Slow Windows 7 scan for updates? This month’s magic patch is KB 3185911

Topic

New Reply

Two different ways to patch, each with pro’s and con’s. InfoWorld Woody on Windows
[See the full post at: Slow Windows 7 scan for updates? This month’s magic patch is KB 3185911]

Reply | Quote

Replies

@Woody,

You mention in your article that “the Intel Wi-Fi bug has been fixed.”

However, Intel hasn’t fixed the bug for everyone’s computers —

Intel’s page that you linked to says, “Software updates will be available on Intel’s Download Center and will apply to Intel’s Wireless adapters identified below. A solution for additional adapters will come a few weeks later.” ( https://communities.intel.com/thread/104851 )

Mine is not on the list of adapters Intel gives there, and yesterday I had to uninstall Canadian Tech’s “magic” patch of KB3172605 for August’s patches (after having installed it only on Monday a few days ago, when I did my catch-up patching prior to the new Patch Tuesday of yesterday) because I was getting a lot of bluetooth errors in my event manager, even though I haven’t used bluetooth in months.

Is the “magic patch” that you mention first in your new InfoWorld article, KB3185911, unrelated to the bluetooth Intel problems (it seems that it is unrelated, but I’m just checking), and is it generally safe for most of us to manually install, in order to speed up September’s patches? Thank you.

Reply | Quote

Interesting! I didn’t realize that.

Yep, 3185911 is unrelated to the Bluetooth problems. It hasn’t been fully vetted, in my opinion, but it’s good enough to install.

Reply | Quote

I find that the slow scan issue (which impacts MSE as well as WU) lasts from when updates are first released until the magic patch for the month is installed, during which time the Task Manager shows CPU usage at 25% even when the updates are listed as available (the main delay for me being in the download routine rather than the initial scan, the download sticking at 0% for ages). So the dilemma is whether to install the magic patch as soon as it has been identified even tho’ we are still at Defcon 2!

Reply | Quote

The link above to “Woody on Windows” . gets you to an InfoWorld article where in the first sentence of the second paragraph, a link to KB 3185911,get you to the 32 bit patch. If you need the 64 bit patch, go here – https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53712

Reply | Quote

This worked like a charm on my Windows 7 Home Premium x64 desktop. Check for updates before installing 3185911 went for over 5 hours before I killed it; after-installation check took less than 4 minutes!

Many thanks to you, Woody, and to all other contributors who keep coming up with these magical solutions.

We can only hope this will still be possible after Malwaresoft go to their cumulative-updates-only approach next month.

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody,

I’m confused by this. Is this in place of the usual “Security Update for Windows Kernel-Mode Drivers” patch that each month until now has been the thing that has stopped the high CPU, constant searching issue for many people?

Or is this something different, where you have to have all those other patches installed first that are listed in your original article? (I do not have those installed, I have just been manually installing the monthly “Security Update for Windows Kernel-Mode Drivers” patch each month, which has always eliminated the issue (for that month anyways).

At present, I have opted to change my settings to “Never check for updates” (once the high CPU constant search for updates reared it’s ugly head again this month yesterday).

Thanks!

Reply | Quote

Yep, it serves the same function as the earlier patches.

Chances are very good that you only need the one update, KB 3185911. You probably have all the other prerequisites installed already.

Reply | Quote

Yep, the link goes to the KB article, but it doesn’t do the download.

Reply | Quote

Since the Sept Win 7 updates were on my machine this morning as part of the normal patch Tuesday updates process (I wait for the updates to appear on my machine without scanning for them) and since KB3185911 probably won’t work in October, I may not install it. The problem I have more often than not is the update download and install time period. Today, I decided to go ahead and install the Malicious Software Removal Tool. The entire download and install process took over four hours. Would 3185911 work to speed up the download and install for the remaining Sept updates once we move to Defcon 3?

iPhone 13, 2019 iMac(SSD)

Reply | Quote

Nice. Of course next month this whole idea will become pointless as whatever the patch is, you’ll only be able to install it as part of the rollup, at which point, you’ll already have done your update for the month so… owww, my brain hurts.
If only they could release the update scan fix a couple of days before the majority of patches were to come through.
But yeah, that’s all history now. So I guess it’ll be slow updates every month from now on.

Reply | Quote

Probably not, as the patch will be embedded in the single rollup for the month.

Reply | Quote

Does it really impact MSE at the same time with WU? It may be that the MSE own updater waits for WU to time out? Otherwise, if there is no WU configured or running, MSE triggers its own updater.

Reply | Quote

Woody, thanks for quoting me on InfoWorld.
In my post I mentioned about “Dalai’s approach” without providing a URL, as most readers here on https://askwoody.com are familiar with http://wu.krelay.de/en/
You may wish to edit the InfoWorld post and provide the relevant URL there too.

Reply | Quote

I noticed that, but figured folks would understand that it’s the “original” approach.

Reply | Quote

Maybe this approach won’t work in October. Not at all a given….

Reply | Quote

Highly likely.

Reply | Quote

I’ve never been one to believe in conspiracies but surely there can’t be too many people left who don’t believe the whole Windows 7 monthly update mess isn’t being caused deliberately by MS trying to get people to give up and move to Windows 10.

It can’t be just a coincidence that this nonsense started at the time Windows 10 was released and has continued ever since – seems to be getting worse every month, now with ‘magic’ patches which work for one month only then you need another one next month and so on and so on.

And, it is strange that Windows 8.1 now seems to be ‘afflicted’ with this slow update BS as well – it was fine a few months back. Hmmm…

Me? Well, I’m just waiting for the new monthly Simplix Update Pack to be released. Much less stress and time wasting with that approach.

Reply | Quote

This mess started around August 2014. Nothing to do with Windows 10 Upgrade. The upgrade push brought up new issues which are now part of the past.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2607451/microsoft-windows/microsoft-ships-replacement-patch-kb-2993651-with-two-known-bugs.html

Reply | Quote

Hey, y’all. This doesn’t have anything to do with the post, but I want to dump this where there are disgruntled techies who are dealing with Windows Update — with the hope that someone will find this useful. This seems as good of a place as any.

I wrote a small program that injects a patch into the Windows Update process to make it run faster. Older systems show a speed increase of 2-4x when checking for updates. (I haven’t tested any newer systems because my patience is exhausted.)

It is here:

It works about the same as Bertrand Coulon’s PatchWU , but mine runs as a Windows service.

This is alpha-quality software, but it hasn’t screwed up any machines on my end. I hope it doesn’t screw up anybody else’s machine, either.

Apologies for the spam. And happy (slightly-belated) patch Tuesday.

Reply | Quote

I didn’t get your link! Please post it.

Reply | Quote

Another possibility: I stuffed the link in angle brackets, and that’s what your comment system aggressively disliked. *shrug*

Reply | Quote

(Naturally, this should be a reply to Woody’s comment above: https://www.askwoody.com/2016/slow-windows-7-scan-for-updates-this-months-magic-patch-is-kb-3185911/comment-page-1/#comment-98710)

(I fail thread mode. Sorry.)

Reply | Quote

How in the world of MS (Monumentally Stupid) does this make sense. On 9/12 @ 11pm, an update check takes 3-4minutes. @4 hours later an update check runs for 3.5+ hours without resolution. Yet, installing one of their “security updates” seems to fix it. I’m sure that others have ranted on the topic, but something is very dysfunctional at MS.
The foundation is crumbling and a new paint job (Windows 10) is not going to keep it upright.

Reply | Quote

Michael, you are undoubtedly correct, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t hope for the best.

Realistically though, I’m expecting to have to manually download and install security patches only from next month on, once Woody has identified and cleared them for use.

Count me firmly among those in Group B going forward.

Reply | Quote

If you click on his user name, it links to the patch page.

Reply | Quote

@Paul,

Manually installing KB3185911 first today only took me a few minutes. It was worth the effort, because it appeared to provide my relative’s computer a very speedy Windows Update process — the whole thing was over before I knew it.

If there is some reason you don’t want KB3185911 to remain on your machine for the longer term, I think you could always install it, do September’s patching, then uninstall it.

Reply | Quote

@CH100,
In the third paragraph of the article, a few paragraphs before Woody provided the quote from you, Woody mentioned Dalai and gave his URL:
“…a blogger known as Dalai has updated the information on his website, wu.krelay.de/en…”

Reply | Quote

I have the Intel BT issue on my Lenovo. The KB3185911 does not break the BT.

I did update the BT drives from Intel successfully (to a version from late 2015) but did not allow KB3172605 to re-install after I removed it and updated the BT drivers.

I used the Intel Driver Update Utility from the Intel website to get the correct version after a disastrous install of the Wireless Drivers that necessitating a system restore. The BT drivers the Utility found were separate from the ProSet Wireless drivers. That was not clear from the Intel forum messages.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft is treating us like a bunch of $#@!. We must be since we are letting them get away with this BS.

Reply | Quote

It is under the name of the user https://github.com/dmo2118/PatchQPF

Reply | Quote

Thanks!

Reply | Quote

ARGH. Yeah, that’s the WordPress editor tromping all over things.

They do it to protect me, but sometimes I don’t want protection!

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks: Did you DL the KB3185911 from Dalai’s website? I hope to be able to do that today (use Firefox as my browser).

Glad that you got the update installed without any problems.

Reply | Quote

Woody
I am confused. Are you saying that we should apply kb3185911 and then wait until we get the go ahead from you before we apply the rest of the patches?

Reply | Quote

If WU/MU is doing it’s customary svchost spike when MSE tries to update the solution is to just stop the wuauserv service. MSE will then finish retrieving and installing definition updates on its own without further delay.

Reply | Quote

The time for search changes the INSTANT Microsoft releases the now set of patches. I have noted this for months.

Reply | Quote

Nope. I’m saying that if you really, really want to see what’s waiting for you in Windows Update, go ahead and install 3185911. It’s much, much too early to install any of this week’s patches.

Reply | Quote

Thanks Woody. That’s what I thought. Then why are all these people qustioning if 3185911 will speed up the slow search for updates. We shouldn’t take need it for a month or are these people just looking for problems and confusing the issue.

Reply | Quote

For what it’s worth, I got speedy WU checks with just these relevant patches installed:

KB3020369
and
KB3138612

I’m in group B, though Group W is looking attractive as things go on. I have one application (Quicken) that needs Windows, but there’s a Linux alternative (KMymoney) that might do the job. If that’s a bust, I’ll set up a machine with Win 7 and Quicken and keep it permanently offline.

Reply | Quote

Me too Im defo a group B person

Reply | Quote

This month was the first time I had a problem with MSE updates. It kept saying connection problems even if I turned off WU.

Once the WU September updates were shown in WU (after many hours) and I read here that KB3185911 was the cure and I installed it manually, all went back to normal.

I am not sure if the MSE issue was related or not as I have not had MSE affected before by the patch Tuesday batches. I have had MSE say successful update in MSE, but throw failed updates in Action Center for a while and then fix itself after a few manual definition updates or a removal and reinstall of MSE.

Reply | Quote

@Walker,

I tried to find the download link to KB3185911 at the Microsoft webpage about that KB which Woody’s article contained a link to ( https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3185911 ),
but, once there, I couldn’t find the actual download link (I’m sure one could, but I didn’t know where to look!),

so I followed Woody’s link to Dalai’s site, and I clicked on Dalai’s link to the Microsoft download page for the x64 version of KB3185911 for Windows 7.

I believe this is the direct link to the x64 version for Windows 7: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53712

This is the link to the x84 version for Windows 7: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53727

Reply | Quote

Readers may wish to look at these two articles. The first is on Dalai’s website, the second is linked to the Dalai article.

http://wu.krelay.de/en/info.htm

http://superuser.com/questions/890038/why-is-checking-windows-update-so-slow/935299#935299

While it appears to explain what the actual reasons are for the slow WU problems, I found it interesting about MS not releasing a second Service Pack for Win7 that would have made the searches less complex by searching a smaller list of updates.

Instead they released the “Service Pack that is not a Service Pack” = “Convenience Rollup.” I personally suspect that a true Service Pack AFTER the GWX plans were finalized but before any GWX stuff was released would have been counterproductive for future plans encouraging us to love Windows.

Oops, have to run, the tinfoil is digging into my ears.

Reply | Quote

I cannot install 3185911. All I get is WUSA running and saying “Looking for updates on this computer” and that’s it. How do I get out of this?

Reply | Quote

There is a process that if you follow, will eliminate all delays:

Open WU and change the setting to NEVER
Restart the computer
Type service in the text box that pops up when you click the start globe
Select Services
Find Windows update in the services list
Right-click on it and choose Stop
NOW, install the magic patch of the month.
Restart
Now start WU

CT

Reply | Quote

Follow the instructions in the article to turn off updating while you install the patch.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3105605/microsoft-windows/2-easy-steps-to-speed-up-windows-7-update-scans.html

Reply | Quote

I’ve often wondered if there’s a market for real, certified, Windows-blocking tinfoil hats….

Reply | Quote

Easy way to get the download link is to go through the RSS feed, per the article.

Reply | Quote

People love to try out what’s shiny and new.

Even if it bites.

Reply | Quote

@sam,

Some people like to wait for Woody’s “okay” a few weeks after the patches are released, before they install anything on their computers. Other people like to install the patches when they first become available, or only a couple of days after they become available. Some readers of this blog work in the IT area as a profession, and need to experiment with the patches as soon as they are released, to keep up with their industry knowledge.

Microsoft actually intends for its customers to install the patches as soon as they are released, but it usually is a smart move for most people to wait a couple of weeks, and let other customers be the “guinea pigs” and discover if there are any problems with the new patches! Other times, a patch is so crucial for everyone’s computer safety that they tell everyone to install it pretty quickly, but that doesn’t happen too often.

Woody has a range of different constituents on his blog, so it can be confusing to read the questions and answers going back and forth between him and his fellow industry experts, between him and the keen hobbyist folk who like to try new things as soon as possible, between him and the people who eschew risk and experimentation with their computers and just want to know the simplest, safest route to take, etc.

If you are in the “give me the safest route” category, you should wait for Woody to write a separate blogpost saying that it’s okay for everyone to install the updates and to do it in such-and-such a way. That normally happens in the the first week of a calendar month.

Before then, all other talk here about patching the newest releases is for people who are in the other categories, and you can ignore it.

However, those people are not trying to, as you say, “look for problems and [confuse] the issue”! They have valid, legitimate reasons to patch their computers in a timely manner.

Reply | Quote

It seems like every-other entry I post on InfoWorld is about a bad patch.

Reply | Quote

Ditto for me Seff. The updates show up okay on the list, but when I click the Install button, nothing much happens for about 35 to 40 minutes. Then it starts to download and install. I also get that 25% processor usage, but it goes away after awhile. I hope this new patch works!

Being 20 something in the 70's was so much better than being 70 something in the insane 20's

Reply | Quote

It appears to me that MSE is negatively affected when WU is running, at least when the “speed-up” patches are not current. Since I turned off WU (on my Win7 x64 machines), MSE has updated itself regularly. Previously, when WU was running, MSE frequently failed to update — it didn’t throw off an error message, but I could see that it was going for days without updating. Sometimes a manual update would work, and sometimes it wouldn’t. (Once the “speed-up” patch was installed, MSE appeared to operate normally even when WU was running.)

So, this is one further advantage of turning off WU. The first advantage is that there’s absolutely no point in having your computer check for updates that you have no intention of installing before Woody gives the OK.

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks: Thank you so much for the information on the procedure you utilized to get the “Magic Patch”! Congratulations!

I’m so happy that you were successful, and that (hopefully) we will never again be forced to endure any more of “this”.

Thank you once again for sharing the information!

Reply | Quote

@Woody: Thank you for the information you provided as well. I’m not sure if I know what the RSS feed is, however if it’s in the article, I’ll find it. I don’t know how you manage to keep up with everything. You do a fantastic job, which is much appreciated by all.

Reply | Quote

I use ighome.com for RSS feeds. It’s an old technology, but it works quite well.

Reply | Quote

Thanks, I figured it out eventually. So now I have a download list (10 updates), which took only a few minutes. But so far no downloads. But it is no hurry. It is Defon 2! But it is amazing that we have go through all this just to get updates.

Reply | Quote

Thank you @poohsticks and Woody, I noticed later, after posting.

Reply | Quote

Hey, Woody, I was wondering… what’s the reasoning for turning off WU when manually installing a downloaded update? Are there issues that crop up when you don’t?

Reply | Quote

@Walker,

We may soon not have to endure any more of “this”,
but rumor has it that Microsoft has a whole bunch of “that” which it’s sending our way in October!

Reply | Quote

You are covering at least 3 in-date operating systems now (and are possibly keeping track of one or two out-of-date ones, Vista and such), each with their own sets of patches and issues.

Windows 10 patching seems to have caused a lot more problems than MS had planned on, and possibly than you had planned on (?)

Windows 7 and 8 patching probably was expected to be relatively calm and routine by this point in their life cycles (?), yet it’s been tumultuous for the past 12-18 months, and will shortly undergo a huge shift in procedures, parameters, promises.

It was probably projected that use of Win 7 and 8 would be much decreased by this point, with a majority on Win 10. But huge numbers of computers are still on 7.

It is amazing that you can keep track of it all, be a few steps ahead so that you can guide us regular folks through the thicket, and stay on top of everything else you are involved in, as well. !

—
(Not to mention that your wife is using Apple, your son is developing apps for Android and other phone operating systems, you personally have some Chrome equipment, etc. — just owning these devices and keeping them working well and updated takes a lot of attention and effort.)

Reply | Quote

I prefer the whole tinfoil suit, in these uncertain times.

—
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-statue-street-performer-sits-totally-still-as-if-floating-in-mid-air-50721960.html

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-england-london-covent-garden-human-statue-89047116.html

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-living-statue-having-a-break-and-checking-messages-on-her-smartphone-115405621.html

Reply | Quote

Thanks Woody. But the *magic patch* doesn’t work for me. I was able to install it, quickly, but after a restart, other updates won’t install. I run w7 pro. Maybe the servors are pretty busy? Every month is a pain. But apparently, since 2 months, no w10 updates related! Maybe it will hit us by surprise.

Thanks Bill C. Very interesting link. Unfortunately, I have to deal with w7 a bit more, until my laptop dies LOL

On another note, w10 anniversary still not install on a w10 gamer pc. I tried, 2 months ago, it failed, twice. But the version 1511 is having updates, so I cross my fingers, for now, nothing to report. I suppose MS is working on it. I kept the automatic update ON. Maybe risky. Anyway, if everything crash, I have a backup.

Nice week guys.

Reply | Quote

It’s… interesting….

Reply | Quote

The manually installed patch, for reasons unknown, tries to look at all available patches. Takes a whole lot of time, and it’s totally unnecessary.

Reply | Quote

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info

Reply | Quote

@Thérèse,

Did you try the KB3185911 magic patch, or Canadian Tech’s magic patch of KB3172605?

Did you install the magic patch manually from the Microsoft download catalog, or through Windows Update?

If you tried KB3185911, before installing it, did you check to see if your computer had all 5 prerequisite patches that Woody recommends installing before trying KB3185911? (More info is here, in “step 1”: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3105605/microsoft-windows/2-easy-steps-to-speed-up-windows-7-update-scans.html )

When you say that the other updates would not install afterwards, what exactly happened — in Windows Update, could you see the other updates and select them, but then you got an error message when trying to install them?

Reply | Quote

Just to explain what in the world I was talking about here, I meant to put this as a jokey reply under Woody’s prior comment of “I’ve often wondered if there’s a market for real, certified, Windows-blocking tinfoil hats….” but I didn’t pick the right “leave a reply” box and this showed up in the main thread.

Reply | Quote

@ Bill C. Thanks a bunch for the link to thread on SuperUser. It explains in detail what the bottlenecks are in the Windows Update mechanism.

Reply | Quote

How, the hell, to install this magic patch, if Windows reaction on it is the same: endless “Searching for updates on this computer…” (well, “this computer” is the only difference)?

Reply | Quote

KB3185911 is a Security Update for “Windows Kernel-Mode Drivers Win32k.sys” + “Windows Graphics Component User32.dll”

Reply | Quote

Well, as being one of the firsts who experienced the long search bug, i can confirm that’s it arrived around May 2015, where first GWX is released
i’m convinced the issue is not deliberate, but MS did not put actual effort in tracking and fixing the cause
they might as well intended to delay the permanent fix until the end of GWX offer

Reply | Quote

The huge number of updates is the not the cause of the long seach issue
otherwise, a “Graphics” fix like win32k.sys wouldn’t solve it (temporary)

Reply | Quote

Not quite directly related to this blog post, but still something to be aware for those resetting the windows Update cached database. Just mentioning that it is another Windows Update annoyance, not a catastrophic event, which I am going to describe below.
After resetting the C:WindowsSoftwareDistribution folder, which is a common repair procedure for windows Update, few initial synchronisations may fail. This is documented to happen with an internal WSUS server either standalone or as part of System Center Configuration Manager, but I suspect that it may happen while scanning against the regular Windows Update online.
There seems to be a hardcoded limit of 200 so called number of trips to the update server, which if exceeded, the svchost.exe scanning exits but it restarts from where it left in the process of rebuilding the SoftwareDistribution database which is under C:WindowsSoftwareDistributionDataStore, the .ebd file and the associated transaction log and the other files there.

There are details here
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/sus/2008/09/18/wsus-clients-fail-with-warning-syncserverupdatesinternal-failed-0x80244010/

What is quite hard to understand is this phrase at the end of the Technet blog:
“As for a long term fix. We are currently looking at all the available options and hope to have a more permanent fix somewhere down the road. I will try and post more information back to this blog when that information becomes available.”

The blog is from 2008 and I am experiencing this issue right now, in August 2016 with fully patched Windows 7 and fully patched Windows 2012 R2 server as WSUS.

I believe that in my case it is related to importing few drivers from the Microsoft Update Catalog in WSUS (yes, I do a lot of unusual things, which most people don’t even know that such things exist ) which may exceed a certain self-imposed Microsoft limitation in the file length, but what I am doing now is fully supported and “should” work.

The other thing mentioned in the article is about a Group Policy setting the interval of the scans. The default scanning duration when set on Auto is around 22 hours randomised within -20%. By configuring the Group Policy, the interval can be set between 1 hour and 22 hours, again with a randomisation of -20%.
This Group Policy is perfectly functional in Windows 7, Windows 2012 R2 and any other edition supported, but it is not working in Windows 10. Another bug to chase for you Woody! I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere else, but it is real. I believe that it may be fixed by modifying a certain Scheduled Task which now triggers the Windows update service in Windows 10, but this should work out of the box, being set via Group Policy.

Reply | Quote

It think Windows Vista/7/2008/2008R2 patching with all their known or less known issues are very much under control now … at least in relation to Microsoft products expectations. They are certainly significantly better than Windows XP and 2003 have ever been.
Windows 10 is likely to be a big headache for the company which cannot afford one more failure in this market after the Windows 8 fiasco and even Windows 8.1.
Time will tell and I hope Windows 10 will be eventually a success, which is still possible, but the odds are not there.
Windows Server 2016 is due to be released in few days…

Reply | Quote

That describes my experience with MSE very well. During the part of the month when WU is operational but I haven’t yet installed the updates scheduled scans with MSE are run with out-of-date definitions unless I manually install them first. One way to do so is manually from here:

https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/definitions/adl.aspx#manual

The other way that sometimes works is to run the MSE updater and when it sticks with the green progress bar reaching just about the end of the word “minimise” I use Task Manager to close MSE, then run it again from the start menu, hit the updater again and it immediately installs the new definitions (indicating that they had already been downloaded, just not installed).

I agree that setting WU to “Never” until I’m ready to install the updates would be another way of resolving the problem.

Reply | Quote

Quite possible – in which case we should see it as part of the October makeover…

Reply | Quote

You need to stop the update service. See the instructions for Step 1d (or 2d) here:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3105605/microsoft-windows/2-easy-steps-to-speed-up-windows-7-update-scans.html

Reply | Quote

Thanks. I’m not worried unduly about the slow update scan, it takes as long as it takes and I can carry on as normal meanwhile. The dilemma with your suggestion is in deciding when to install the magic patch – as soon as it is offered so as to eliminate the slow scan problem or later when Woody and others report that it is safe to install. At the moment both Woody and Susan Bradley, for example, are recommending holding fire on this particular update.

Reply | Quote

Thanks, it is presented in some places here as “ch100 method” but it is just an adaptation of Dalai’s web site method and we had constructive exchange of emails about it a while ago. Here is Dalai’s web site
http://wu.krelay.de/en/
Based on more recent evidence and feedback from @PKCano and more technical information provided by @abbodi86, who understands Windows at a level that for some of us is only a dream, it makes good sense to try KB3172605 instead of KB3138612.
This is generally presented as Canadian Tech’s method and I encourage you to use it instead of what I used to promote. My previous recommendations (KB3020369
and KB3138612) still works well, but has some limitations.
Things are changing at fast pace…

Reply | Quote

… and I couldn’t see the posts well enough to stick it in the right place. The WordPress comment reviewing system is pretty good, but it has problems locating comments within chains.

Reply | Quote

@abbodi86 I think the number of updates and the supersedence is related to long search issue. The graphics patch supersedes a lot of older patches and as such takes them out of the picture. However, there may be combined effects of what you replied to me not long ago and the number of patches at the same time.
I can reproduce short time scans on WSUS by manipulating the supersedence or the number of patches approved and/or declined.

Reply | Quote

You have to download the patch and install manually and not install from Windows Update. That would defeat the purpose, right?

Reply | Quote

More recent info here http://trentent.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/wsus-clients-fail-with-warning-exceeded.html

Sometimes I am wondering if we should totally ignore Windows Update, at least until there is definite information that it was fixed.
Set the WU to Never check for updates and find out the hard way how dangerous it is, or how dangerous is not.
Microsoft is not making it hard on purpose, this is obvious to those who understand the technical details, but they are certainly on the wrong path of fixing the ongoing issues.

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks: I agree with you 100%, however try not to think about it. We, the users, have just about had it, and are dreading “what could possibly be next”. It’s wonderful knowing there are so many who are as knowledgeable as you are, and share it with those of us who feel so helpless. Thank you so much!!!

Reply | Quote

Beautifully said, poohsticks! Like that….!!!!
then of course there are ‘these’ and ‘those’ LT

Reply | Quote

… and the pace is about to accelerate. Oh boy.

Reply | Quote

Is GNUCash still around? That software used to set the standard with double-entry accounting.

Reply | Quote

Woody, I really appreciate your publishing the “magic patch” tips, plus the one about how to download patches using a non-Microsoft browser.

I have three computers – two with Windows 7, and one with Windows 8.1. Two of them updated fast, without my having to do any tricks. But one of them wouldn’t update.

I downloaded and installed the magic patch, and then updating went quickly on that computer!

Now that all three computers are up-to-date on security patches, it will be the monthly security roll up (and nothing more) for me from now on.

Reply | Quote

Thanks, is ok now!

Reply | Quote

“This mess started around August 2014. Nothing to do with Windows 10 Upgrade. The upgrade push brought up new issues which are now part of the past.”

-ch100

Fair enough. But, the more cynical amongst us might consider that to be a ‘practice run’ by MS – testing the system, so to speak.

After all, it probably takes quite a bit of work to make every MS update server in the entire world slow in regards to Windows Update for Windows 7 (and now 8.1, so it seems).

The same thing happened to Windows XP during the last year or two before MS stopped supporting it completely.

Whether it is true or not, it’s hard to tell (and, I’m sure MS planned it that way). But, considering MS’s behaviour regarding trying to push W10 onto everyone whether they wanted it or not, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Reply | Quote

Once again, a prime example of M$ being lazy… Just how hard is it to fix Windows Update permanently?

It’s always patch after patch after patch… News Flash M$ your Windows Update patches are only good for a month, YET the problem keeps happening, not to mention, your updates aren’t exactly light in the long run, which in the case of the Windows Update patches every month, ADD UP FAST space-wise.

TL;DR
M$ should really just quit being freaking lazy and just fix Windows Update instead of the monthly patch that is only good for one month, which repeats over & over again.

Reply | Quote

There’s an alternative, though – if you join Group A and install all of the optional updates, the scan for Win7 updates goes quickly.

Reply | Quote

@Woody,

Am I correct in thinking that the “magic patches” we have been referring to for the last few months are not something that Microsoft is deliberately creating to be some kind of separate “fix” of Windows Updates, but it is simply one of the handful of optional patches that Microsoft is putting out each month —
and Microsoft does not intend for or instruct normal computer owners to be downloading that one patch *manually* each month before they run Windows Update, it’s just a “trick” that some clever people have discovered which makes Windows Update for that month run much quicker than it would.

If a person installed all the “optional” patches each month, he/she would have the “magic patch” installed as a matter of course, without having to go get it manually.

When people here express upset with Microsoft for causing us to have to do the magic patch runaround each month (in recent months, at least), they may not realize that Microsoft is really just wanting us to install all the optional patches every month (to already be in the compliant “Group A”, as Microsoft has always historically recommended that people be in), and Microsoft hasn’t specifically created the “magic patch” routine as a recommended way to go, it’s just a temporary way that some computer folks have figured out will allow people who don’t want to accept all the “optional” patches to only accept ONE “optional” patch (the “magic” patch), and still benefit from the speeded-up Windows Update process which Microsoft intends for everyone who is “compliant” to have.

In the future, after this month, when the Rollups will contain entire chunks of patches and we will not be able to get an “optional” patch (such as the “magic patch”) separately — because there will no longer be a category called “optional” patches — then we will all be at the whim of Microsoft as to how long Windows Update takes to connect to their servers and to examine our computers for the new Rollups (and separate patches of other types that will not be in the Rollups, like Office, I.E., and drivers) that are available and recommended for our computers.

Is my reading of the situation correct?

Reply | Quote

@Walker,

You are very kind, but I am not very knowledgeable about computers! I just try to share with others who are in “our boat” the things that I am learning along the way that are helping me.

It is nice to know, through the discussion forum here, that there are others out there who are going through the same thing.

Don’t dread what will happen next with Windows Update, we are all going to be okay (one way or the other)!

Reply | Quote

@Woody: I successfully downloaded & installed KB3185911. I did not need to search for updates as I already had 6 regular updates & the 1 optional in my lists (Check, but let me choose whether to downdoad & install).

Running Win 7 Home Premium. Had no problems DL & installing the KB3185911 using the information from my first experience with another “Magic Patch”.

There are only 2 updates which I think have always been considered “SAFE”, the Definition Updates and the Win Malicious Software Removal Tool. I only wish to verify that they continue to be considered safe to install.

Thank you and the many others who so freely provide help and guidance.

Reply | Quote

Definition updates and the MSRT are always, always safe.

Reply | Quote

Yep. The magic patches are just the result of Microsoft releasing updated versions of a system file.

You can speed up your Win7 update search by installing all of the optional updates.

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody, some of us are hoping that what were ‘optional updates’ (drivers, primarily) remain optional even if we’re resigned to accepting all of what are now called ‘recommended’ updates.

Running WU on the 14th was a mixed bag for me. Two of my win7 machines saw the new batch of updates in less than 5 minutes. I rebooted the third machine after WU had been grinding away on it for over 12 hours.

That third machine has WU set to ‘give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates’ and ALL check-marked updates had been installed. Installing this month’s ‘magic patch’ kb3185911 was no help.

The fix was to install kb3172605, which (although it’s not documented) installs a new update agent. WU now returns in less than 5 minutes. Properties for c:windowssystem32wuaueng.dll show a version of 7.6.7601.23453 dated 5/13/2016.

Of course, my Intel bluetooth is probably now hosed, but I’m not using it anyway.

I had made a system image backup of the machine in question on the 13th, so I attached the vhd from that backup on another win7 machine and took a look at the (non-working) wuaueng.dll properties, which show a version of 7.6.7601.19161 dated 2/12/2016.

The kb3172605 update must not have been check-marked before, or it would’ve been installed. But I’m too lazy to restore the image to verify that, given that WU is now working, and I don’t know a way to check it in the vhd.

I don’t know which perplexes me more, the fact that kb3185911 didn’t work for me, or the fact that it *does* work for other people. I expanded it to take a look-see. The payload appears to be user32.dll which seems pretty far afield from WU. The patch also contains WSUSSCAN.cab which, AFAICT, is used by the WU machinery to ensure that all updates required by kb3185911 have been installed. My guess is that check somehow accidentally ‘heals’ WU for some people. Maybe some of the experts who lurk here can fill in the blanks.

Squirreling away a new WU agent in an otherwise unrelated patch like kb3172605 seems pretty sleazy to me. If a fixed WU agent is needed, then one should be released outright. Maybe that’s happened, but I’m darned if I could find it.

Reply | Quote

What patch should I install to speed up the Vista scans? 3185911 is a graphics patch; not the kernel patch I have installed in past months to speed up Vista. 3175024 is the kernel patch.

Reply | Quote

@Woody:

Thank you, for the verification!

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks @Lizzytish :

I agree with Lizzytish! Your encouragement, and the knowledge you share are “wonderful”.

After I read your posts I always feel “There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s NOT a train”. Thank you so much!!

Reply | Quote

poohsticks, thanks for your reply! Finally, I was not patient enough, it took some time, but updates finally installed. I will check I’ll for those updates needed to have the KB3185911 works perfectly. I hide many updates months ago, so it’s very possible I have not them all!

By the way, I installed KB3185911 via windows update. It makes a difference? I mean, once it’s installed?

Thanks again! Have all a nice week-end guys!

Reply | Quote

I’m not sure, but I’d try 3185911 first.

Reply | Quote

3185911 is both kernel-mode driver + graghics patch

Reply | Quote

It’s documented, but not very directly
KB3172605 article mention that it includes the improvements from June 2016 update roll up KB3161608
by looking into KB3161608 article, you would see the documentation for WU fix

Reply | Quote

The Win32k.sys patch was always an important security update
except this one which i think it’s the first one that introduced the magical fix for WU
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3095649

Reply | Quote

Wow, thanks for confirmation Woody!

Reply | Quote

@poohsticks
Let’s put it a bit different and add more detail to the conclusion.
The “magic” patch is generally a Security patch.
It was rarely an Optional patch as this was the case with the recent fix for Windows Update Client KB3172605, which has been re-released in a modified form and moved into Recommended (still a kind of Optional, depending on user’s preference for this category).
Even so, I still believe that KB3138612 which is in the Important category and as such mandatory like the Security updates is “good enough”, even if there are reports that the later Recommended one is superior.
So there is a still a chance that those being fully updated with only Important patches (which include all Security plus few others named also Critical Updates) to have a good scanning for updates experience.
The problem is that some of the Important (Critical) updates as well as some of the Security updates are superseded by Recommended updates and as such are made invisible in Windows Update.
Windows Update offers superseded updates only when the higher in the chain is hidden by the user and the next in the chain is offered.
The end result is that even if a user believes that he/she is fully patched with all Security and all Critical updates, it may not actually be the case, because some of them are masked by more recent Recommended updates.
This makes the installation of Recommended and Optional updates a requirement, to guarantee that the system has all the needed speed-up patches or their replacements installed.

Reply | Quote

What you say is that KB3095649 in October 2015 started breaking Windows Update if I understand well? This is because people who install only Security updates missed this one which is not a Security update and is part of the supersedence chain as the 7th from the top of the chain?
The most recent speed-up patches should have superseded this one already, so KB3095649 in theory should no longer cause slow scanning.

Reply | Quote

A bit old, but interesting nevertheless

GDR, QFE, LDR… WTH?

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mrsnrub/2009/05/14/gdr-qfe-ldr-wth/

Reply | Quote

Thank you for pointing that out abbodi86, you’re right of course, I didn’t get much past the ‘superseded’ notice in the kb3161608 article. It’s even more indirect than that though, since one has to follow yet another link to kb3161647.

My knowledge of windows is limited, but it’s my understanding that WU has a self-update feature. So why isn’t the fix which *could* be associated with kb3161647 (but isn’t) automatically downloaded and installed when I check for updates? Is there some technical reason?

Reply | Quote

No
i mean it’s the first one started curing it (temporary of course)
Windows Update broke by itself due GWX upgrade through WU

Reply | Quote

@ch100

“…even if a user believes that he/she is fully patched with all Security and all Critical updates, it may not actually be the case, because some of them are masked by more recent Recommended updates.”

How many patches of that description —
the currently-marked-as-Optional patches which specifically supercede prior Important/Security patches that have already been installed (by all of us who installed every single Important/Security patch from any date in history that appeared to us on our “Important” list last month —
would you say there are?

Is there a list of them?

What is their rationale for putting such important patches (which supercede Security and Critical patches and are necessary to have installed in order to have a well-running system) onto the secondary, optional list?

Reply | Quote

I have a problem with installing any of these make WU faster for the simple reason that since reinstalling Win 7 sp1 earlier this year (after it became totally corrupted with Microsoft’s attempt to upgrade me to Win 10) my WU has been running fine.
When I reinstalled I had a list of all the updates that had anything to do with Win 10 so had none of that on my machine.
After the reinstall I did have a slowdown of WU but after enquiring on Microsoft forum I was told to download a KB and since then there has been no problem with updates at all, although I no longer have the details of that KB.
I guess what I’m asking is, is it worthwhile my installing this magic patch?

Reply | Quote

@Thérèse,

Yes, it makes a difference if KB3185911 is installed manually before running Windows Update, or is installed via Windows Update, because when it’s installed manually from the Windows Update Catalog *before* Windows Update is run in September, then it makes the Windows Update checking speed go very quickly.

That might be why your Windows Update took so long to check with Microsoft’s servers. Now that you have KB3185911 installed, that is okay, you don’t need to worry about that patch any more.

—
However, what sounds unusual is that you said none of your other updates would install after you installed KB3185911.

Is this still the case? If it is, you should probably check on it and make sure everything with your Windows Update program is working okay before October’s Patch Tuesday, when Microsoft will unveil a different kind of updating system.

Reply | Quote

Thanks poohsticks! Finally, pfew, everything is fine now. I hope next months won’t be too complicated!

Thanks again. Nice week end all!

Reply | Quote

Thanks, abbodi86 amd woody!

Woody,

So right now I have my Windows Update set to never check (for the first time, I usually have it set to “Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them”). So would the plan be to wait until the all clear, then manually download and install KB3185911 from here:

https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS16-106

…and then change the setting back to “Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them” and click “check for updates” to find and install the last batch of individual security updates available (before the Oct. crap-batch stuff)?

Then set it back to “Never check for updates” as we move forward and see what’s what?

Also, when the time comes to manually download (in Firefox) and install KB3185911, can I do so with Windows Update still set to “never check for updates”?

Thanks!

Reply | Quote

I say “Never check for updates” until MS-DEFCON changes, then follow the instructions. The last instruction in the set will be to switch to “never check for updates”

Reply | Quote

@Woody:

What is your current recommendation for the “update setting”? I’ve seen “SET TO NEVER” a few times, and want to be sure that I’ve got mine set this way as well, IF this is the current recommendation.

Then when the MS-DEFCON changes, will we be given instructions on how to proceed?

*** Presently I have no problem with the current update speed because I did get the “Magic Patch” installed (KB3185911) as soon as you posted the Dalai link. No problems with that at all, and everything is “on hold” until the MS-DEFCON changes ***

Thank you once again.

Reply | Quote

Never is functionally equivalent to check but let me decide.

Reply | Quote

@Woody:

Thank you so much for the very prompt replies to this question and another one I posted. You provide so much help to all of us! I know that everyone else appreciates it as much as I do! Thank you once again!!

Reply | Quote

Dalai, explained the entire solution to my slow/never update windows update. Yes, kb3177725 had failed to install, so all that was necessary was to install the replacement kb3185911.msu version.

pete

Reply | Quote

I’m running Windows Vista x64, SP2. My Windows Update (checking for updates) has been working properly (I think) because it almost always lists some updates that need to be installed. Unfortunately, trying to install them takes forever; hours and sometimes days, to complete.

I read that KB3177725 could speed up the process, so I turned off Windows Update (Never check for updates), restarted my PC, downloaded and installed KB3177725, manually, from the Microsoft website. I restarted my PC after installation, turned Windows Update back on, and Windows Update has been checking for updates for TWO days now. KB3177725 is listed as “installed.”

I also read that KB3185911 replaces KB3177725.
So, will KB3185911 fix the “forever checking for updates” problem? Does KB3177725 need to be uninstalled before installing KB3185911, or can KB3185911 be installed on top of KB6177725?

Windows Update is AWFUL. Thanks for your help.

Reply | Quote

Yes, KB3185911 will fix the “forever checking for updates” problem
but only temporary until they release newer “kernel-mode driver patch – win32k.sys” next month(s)
you can install it on top of KB3177725

Reply | Quote

You can install KB3185911 on top of KB3177725 on your Vista SP2 if you want, Steve.

However, you’re better off upgrading your Vista computer to Win7 SP1 or better since Microsoft will end ALL support for Windows Vista SP2 on April 11, 2017 – they will NOT fix the “slow & long” Windows Update scan problem on Vista & Server 2008 systems anyway. Plus KB3185911 for Vista is only a “temporary” fix that will work from 9/13/2016 to 10/10/2016 and you will need to install a newer win32k.sys update when October 11 arrives.

On the other hand, I’m not having those slow/long WU scans anymore on my Win7 SP1 PCs as long as I have either KB3161608 or KB3172605 installed which updates the Windows Update Agent/Client app to version 7.6.7601.23453 that gets rid of the problem for good.

Reply | Quote

Thank you all very much. Your quick replies were very helpful.

Yes, I probably should upgrade to Win7, or buy a new laptop. A new laptop would be nice (since mine is from 2009), but I love my 17″ 16:10 aspect ratio screen… compared to today’s 16:9 laptops.

One question about migrating to Win7 from Vista.
I obtained a “Vista to Win7 Upgrade DVD” from HP a few years ago. Would I be better off using it to migrate to Win7, or buying a full Win7 Installation DVD (assuming I can find one) and doing a fresh install? Thanks again.

Reply | Quote