been updated is the Avast! WebRep and hope they are working on that problem as I type this.

Enough for now, have a great 4th of July weekend and the day of the 4th, be careful with any fireworks as here in Texas the dryness is over-whelming.

"Infinite CREATOR" cast "Loving Light" upon thee
TIA, CU L8R, 'd' "LoneWanderer"
"Only you can control your future." Dr. Seuss
NOT a leader,
NOT a BLIND follower,
Join US and LIVE this LIFE as ONE!
Original author Unknown

Reply | Quote

Are you using multiple anti virus products? And have you verified thatyour system is 64 bit?

Reply | Quote

Excuse me as I have had other problems to contend with, just managed to get back here. Been working with these desktop systems since about 1985 and with main frame 19″ 64bit Data General computers since about 1974 and know a bit about how to install and use my system. Do not take this the wrong way, I am not sending this as a ‘flaming’ reply just passing on my expereinces and some what of my skills.

To answer your questions, Antivirus? no just Avast! 6.x and the other spamware or spyware, whatever you call them. YES, by all means I have verified my System as 64 bit and when discovering that it was setup to run 32bit with 4GB of RAM and 32bit will not see the full 4Gig, only about 3gig the decission was made by ME to find a copy of Win7 64bit and Newegg was making an offer. That was jumped upon immediatly, the 320gig h/d was reformated and the install was done and I was back on the web in less than an hour, about 45 min actually. I started working with Windows 3.1 and surffing the net before the WWW was created using the TCP/IP input to visit websites, there were not very many at that time. Have moved through Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP not any of the server editions.

YES, also know that when using 32bit OSs that it will not work using more than one AV program nor using real time monitoring with WSC (that is WSE updated to v2.x), but; with this OS and 64bit there has been NO problems and have threats made if I continue to report this on this Forum which I plan on doing so another or maybe many another will know if they are very careful and understand how to work with their system they may have the same luck I am having. I also feel this is the best way to protect my system, because; there is not any single AV, Spyware, Spamware that can protect it as well as I may get from more of the very BEST.

"Infinite CREATOR" cast "Loving Light" upon thee
TIA, CU L8R, 'd' "LoneWanderer"
"Only you can control your future." Dr. Seuss
NOT a leader,
NOT a BLIND follower,
Join US and LIVE this LIFE as ONE!
Original author Unknown

Reply | Quote

I have done a check on those listed in the latest Newsletter from WS and of those that we are told to either wait, skip, hold or optional, found out of the 13 that my system has intalled five with little problems:

2446708 04-12 .NET 4 — historic patching issues Skip Installed 4/13/11
2467023 02-08 Win7 fix; load/unload binaries flaw Wait Installed 2/8/11
2541014 05-24 Windows Application Compatibility Update Wait Installed 5/25/11
2545698 06-28 Resolves issues in Windows Vista and 7 Wait Installed 6/29/11
2547666 06-28 Resolves issues in Windows 7 Wait Installed 6/29/11

Have not yet checked the remaining as they are listed as ‘install’ and a presumtion is made that they are not a problem. Of those that were not installed on my system that should be either waited, skipped, held or optional they must be for XP or another OS that I do not have.

My OS is set for Automatic updates/w install and no input from me.

"Infinite CREATOR" cast "Loving Light" upon thee
TIA, CU L8R, 'd' "LoneWanderer"
"Only you can control your future." Dr. Seuss
NOT a leader,
NOT a BLIND follower,
Join US and LIVE this LIFE as ONE!
Original author Unknown

Reply | Quote

Excluding the WSL-recommended .NET updates (and IE-8), I let Windows do its thing for my Windows Vista Home Premium OEM copy.
In the reboot, it came up with a message “an illegal change has been detected” and routed me to a Windows site for more information (on how to buy a legal copy of Windows 7). After several attempts to use the browser to identify what happened and reattempted logins, I simply did a complete cold reboot.
It went through a cycle of letting me login, and applied 4 more updates, then rebooted and did an additional 4 updates, but is back to normal.

There must have been an update to a bad WGA update in there. Glad I didn’t apply changes immediately.
Thanks for the ongoing advice to hold off on some updates until things stabilize.

Dave

Reply | Quote

Thanks very much, sachssci, for making that suggestion. I have wished for almost exactly the same thing for some time now. Like you, I depend heavily on the recommendations about Updates. I’m most grateful for them, but I find the present information about which to hold, install, etc. rather hard to consult, especially when the item I’m looking for isn’t on the current list. I’d love it if your suggestion could be implemented.

Reply | Quote

I have posted this before in one of the threads re the patch charts. When a new one is posted in the newsletter, I highlight it, save it and paste it into Excel, adjusting columns as necessary. Then do a sort of the KB numbers. The items marked wait or hold I then change to red type, save the whole thing and print it out for use at each machine. You CAN keep a running Excel sheet and see what has changed, by merging in the new chart. I don’t. But you could. This is practically brainless and works for me.

Reply | Quote

Any help re the following three Updates would be appreciated:

1. KB2501584. My MS Updates list includes KB2501584. When I click on the MS link, the bulletin says its an Office file validation for Office 2003, 2007 & 2010, from April 14. I thought I was being pretty good at following Susan’s Patch Chart, so I’m not sure if it just came up or its a leftover, and I can’t find it in either of the June columns or on the charts. Install or ???

2. KB2512827. In addition to the .NET Framework updates I was holding off on based on Susan’s June 14th column, also based on that column I’ve been holding off on KB2512827, relating to the combined vulnerability in Silverlight and .NET. It’s not mentioned in the June 29th column, but since it was originally listed in MS11-039does it get treated like the straight .NET Framework updates? When I click on the MS link in the Updates list, it brings up a totally unrelated Bulletin. How should I treat this Update???

3. KB2539530. June 14th I was offerred KB2539539, an Office 2007 update, which wasn’t on the June 14th or 29th charts, as well as KB2539581, the Office 2003 nonsecurity update which is on the charts as “Wait.” They link to different bulletins, so I wasn’t sure if I should follow my instincts and treat them the same. Should the Office 2007 update be treated the same as the Office 2003, i.e. as a “Wait”?

Thanks.
MarciaG

Reply | Quote