Microsoft just released KB 3138378 and 3140245 for Windows 7

Topic

New Reply

I have no idea what they do, they aren’t on the official Windows Update list, and there don’t appear to be KB articles for either. They’re optional, u
[See the full post at: Microsoft just released KB 3138378 and 3140245 for Windows 7]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Articles are up now. Something about Windows Journal and a “A new registry key enables TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 to default secure protocols in WinHTTP in Windows.”

In other words (for me, at least) “hide this update” X 2.

Reply | Quote

I had a dig around earlier to get the skinny on these 2 new arrivals. At the time, I had the lowest number of hits I think I’ve ever had on a google search, grand total : 1

(other web browsers are available and individual results may vary, terms and conditions apply

Reply | Quote

Microsoft KB articles are now up:

KB 3138378 “Update for Journal.dll binary in Windows ” https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3138378

KB 3140245 “A new registry key enables TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 to default secure protocols in WinHTTP In Windows” https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3140245

Definitely optional and most users won’t likely need either.

Reply | Quote

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3140245

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3138378

No idea what these do in the real world.

Reply | Quote

fyi: the KB is now updated

Reply | Quote

There are KB articles now. The updates have also been released for the Server 2008 R2 and this indicates to me that they have nothing to do with Windows 10 Upgrade. I don’t know if they resolve any issue for most users and as they are Optional, they can be postponed at least for a while.
There is another one in the same family released only for the Server, KB3145126 which relates to server specific functionality only and is outside of the scope of this post.
I can see 20 new updates for Windows Server 2012 R2 which may be released for Windows 8.1 too, as this is typically the norm. As I am not following 8.1, I don’t know exactly which of them apply to the desktop OS.

Reply | Quote

I think the new rules from Microsoft are that there is early release for the patches, while the doco, if any, follows few hours later.

Reply | Quote

Looks like they got them posted in less than a week this time. Somehow microsoft managed to figure out what the content of one of their own updates was. (someone at microsoft must have hacked their neighboring department and leaked secret info)

Reply | Quote

The missing KB Articles have been published.

Currently have no clue what the KB3138378 does (removes), but the KB3140245 seems relevant (and probably a useful, recommended one to apply).

1. KB3138378: Update for Journal.dll binary in Windows

“This update improves the reliability of Journal.dll by removing unused code.”

2. KB3140245: A new registry key enables TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 to default secure protocols in WinHTTP in Windows

“This update provides support for Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows Server 2012, Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1), and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1.

This update adds a DefaultSecureProtocols registry key in Windows that allows users to change system-wide default protocols for WinHTTP and hardcodes Webio default protocols to include TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2.”

Reply | Quote

I’ve ONE computer (HP dc7900 SFF) that wasn’t “destroyed” Tuesday; Windows Updates.
With this ONE computer, I manually downloaded every “KB” update back to KB27193 (4/3/16). Still, though I didn’t hesitate downloading the two updates offered this afternoon, 4/19/16 (KB3138378 & KB3140245). I attempted to go to Microsoft.com and download them again to add to my ‘thumb’ drive; I found Microsoft (in denial) claiming the downloads never existed (typing the same exact update) in the download search ‘updates’. I wanted to download (to my thumb drive) the updates so I could update my other computers “Manually” from the files on the thumb drive. I go to Microsoft: just to find they claim, don’t exist! Microsoft’s April, 2016 has already ‘trashed’ the Adata SSD (confirmed!) on my dc7900 Convertible Mini Tower; but, threatens to contaminate all of my other (off-lease HP Business Machines) which all have the fastest Intel Processor-8550’s Quad) & 8gb RAM. I’m a ‘small fry’; but, have been working on computers since Windows 95! “Never Seen Nothin’ Like It!”. Kind Regards, wfejnieh

Reply | Quote

HA!

As of late Tuesday night, they still don’t appear on the Windows Update list….

Reply | Quote

Me, too.

Reply | Quote

KB3140245
“Registry information
To apply this update, you have to add the DefaultSecureProtocols registry subkey.”

Adding subkeys to the register is not a thing most Windows-users I know know how to do.

Reply | Quote

This is why it is Optional. It adds the functionality to Windows, while that functionality is enabled only by editing the Windows Registry if required. It remains a choice which the user has to make if it is to be installed or not.

Reply | Quote

Me three.

Reply | Quote

I just installed them and now have that ‘Get Windows 10’ icon back in my system tray.

Reply | Quote

Interesting! Wonder if anybody else is seeing that?

Reply | Quote

My mistake. I’ve just noticed I installed the old ‘Get Windows 10’ KB3035583 on 18th April despite having uninstalled it and ‘hidden’ it last time it popped up. Seems like Windows have found a way to ‘unhide’ this one. I’ve now uninstalled all three given that Windows are being so sneaky.

Reply | Quote

There are various schools of thought on whether “non-security” updates should be hidden. Here’s my take, as a career software engineer.

Microsoft maintains a set of up-to-date software that all works together as a system. Somewhere in the halls of Redmond there is a “trunk” of code they all work with (along with various branches, which are of less interest to us for this discussion).

Their trunk most closely matches what users would have if they were to keep their systems completely up to date, applying every available update.

If the interfaces between various components of the system are all clean and crisp, it’s possible that one could run a system that’s a mix of that “trunk” code and some older code that was NOT updated, and not have serious problems.

But we know in our heart of hearts the software isn’t really that robust.

In general the more your particular combination of code differs from the “trunk”, the more I suspect you’ll have problems.

Note that I didn’t say it was a bad idea to DELAY installation of updates. That’s a very GOOD idea if you care about whether things work. Wait until others have tried them and report whether new problems are introduced.

Personally, I’ve striven to minimize the list of updates I won’t allow. Right now for Win 7 it’s a set of only 5:

KB2952664 (diagnostics for Win 10 compatibility)
KB3021917 (diagnostics for Win 10 performance compatibility)
KB3035583 (this one is GWX itself)
KB3068708 (adds capabilities to easily upgrade to Win 10)
KB971033 (checks whether Microsoft wants to deactivate your system)

I provide this list only to illustrate that one person has experience with a particular combination of hidden updates, and that his systems seem to work well without them for what he does.

TL;DR summary:

If you’re going to update your system AT ALL, it’s probably best to have all the updates except the ones you ABSOLUTELY CAN’T TOLERATE, such as the Win 10 GWX nagware, or those known to cause specific problems for you.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

They already broke WSUS with latest batch of patches (namely KB3148812). http://blogs.technet.com/b/wsus/archive/2016/04/20/known-issues-with-kb3148812.aspx

And the biggest joke: “The good news is that this is not an issue of code quality. The package is good as is, but it requires some additional manual steps to be taken afterward in order to realign the moving parts of the system”

Way to go, M$.

Reply | Quote

I disagree…The biggest joke is as follows…

Bill_Tunney 20 Apr 2016 7:42 PM
What can you do when uninstalling it doesn’t work?

Dave Smith 20 Apr 2016 8:19 PM
Uninstalled the update. WSUS still won’t connect. Server 2012R2.

Wow…what a company.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/wsus/archive/2016/04/20/known-issues-with-kb3148812.aspx

Reply | Quote

Hi Noel

I am glad that for most part our points of view converge. I come from a system engineering perspective although I have a certain amount of knowledge of software development.
I use most of the time WSUS which and I say this for those who are not yet aware, is a small/medium business offline version of Microsoft Update. This server product is official and provided by Microsoft. I use the public site of Microsoft Update only to compare end results and double check if I missed anything or if there are differences in the public and offline implementation which I am pleased to say that there are only very few and rare occurrences.
Using WSUS provides more visibility over all updates available and how each supersede other. To this extent I am probably closer to Susan Bradley’s approach than Woody’s which tend to complete each other.
To keep it short and based on my observations, the only updates which I would avoid with priority for Windows 7 are the only 2 of them not pushed by WSUS but only by the public site. They are KB971033 which is a hybrid important/optional in the sense that is not selected by default and KB3035583, the well known GWX patch pushing Windows 10 upgrade.
Even installing those 2 updates is not so damaging if the known blocker options are configured correctly.
PS KB971033 may be needed for certain downloads from Microsoft and should not cause any issues for users with legitimate Windows 7 installations which I believe it is the case for most if not all of the readers of this site.

Reply | Quote

This has been explained few times before. KB3035583 has not been “unhidden” by Microsoft, but a new update was released under the same name and with the same functionality, potentially improved in the Microsoft sense. At the same time, Microsoft withdrew the old patch while if you had it hidden before, you end up with an orphan entry in the database. While Microsoft is not supposed to use this practice for publishing different updates under the same name, the end user creates only problem for themselves by using the practice of hiding updates. Those undesirable updates should be simply left in the list and not installed, instead of hiding them.

Reply | Quote

@doktornotor That’s quite funny. An update breaking Windows Update. It must be very serious if the WSUS Product Team Blog was updates so quickly which is not normally happening. I am just lucky that I didn’t install the update in my test environment to see the side-effects.
Thanks for posting it.

Reply | Quote

@ch100,

When you say, “…Microsoft withdrew the old patch while
if you had it hidden before, you end up with an orphan entry in the database,”
what do you mean by “orphan entry in the database”?

When Microsoft publishes a new patch/update under the same number as a patch/update that the person has hidden,
if Microsoft at the same time pulls/removes the older patch/update carrying the same number from the person’s hidden updates area, is there an “orphan entry” of 5583 in the person’s database?

For example:

Monday:
User checks Windows Update, and hides update 5583 in the hidden updates area

Wednesday:
User checks Windows Update, and sees that
a. Microsoft has issued a new update which is also called 5583, and this is showing in the main list of updates to be installed
b. Microsoft has removed the old update called 5583 from the user’s hidden updates area, so there are no longer any updates called 5583 in the hidden area

Question: In this scenario, are there any orphan entries in the database regarding the previous 5583 update, which appears to the user to have simply disappeared altogether?

Reply | Quote

That comment wasn’t there at the time I posted here. I’d frankly not recommend anyone to uninstall the screwed update, since it obviously will not undo the half-screwed DB changes and will leave system in a state where the Redmond’s next attempt on the hotfix either won’t install at all, or will fail to fix the original issue.

This certainly is not the first time they’ve screwed WSUS *badly*.

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks

When you say, “…Microsoft withdrew the old patch while
if you had it hidden before, you end up with an orphan entry in the database,”
what do you mean by “orphan entry in the database”?

When Microsoft publishes a new patch/update under the same number as a patch/update that the person has hidden,
if Microsoft at the same time pulls/removes the older patch/update carrying the same number from the person’s hidden updates area, is there an “orphan entry” of 5583 in the person’s database?

“Orphan” has the same meaning with “phantom” in another exchange which we had few days ago. This means (hidden) records not referenced to an existing patch at Microsoft and as such being left in an non-operational state, the user has no way to remove it from the database other than completely reconstructing the database.

When Microsoft republishes an update, normally the old one should be updated in place and not causing any further problems. However as we have seen recently with KB3035583 and KB2952664, they are not updated in place by updating the version, but replaced entirely while keeping their name. This is obvious by using a different tool like WSUS but intuitively it should become obvious even with incomplete information for everyone. The safe approach for everyone is not to use the practice of hiding updates, unless testing something for short term.

Question: In this scenario, are there any orphan entries in the database regarding the previous 5583 update, which appears to the user to have simply disappeared altogether?

It is an orphan record related to the old update. I can reproduce the problem in WSUS as the removed updates are not deleted immediately for me, only made “expired”. You don’t see it as it is not referenced to Microsoft but I can see it as it is referenced in my offline equivalent database and I can test in any configuration I wish.

To clarify, this affects only the Windows Update database which is closely related to the scanning mechanism for Windows Update but not any other Windows functionality. That orphan update is not installed on the machine by some hidden procedure performed by Microsoft.

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks:

The KB3035583 patch gets “revised” from time to time – simple as that. Check MS support KB article 3035583 for yourself; the files inside KB3035583 were revised in late March 2016 and older “revisions” of KB3035583 (released or revised in February 2016, December 2015 and earlier) get superseded/replaced by the latest revision of it.

Reply | Quote

Each Windows update (and each version thereof), has essentially a globally unique ID. Just like how a GUID is unique, and when you delete a user and create a user ID by the same name, they are not the same to the system, even though they appear so to you. It’s Microsoft’s smoke and magic.

And yes, this is part of why Windows Updates gets slower and slower over time, because the true list of updates is ever-growing, even if they just re-release the same update again and again.

Reply | Quote

That may be so. I don’t know if that is true or not. I just have one worry, it is that M/S might throw the switch that switch WU from notify but don’t download to automatic update, or forced updating in spite of the setting. I seem to recall reading that this happened last year for some people.

I might be remembering wrong. Still, I am concerned that if we leave those updates on the list, it will get downloaded and installed on the computer when M/S feels like it instead of being safely out of the way. So, I feel split between accepting your advice and not accepting. Nevertheless, I do keep the seemingly harmless but useless optional patches on the list and hidden 3553 and 2994.

Reply | Quote

Hello

Since I installed the two last optional updates : KB3140245 and KB3138378, my screen is darker ! It is normal ?
It is said that these updates have to do with AMD64.
My graphic card is ASUS HD 7350 and it is OK, from the computer.

Thank you for your time

Cat.

Reply | Quote

Looks like the WSUS hotfix that had no issues with code quality and was good as is got pulled all of a sudden.

Reply | Quote

Not in WSUS (yet). It may happen eventually, unless someone from Microsoft comes up with a weird solution about adding some registry keys or running some kind of script to fix their patch

Reply | Quote

It looks more complicated than that. The patch KB3035583 is not exactly superseded by the newer versions, although to some extent it is, instead its metadata is changed while the name is kept the same. Fundamentally it is a completely new patch under the same name. It is not like most of the other patches which have an updated version superseding the previous one. This is what makes a lot people to believe that somehow the original patch which was hidden is now unhidden by a new and unidentified yet type of malware installed by Microsoft. In fact the old patch is not unhidden, but what the users see is the new patch.
If only the version was changed, then the old hidden patch would still be hidden under the new version.
Is this done on purpose by Microsoft? I think it is, while everyone else is entitled to have a personal point of view about it.

Reply | Quote

This looks like a good and intuitive explanation.

Reply | Quote

In theory Microsoft could push a “patch” to do just that. I think this is unlikely to happen though as it would have too much impact on a lot of environments which are core Microsoft customers, other than home users.

Reply | Quote

I don’t provide any advice for anyone. I am only providing technical explanations for various issues as I understand them based on years of experience and many nights doing testing like many others of those posting here, while everyone reading my replies can draw their own conclusion.

Reply | Quote

I think that’s a good point – and one I should emphasize more often, too. By publishing a comment here, I’m not necessarily promoting whatever is said. I’m interested in stimulating well-informed and well-intentioned debate. I’m also finding, more and more frequently, that I don’t have time to jump into the thick of things, and for that I apologize profusely.

Reply | Quote

I am not a tech-type person, but I don’t want Windows 10 or telemetry on my computer. I find that I have to hide updates I don’t want. I used to have it set to check and let me okay them, but removing the checkmark of unwanted updates was only temporary…they would recheck themselves (not sure why)… then install when my computer turned off and was restarted. After going through uninstalling them several times, I just set my machine to manually update. I wait a few days for the info to come in, chose what I want, and hide the rest. It is time consuming, but what I have to do. I’m still a little hesitant to jump to Mint, or another operating system, but I’m starting to think that might be less time consuming. I don’t suppose Microsoft will recognize that a group of people don’t want those things and provide an easy way to avoid them? Until then, I am utterly grateful to Woody providing clearly understandable information. Thank you, Woody.

Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter

Reply | Quote

I wanted to share something I found with Microsoft Updates from this week.

2 updates were released by Microsoft this week
KB3140245
KB3138378

After the updates were installed and rebooted the Ethernet icon at the lower right has a yellow triangle on it. Also under the Network settings it says no internet access, even thought the internet does work. I found uninstalling these 2 updates removes the errors.

So it might be bad updates released by Microsoft?

Reply | Quote

@ch100,

Thank you for such a long reply,
and I know that you’ve explained various aspects of this issue to me several times now,
but I’m afraid that I have not understood what you are saying.

You wrote, “That orphan update is not installed on the machine by some hidden procedure performed by Microsoft.”

However, I never thought that Microsoft *installs* those updates that it mysteriously removes from the hidden folder. I think you must have misunderstood my question.

You have mentioned several times that there is a danger in hiding updates because they create phantom/orphan entries in the Windows Update database.
Based on that statement, I have just wondered if that happens in the specific scenario that I spelled out earlier, where an update is hidden by the user, then that update is actually removed from the hidden updates list by Microsoft because Microsoft has published a new update with the same number and plopped that new update into the main updates list.

I do know that the previously-hidden update has not been installed on the sly by Microsoft.

I do know that the new update that Microsoft is serving up to the user in the main updates list, which confusingly has been assigned the very same kb number as the previously-hidden-update-that-has-now-disappeared-altogether, actually has differences inside of it and is for-all-intents-and-purposes a “new” update.

I am just wondering if the previously-hidden update,
which was removed by Microsoft unilaterally and without warning to the user from the hidden-updates list,
and which now seems, at least to the normal computer user, to have entirely disappeared from anywhere in that person’s Windows Update (because it is not in the hidden updates list, it is not in the main ready-to-be-installed list, it is not in the already-installed updates list, it is not in the updates history list),
has actually, regardless of having been yanked by Microsoft from the person’s hidden updates area, left behind a phantom/orphan entry in the person’s Windows Update database, or not.

I think that you are saying that it *does* do that.

I think that you are saying that this happens even when Microsoft knows that this unfortunate situation is going to happen, when Microsoft pulls a hidden update and makes it disappear into the ether.

I do understand you are promoting that people never hide any updates and leave all updates in the main list.

I said in an earlier exchange with you on askwoody.com that due to your warnings about this, a few days ago I unhid all my hidden updates and restored them to the main list.
I will keep them “parked” in my main updates list, even though it will be a hassle every month when I run Windows Update to figure out which updates are new and which are the ones from the past that I chose to ignore.

—-
…If there is anything I can do to make my Win7 computer last longer and perform better, to not get bogged down in needless entanglements, then I will do that! Even if it comes at a cost (costing my efficiency, time, patience, etc.)

Microsoft has a lot of us contorting ourselves into knots and devoting countless hours just to try to keep using a previously-solid and reliable operating system that we *thought* we’d paid to have uncomplicated use of until 2020. It’s such a shame.

Ah well, be that as it may….
——

Thank YOU, ‘ch100’,
for bringing up your concerns about these phantom/orphan Windows Update database entries so that the readers of this site are aware of it,
and thank you for your kind responses to my questions on this!

Reply | Quote

Thank you EP,
I know that some of the patches are “revised” and republished, and the new version supersedes the earlier version, although both have the very same kb number.

Over the past year, what I’ve noticed is that some patches that I’ve deliberately hidden (by right-clicking on the patch, and telling Windows Update to hide it) have later been silently removed by Microsoft from the hidden area, and basically have disappeared altogether from my Windows Update.

I was asking ch100 about those, because using normal everyday logic (though nothing about the way Microsoft is treating us lately is normal or logical!), one would think that Microsoft would be *smart* enough, when it was yanking away a patch that the user had hidden, to remove that hidden patch in such a way as to not cause a lot of entangled junk (orphan/phantom entries) to be left behind in the user’s Windows Update database.

—
However, I have never presumed, as ch100 says below, that Microsoft has installed “a new and unidentified type of malware” that is going around and messing with our hidden patches…
because I’m sure they don’t have to install anything *new* to be able to have a lot of unwelcome and heavy-handed control over our computers, ha ha!

Reply | Quote

@Picky,

I do share your concerns, they are reasonable!

You rightfully worry “…that M/S might throw the switch from notify but don’t download to automatic update, or forced updating in spite of the setting.
…I am concerned that if we leave those updates on the list, it will get downloaded and installed on the computer when M/S feels like it instead of being safely out of the way.”

I would say 2 things…

1. For the last year, I have my Windows Updates set up *not* to check at all, not to download.
(I know that this is against Woody’s advice to us, but a number of other commenters here also do this.)
I manually check for updates once a month,
in the week before a new Patch Tuesday,
after I’ve learned what the experts have advised to do about the updates from the prior Patch Tuesday.

[In more of an idiosyncratic, and probably quite pointless move, I also have
the Brazil IP addresses that Microsoft appears to use for my machine’s Windows Updates
blocked by the PeerBlock program on my computer —
now, I don’t think that would stop Microsoft for very long from getting “into” my Windows Updates, probably only for a split second if anything,
but in the past, blocking those IP addresses actually has caused my Windows Update not to work until I unblocked them.]

Anyway, back to my point — because I manually check for updates, and don’t let Microsoft check, I feel a little bit more comfortable in leaving some “worrisome” patches in my main list.

But you are right, if Microsoft decides to storm right in to Windows Update and ignore our wishes entirely, they would be able to install any of the patches that are in our main list.

2. But following on that, my second point is this — if Microsoft really got so out of control that they would ignore our settings and barge into our computers to install patches sitting on our main update list that we didn’t want them to,
then I think it would be just as easy for them to reach into the “hidden” patches list and force those ones to be installed on the computer, also!

In other words, I don’t think the hidden patches area is entirely protected from Microsoft’s meddling; it probably isn’t protected from them at all.
…Having a hidden area is probably more of a psychological comfort to the user, rather than a barrier that could withstand Microsoft’s intervention.

Even with the way they have reached into my hidden area in the past few months and removed some patches that I had hidden, without leaving any kind of trace of those patches, nor any explanation for me about what happened to those patches, shows me that they have little concern about barging in and doing what they want.

Reply | Quote

@Noel Carboni,

Thank you for explaining that, Noel, it is helpful to a non-techie such as myself.

I have noted down the extra-important FIVE patches that you can’t tolerate in the Excel spreadsheet I’ve been required by circumstances to create just in order to keep track of the patches of 2015/2016/+ for my computer.
Added a new column: “Noel Carboni’s advice”.

I’ve already got a Woody advice column, “others” (such as Susan Bradley) column, etc.
I’m avoiding more than your 5 patches, probably double or triple that.
I realize the danger in doing so, but at my low level of knowledge I can’t weigh the danger of a patch’s get-win-10 functionality vs. the chance of of missing out on important general enhancements that may also be in the patch.
(As most of us do, I think it’s terrible of MS to combine the two types of updating in the same patch.)
I do fear that I might be setting my system up for problems, if it gets too far out on a certain bizarre branch from the main trunk. In the short term, I’m more worried about avoiding being launched into get-win-10, as I don’t even think my inexpensive, oldish computer could handle it, and I certainly don’t wish to use Win10 in any case.
I will keep an eye on what develops in the next few months – to see if at the end of the “year of free Win 10” if they stop ramming Win-10 down everyone’s throats, or what they’ll do. If they keep forcing it, I will probably have to reconsider how I’ve done my patching over the last year, and instead install the GWX Control Panel and simply hope that it protects me while I go back and install most of the patches that I’ve avoided so far.

—–
Thank you to everyone who helps explain these concepts on Woody’s site! You are helping countless people.

Reply | Quote

I was trying to say that is is not expired or re-released in WSUS yet. The weird solution which I was mentioning has come up on the blog and there are 2 actions which need to be taken to fix the issue.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/wsus/archive/2016/04/20/known-issues-with-kb3148812.aspx
What is not clear is why the 2 actions are not part of the patch and the administrator of the server is required to perform them manually.
It is possible that enabling additional components to be made a requirement/pre-requisite as it is not good practice for HTTP Activation to be configured by a patch, but running the Wsusutil.exe tool should certainly be part of the patch.

Reply | Quote

I hadn’t noticed that, but I’ll keep my ears open.

Reply | Quote

Highly unlikely MS will change its ways with Win7. With Win10, though, those details are kind of swept under the rug. For most people, most of the time, it’ll work. I’m just concerned about folks who get zapped by a forced Win10 upgrade – and my concern is backed by a few decades of observations about Microsoft’s patching abilities.

As noted a few times in the past week or so, I use my Chromebook more and more, precisely for that reason. Google gets to track everything I do, but in exchange I don’t have any of the hassles we’re seeing with Win7 (or Win10).

I also use my iPad and Android phone – a Nexus 6P, which is great. The right tool for the right job, sez I.

Just to keep this in perspective, though — I use Win10 on a big hunking (if aging) desktop all day, every day, for writing. Big screen, mechanical keyboard. Couldn’t live without it.

Reply | Quote

This is my list to avoid :

KB3035583 – Update installs Get Windows 10 app in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1
KB3022345 – Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry
KB3068708 – Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry (adds capabilities to easily upgrade to Win 10)
KB3075249 – Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
KB3012973 – Force Trigger Download and Install of Windows 10 Free Upgrade
KB3080149 – Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry
KB2990214 – Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 7 to a later version of Windows
KB2952664 – Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7 (diagnostics for Win 10 compatibility)
KB2976978 – Compatibility update for Windows 8.1 and Windows 8
KB3021917 – Update to Windows 7 SP1 for performance improvements (diagnostics for Win 10 performance compatibility)
KB2977759 – Compatibility update for Windows 7 RTM
KB3044374 – Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10
KB3123862 – Updated capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
KB971033 – Description of the update for Windows Activation Technologies (checks whether Microsoft wants to deactivate your system)
KB3081452 – August 27, 2015, compatibility update for upgrading to Windows 10
KB3046480 – Update helps to determine whether to migrate the .NET Framework 1.1 when you upgrade Windows 8.1 or Windows 7
KB3090045 – Windows Update for reserved devices in Windows 8.1 or Windows 7 SP1 that are upgrading to W10 from W8.1, 7SP1
KB3072318 – Update for Windows 8.1 OOBE to upgrade to Windows 10
KB3081954 – Update for Work Folders improvements in Windows 7 SP1
KB3112336 – Additional upgrade scenarios from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10
KB3112343 – Additional upgrade scenarios from Windows 7 to Windows 10
KB3095113 – Update to enable WSUS support for Windows 10 feature upgrades

Reply | Quote

Okay, I can see why most of those updates are there, but why include KB3081954?

Reply | Quote

Microsoft has botched a lot of patches over the years. They also lied about the purpose of many others, in order to sneak Windows 10 spyware onto your system without your permission. They keep offering Silverlight no matter how many times you reject it. And the Windows 10 zombie patches keep coming back no matter how many times you hide them. You have to research every update because you cant trust the description. At this point I am telling all of my friends & family to switch to Ubuntu. No one has time for this Microsoft nonsense and support techs dont have time to waste on this either.

Reply | Quote

Dude, thank you so much. My list has been missing a bunch of these & I have been looking for the others I should add. I keep a spreadsheet-like document full of Windows updates to avoid so I don’t accidentally install them when they appear again. You’ve just helped me quite a lot.

Reply | Quote

I agree. The massive waste of an accumulated amount of time equal to probably several weeks during the last year alone is bull. They should be paying ME. I just hope all this crap convinces enough people to move to Linux for there to be more of my favorite software developed for it. The only reason I haven’t switched is due to the lack of certain software (especially older, or less popular programs, or niche ones) and no alternatives good enough for me. I also have used Windows since I was 5 years old. I want to use something I know well, and I know Windows well. I don’t feel like getting into an entire new OS, honestly, but I can tell you now, I wont be using 10.

Reply | Quote

Today in my optional updates kb3138378 popped up again,now timestamped 10-05-2016

Reply | Quote