Testing Windows 7 SP2

Topic

New Reply

Good question from CA: Hi Woody, KB3123862 reappeared on one of my machines this afternoon (optional, unchecked). We need to be forever vigilant. http
[See the full post at: Testing Windows 7 SP2]

Reply | Quote

Replies

I’m trying to avoid all the snooping and Windows 10 related patches. Long question short: are we in the clear to install these “May roll-up patches” for W7 and W8.1?

Reply | Quote

Thanks, Woody! It will indeed be most interesting to learn just what’s included in “SP2” and the non-security roll-ups.

Reply | Quote

No. Absolutely not. I should post about that.

Reply | Quote

@Woody,

You can count me with the tinfoil hat crowd if you want to, but I don’t use the Chrome browser, a Chromebook, an Amazon Echo, or a Siri-enabled iPhone or iPad.

Telemetry is a nice euphemism for snooping and I opt-out of all telemetry wherever and whenever I find it.

Reply | Quote

I have hidden Windows 7 updates: KB3123862 and KB3139923. However, I’m not sure if I should install or hide KB3156417.

Hope you can provide some feedback.

Thanks.

Reply | Quote

Don’t install anything just yet.

Reply | Quote

That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take!

The folks who worry me are the ones who get upset about Windows snooping – and complain about it using a Chrome browser…

Reply | Quote

It would be interesting to compare KB3068708 vs KB3080149 too.

Reply | Quote

There is no list of patches installed by KB3125574 on a clean install or on a fully patched Windows 7 machine.
It shows only KB3125574 and the regular supersedence rules apply. From this point of view it is just a regular huge Rollup (Cumulative to use the Win 10 wording) Update and not so much a Service Pack.
Microsoft might shed some light on the issue in the days to come by publishing further information.

Reply | Quote

@Woody,

A Microsoft “choice” may be well be the “choice” of:
1. their way, or
2. the highway 😉 ,

but you probably mis-typed something in the blogpost when you were describing the two choices people have about the snooping patches:

“If the snooping patches get installed in their full glory,
then people need to make a choice:
Do they accept the snooping….
or do they accept the fact that they’re sending info to Microsoft and move on?”

Those two choices appear to be the same, to me!

Reply | Quote

@Woody, you wrote “…it’s important, to me, that people make an informed decision. That’s what I’m fighting for.”

I agree that it’s really important that customers are explicitly informed of the decisions they have, and what exactly they are giving permission for when buying a new piece of hardware or a new operating system or when merely clicking a button, ticking a box, or innocently accepting a product update.

Thank you, and please keep using your platforms to make this complicated issue clear to readers of your articles/posts.

With the current sleazy, gutter-level malware-esque scenario of X-ing out of an unbidden box being the equivalent of accepting an impending installation of Windows 10 (if I have understood it correctly), these issues need all the public discourse and consumer-rights championing that they can get.

Reply | Quote

The KB3123862 updates for Win7 SP1 have been revised in mid-May 2016, even though Microsoft KB article 3123862 has not been revised as of 2/11/2016. The revised KB3123862 patches are slightly smaller than the originally released ones back in early February 2016.

So I uninstalled the old KB3123862 patches off my Win7 machines and have installed the newly revised ones.

Reply | Quote

You understood correctly. In its currently-described state, “X”ing out of the upgrade warning results in the Win10 installation starting at some point.

What we still don’t know is if the EULA warning (which Win10 users need to click) will give sufficient warning that folks who agree to the EULA are, in fact, installing Win10.

Reply | Quote

True!

Reply | Quote

Oh, when you said, “move on”, I guess you meant that they will move on from Microsoft to using a different organization’s products?

I thought you were saying that people should “accept the fact that they’re sending info to Microsoft” and, despite this, they should “move on” _towards_ accepting the new Microsoft Windows 10 operating system!

Reply | Quote

Both are valid interpretations. It’s important for people to understand the implications of moving on – no matter where they’re moving. If they’re moving from Win7 to a Chromebook because it’s easier, more robust, and much less of a headache, that’s great. If they’re moving to a Chromebook because of privacy concerns, that’s folly. And if they move to Mac OS and use the Chrome browser, they’re right back where they started.

Don’t forget, I use Win10 all day, every day, and have for more than a year. It’s still my turn-to workhorse, in spite of all the problems. And I’m writing yet another book about it.

Reply | Quote

This comment (from a user named Joan McNiff) to Gregg Keizer’s Computerworld article you referenced yesterday seems to indicate that the EULA acceptance screen doesn’t pop up until AFTER Win10 has been installed:

“Woke up this morning w full screen announcement that Windows 10 had been installed. No options, no other way to get into Windows. Clicked Next and then declined boilerplate legal agreement. Was told I’d have to be returned to old program and would take awhile. It did but I’m now back to my comfort level, for now.”

Just a sample of one, but it sounds entirely like something Malwaresoft would pull these days. We need many more reports to be sure however.

Reply | Quote

KB3125574 = Giant “convenience” rollup, most updates since SP1

KB3156417 = Small bundle (rollup) of NON-security updates for May of 2016

KB3125574 will never show up in windows update (I don’t think microsoft could calculate the supersedence and diff for this via the current windows update)

KB3156417 just showed up and is poorly documented.

I think there may be some confusion distinguishing these two.

Reply | Quote

I do worry about what choice(s) I will have to move on to,
when the time comes that I must move on.

– I don’t want to go to Windows 10 (even if it sounded like an attractive operating system to me, which it doesn’t) because I don’t trust or like MS now. I feel that they have not displayed integrity, openness, honesty, fairness, value-for-money; not honored customers’ privacy, choices, expectations; not honored their own promises, have sunk to desperate measures and doublespeak, etc.)
– I have never used Apple products. And I guess they are expensive. I just don’t want to invest a lot of time in a new learning curve and replicating everything in a different system. I don’t care about their hipness factor (in fact I’d rather not be associated with it, chuckle). I don’t exactly feel reverential regarding the mythology surrounding their original big cheese. And so forth.
– My small experience with Linux, which went better than expected and left me with much admiration for the version that I used, showed me that it’s not something I would want to use/be capable of using as my full-time operating system. Again, it’s a steep learning curve, in a subject that I have no inherent interest in, beyond using it as a tool (like I don’t need to know how to build my own car engine or change the sparkbelt on the rear axle’s bailiwick, I just need the key, a tank of gas, and working headlights!)
– I guess there’s Google Chrome – which I don’t know very much about, except that I don’t like or trust Google. “Don’t be evil” my foot. I also don’t care about their version of the coolness factor and the whole supposed Silicon Valley mystique; bore off, I say.
🙂

I guess there is no way that a privacy-honoring, easy-to-use, easy-to-migrate-to, powerful, reliable, affordable alternative to Windows 7 will emerge in the next couple of years. 🙁

Maybe Microsoft will be forced, by customer demand/market forces and a sudden attack of decency and proportion, to provide to the hundreds of thousands of folks who don’t want to submit to Win 10,
a stripped-down, private, non-telemetric (if that’s a word), barebones, decent, evolved from Windows 7, not-genetically-modified, no-artificial colors, organic, free-range, handsewn operating system.
They could call it “Windows Nein” to honor our unbreakable spirit of resistance (our saying “no”). 😉

(To anyone who is still reading — and may I apologize at this juncture for the length — who doesn’t know what I am joking about, the word “nein” means “no” in German, and I’ve read that Microsoft jumped from “Windows 8” to “Windows 10”, bypassing the name “Windows 9”, because “Nine” sounds like “nein” — but I have no idea if that was the actual reason they never had a Win 9.
I would proudly be a user of a new Windows Nein OS, for the discerning outlier who quaintly values privacy. 🙂 )

Reply | Quote

Woody says: What surprised me is that SP2 does NOT install KB3035583. It does NOT install the GWX subsystem.

KB3035583 is a temporary update and as I said many times before, it is not offered to managed business users, unless they go to Windows Update and then they are no longer managed. It is not offered in any instance to Enterprise version (managed or non-managed) which is not to be confused with what I said before about “managed business users”, as those users can run either Enterprise or Pro, both editions being supported in business, only recommended in different scenarios.
It is likely that this patch will go away when the free upgrade promotion ends, either on July 29 or at a different date to be decided by Microsoft.
In such conditions, it appears as normal to me that this temporary update was not included in what is supposed to be a lasting rollup update, until the end of life of the product.

Reply | Quote

From: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2016/05/17/simplifying-updates-for-windows-7-and-8-1/#comment-2285

David del Campo
May 18, 2016 at 2:21 am

Does this rollout update include all the Windows 10 nagware? Because if it does it is of no use.

David
Reply

Michael Niehaus
May 18, 2016 at 8:44 am

No, the convenience rollup does not contain the “Get Windows 10″ updates. (Those updates are primarily for end users; this convenience rollup is intended for IT pros in organizations that want to create Windows 7 images faster.)
Reply

Reply | Quote

Everything I’ve seen says that’s correct.

Reply | Quote

Interesting note. Yeah, it sounds like we’re getting the old ex post facto EULA. I wonder what the screen looks like?

Reply | Quote

Unless you absolutely have to have some Windows program, get an iPad and don’t worry about it. Actually, the longer you can wait the better. But that’s always been true.

Reply | Quote

KB3080149 does say that the new version “Reduces the network connections on a Windows system that doesn’t participate in the Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP).”

Reply | Quote

Woody, please forgive me for following up again. But all these replies are confusing. I just need to know how ‘safe’ it is to install KB3156417 for my Windows 7 Dell PC. I believe it’s an ‘optional’ update.

Reply | Quote

I installed the Windows 7 Rollup KB3125574 on a 64 bit Home Edition. Install and subsequent restart all went smoothly. I then set out to see what happens. I was casually browsing using Chrome and after a few web pages got a BSOD crash which I haven’t seen in ages. I did not capture error codes or anything (sorry) since late at night and restored back to a system image taken right before the install. Not sure if something unique to my system or if another reboot would have resolved something, but it did put a scare in me. May be meaningless unless others run into the same thing. I am just tired of spending enormous amounts of time on Windows Update.

Reply | Quote

You may well wish to switch off the Internet and all devices including TVs and fridges as they are all computers anyway.
I enjoyed reading your Windows “Nein” speculation, I haven’t heard it before, but it may well be the case. Thanks 🙂

Reply | Quote

So I had an HP tower that needed Win 7 Pro completely reinstalled (don’t ask…) and after the install decided to try the “SP2” which seemed to work as advertised and updated relatively quickly. But after, Windows found 50 more “important” updates and 34 others (the Win 10 nags NOT listed). I thought SP2 took just about everything up to April – surely 84 updates were not issued in May. no?

Reply | Quote

Bob, I imported KB3125574 in WSUS from the Catalog, which is a supported operation, but rarely used and mostly used for drivers by some admins.
The supersedence for KB3125574 is calculated like for any other update. I think one single update was missed from metadata which is KB2823180, but it is too early to confirm it either way. The reason I say this is that after installing KB3125574 on a fully patched Windows 7 64-bit system including May 2016 updates, I uninstalled it and KB2823180 showed as needed following the uninstallation. Even if this is a bug, it is not critical. I believe that the older patch mentioned is overwritten during installation and the dll files replaced with newer ones. When KB3125574 is uninstalled, the newer files are removed while the old ones are not brought back as they were not tracked as being superseded (this is the possible bug if my findings are correct). Functionally would not make much difference, except that the old patch needs to be reinstalled.
Otherwise, the supersedence list is huge and I don’t find missing a single patch from the list as being a major issue, especially that it can be easily corrected following a re-release in place under the same KB number.
I think Microsoft has publishing the big update on Windows Update (and WSUS) on hold until they will filter out all obvious bugs, which may take a while. This is somehow what was noticed with different versions of .NET Framework 4.x and the timing of publishing them on Windows Update.
Until KB3125574 is published on Windows Update and becomes official, I think it can be considered as not recommended for regular end-users as it requires further testing internally at Microsoft.

Reply | Quote

Thanks Annemarie.
Your post confirms very much what I said while it provides an authoritative source.

Reply | Quote

Windows 7.5 -major version # 11 (2018)
microsoft takes over Google and Apple (2019)
microsoft buys spacex and takes over most of the “free” world by “accident” (2022)
…
microsoft gets the transporting nuclear warheads to space for “peaceful” “reasons” contract (2028)
…
Part of their space engine OS fails causing detonations when pressing abort (the big red X) ending life as we know it (2029)

Reply | Quote

The article and the update can be revised independently without any changes to the other.

If you _want_ that update for some reason, no harm in installing the latest revsion over your current one.

Bear in mind the download size may be a diff vs what you already have.

Reply | Quote

Can the junkware (list for 7 below) be removed without uninstalling the big update?

KB3123862
KB3146449
KB3022345
KB3068708
KB3080149
KB3075249
KB3090045
KB3150513
KB2952664
KB3021917
KB2977759
KB3081954

Reply | Quote

I believe so.

Reply | Quote

No, but you may be seeing .NET updates and IE updates, neither of which are included in the “SP2” package.

Reply | Quote

We’re on MS-DEFCON 2: No need to install anything right now.

No need to install any optional updates.

No need to install any non-security updates.

That has you covered on three fronts. 🙂

Reply | Quote

Anyone tested this yet? I don’t really have a computer to flatten and reinstall just to see if it is slightly less annoying.

Install 7_SP1x64 + giant update – junk + still slow to check for updates because we are not fully updated…. then fully updated.

(just fix windows update microsoft)

Reply | Quote

I don’t think it will ever be published on windows update.

But think about this…

If this giant patch full of updates you need can determine what you need and what is superseded in a timely manor, why can’t windows update?

Reply | Quote

Maybe take a look at the dump file with WinDbg (you will need to set up debugging symbols)

Was this a clean install or were you just using it to get mostly up to date?

If it was a clean install be sure of the drivers you installed and that you got everything you needed from your OEM. Also that automatic driver updates via windows update is off “change device installation settings”. The last thing any of us need is microsoft replacing random OEM drivers with retail drivers with no notice or logging whenever it feels like it (microsoft recommends it).

Reply | Quote

Just want to add my 0.02c.

Someone managed to extract the whole list of hotfixes included in the big “SP2” Release:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/windows7-8-updates-to-hide-to-prevent-windows-10-upgrade-disable-telemetry.780476/page-84#post-10258627

– GWX not included
– Telemetry updates are however included
– hotfixes contained in the “SP2” release cannot be uninstalled separately.

This is actually not very encouraging. Microsoft does another half-arsed release in which we either choose to not get their update, or get it with undesirable hotfixes included.

The same applies to monthly update rollups. Being all bundled into one, they already have the floodgates open to shove in the GWX into one of them in June or July and tell us that either we get our performance and bug-fixes AND the Nagware, or nothing.

Sad day 🙁

Reply | Quote

Maybe covered already, however, for someone who has updated regularly and is current, what good is the Windows 7 32-bit KB3125574 Rollup (SP2)?

I would have thought that I have all the needed updates-patches already. Does KB3125574 remove these and re-installs updated versions of same?

With KB3125574, do I regain or lose hard drive space? Thanks.

PS: the only silly questions are the ones never asked, so, I decided to raise these pretty basic issues.

Reply | Quote

More testing and findings. After installing KB3125574 on an upatched system with Windows 7 64-bit, updates which in WSUS show as superseded and not needed, show as needed while scanning on the Microsoft site. Among them, KB2574819, KB2592687, KB2830477 which show as superseded in WSUS and not needed, but available on Windows Update.
There are tons of other Recommended Updates which show as superseded in one place (WSUS) but needed in Windows Update.
I think the patch as is is reliable, however there is more work to be done at Microsoft to fix the superesedence correctly which I think is just a matter of updating the metadata describing the update.

Reply | Quote

Yes, I have noticed similar behaviour. The numbers observed by me are different, but still large, something like 29 Important and 29 Optional (including Recommended). As Woody noticed, the .NET Framework updates and IE11 upgrade are not included. However there are few more updates in addition to those 2 mentioned before which are not included or the supersedence, which relates to interdependencies between patches, is not correctly implemented.
WSUS instead shows something different, with less updates available, as many of those presented by Windows Update are shown as superseded in WSUS.
I think there will be updates and re-releases to fix the supersedence issues and this may explain why this big and potentially extremely useful CU is not in Windows Update yet.

Reply | Quote

So you’re saying that, after installing the “SP2” rollup, your Win7 machine shows KB2574819, KB2592687 and KB2830477 in Windows Update (presumably Optional, not checked?) while the WSUS server says all three are superseded?

This is important. I should write about this in InfoWorld. Unfortunately, I’m headed out of town for two days. Can you shoot me mail?

Reply | Quote

I have seen supersedence not correctly implemented in the similar patch KB3000850 for Windows 8.1 and 2012 R2 and it took months to be corrected by Microsoft. However like the current patch, that patch for Windows 8.1 and 2012 R2 was working correctly after being installed, only that some of the previous patches were not recognised as superseded and allowed installation. Probably only a cosmetic issue, but it should be fixed nevertheless.

Reply | Quote

I’m not sure why MS didn’t include this in WU, but I have a feeling it has more to do with politics than anything else. MS doesn’t want it to appear to be an SP, because that would force them to extend the supported life for Win7.

Reply | Quote

OK, will do with snapshots. I will be away for one day too, but should be able to reproduce the issue on a new test machine.

Reply | Quote

Absolutely not a silly question!

The rollup/SP2 is not at all useful if you’re reasonably well caught up on patches. If you ever have to re-install Win7, though, it’ll be a godsend.

I don’t think the rollup uses any additional hard drive space – it seems to just be a collection of patches, with little or no overhead.

Reply | Quote

Thank you!

I looked over the link. Is there a succinct list in there (almost 90 pages long!) of exactly which KBs are included in the SP2 rollup?

I appreciate all the work the folks there have done, listing patches that they don’t like. But I could really use a simple list of the ones in the rollup.

Reply | Quote

I think they are not convinced this is ready for prime time and still do internal testing and check for feedback from users.
It is not included in WSUS either, I imported it from the Catalog which is supported in the GUI for WSUS and not a hack.
.NET Framework 4.5.2 and 4.6.1 were delayed a lot from Windows Update and 4.6 was missed completely.

Reply | Quote

Thanks, great find!

Reply | Quote

Thanks!

Screenshots are good, but copied lists are easier for me to put into a blog post.

Reply | Quote

My suggestion based on testing after the release is to put this update on hold until it gets a bit more stable and more information. It is not fully official as it is not on Windows Update. If it will ever be on Windows Update, you should install it to have a consistent baseline, after a grace period obviously and Woody’s recommendations are a very good reference for the timing of any installation from Windows Update.
I cannot tell you if it increases the space in use or not for a good reason. I am not so much limited in space for my testing that few GB would matter and as such I just don’t pay attention to this aspect. But I would think that if this is critical for you, there are good chances that the space used will increase regardless if you are patched or not. This is because the patch as a whole will be downloaded and will stay side by side with all the installed patches. At least this is how I understand it, but this may not be correct and the actual behaviour may be different. You would certainly not regain space only by installing the new update, but it may be useful to run Disk Cleanup after the installation.

Reply | Quote

The patch does the check in metadata, does not calculate anything, it is all hard-coded.
svchost.exe on the other hand does the calculations and keeps looping in memory.
If the old superseded updates are declined in WSUS, which means that they are taken out of the picture, then svchost.exe performs its routing quickly as it should be.
If Microsoft would do the same at their end, then the result would be the same. However Microsoft cannot effectively remove all superseded patches because they serve a very large community with different requirements, including keeping old patches while ignoring new. However Microsoft does maintenance up to date for products like Anti-malware (Defender, Forefront, SC Enpoint Protection, Security Essentials) Definitions Updates and MSRT.
The design of svchost.exe is not optimal and I think it was discussed millions of times, dissected with Process Explorer by you among others and fixing it is beyond our capabilities as we do not have ownership of that software.
I think this covers in a summary most of what we know and what we can do and what we cannot do about Windows Update to make it perform scanning in a better way.

Reply | Quote

With your testing of ‘SP2’ have you had the opportunity to look at the W7 disk cleanup wizard? It currently has a plugin for SP1. Is the convenience rollup recognized (new add-on/no add-on)?

Reply | Quote

Thanks, good to know.

I’ll keep KB3125574 and KB3020369 (precondition) on file for eventual future use. Cheers!

Reply | Quote

Hello there,

The direct link should have taken you straight to the post and clicking on the “Spoiler” the entire list should appear.

On all the forums I’ve shared that linked it worker perfectly, even now on my end it takes me straight to the post.

If it doesn’t work for some weird reason, check page 84 –> post no.835, or the 5th one from the top-down.

Hope this helps 😉

Reply | Quote

@Woody
“It does NOT install the GWX subsystem.”

But it’s installing the updates to prepare Windows Update to conduct the upgrade to Win 10, like KB2952664 (“Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7”).

KB2952664 is installing aepic.dll in version 10.* (version number changes with every revision).

The version of aepic.dll on a Win7-SP1-system with all security-updates installed, but without any of the GWX/Win10-updates, is 6.1.*.

The Convenience Rollup is installing version 10.0.14275.

Reply | Quote

And explorer.exe has a newer version and is bigger than that of an fully patched Win7-install.

Weird.

Reply | Quote

I am still testing, but what I noticed until now with clean installations, there is a certain “looping” happening after installing KB3125574 and other patches after it. KB3125574 was offered repeatedly in some testing, until it stabilsed and no more updates were offered. Even if the size was showing in full 400MB+, I believe that only the missing parts were actually installed successively – twice if I remember well. This behaviour has been seen before with other patches. A good example is when Service Pack 1 is offered in Windows Update on systems with Service Pack 1, but in fact what is installed is KB2533552.
I cannot tell what happens with the patches in the list.

Reply | Quote

I think it is slow with or without what you call junkware. According to what I see until now, machines which have everything installed from Windows Update “BEFORE” KB3125574 behave more efficiently in terms of Windows Update. After everything is installed, KB3125574 does not do any harm, but this defeats the purpose of having it. I think Microsoft has more work to do before fully releasing this update to Windows Update if this will ever happen. Otherwise, the intended audience which is primarily system administrators creating new images might choose the more traditional way.

To avoid any confusion, for people not into testing and experimenting, KB3125574 should not even exist until Microsoft makes it available outside of the Microsoft Catalog. The updating reference for 99% of the Windows users should still be Windows (or Microsoft) Update. I think Woody should post this kind of information and flag it for everyone.

Reply | Quote

Pat, the replies here under this post are as the title says for “Testing Windows 7 SP2” which like any testing is inherently confusing until some conclusion is reached. I think none of us here does it on purpose and we are confused too 🙂

Woody’s reply to your enquiry is what matters.

Reply | Quote

The debugging and using symbols would be a good thing but might be a bit too specialised.
What you should look into is the software that you have installed and which is less mainstream to say so, or security related which intercepts and modifies the normal behaviour of Windows.
I am tired too of Windows Update!

Reply | Quote

I used Disk Cleanup in Windows 10 few times, but personally I am not a fan of the Windows 7 implementation. I know it was fixed for SP1 and I don’t see any reason why it should be updated for any other update, so it should just work.

Reply | Quote

Woody, I am re-doing the test from the beginning and documenting it at the same time. As far as I remember from the first time testing, my results are consistent with those in a post from SL2 at the link that Tudor posted earlier. That installation is in Swedish and the screenshot does not show the Optional updates, only the Important ones. For a preview of what I will send to you, you can have a look here http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/windows7-8-updates-to-hide-to-prevent-windows-10-upgrade-disable-telemetry.780476/page-84#post-10258627

Reply | Quote

Thanks, Woody. That’s all I needed to know. I’m only installing the security updates and hiding (not installing) the non-security and optional updates.

Reply | Quote

Is it safe to install KB3156417? I’ve found conflicting comments on this from many sources,and thought I should check here for the definitive answer.

Reply | Quote

I’d wait for the regular MS-DEFCON cycle.

Reply | Quote

That’s correct, as best I can tell.

Reply | Quote

Woody,
What is the story with roll update for May KB3156417? Still installing nothing?
Thank you,
TomS

Reply | Quote

It was not because of a clean install. I was mostly up to date thru APR 2016. I had hoped installing the KB3125574 Rollup might establish a “reference point” to reduce the checking being done by Windows Update in the future. Basically I was trying to see if the svchost CPU for hours problem could be made to go away permanently instead of having a new kernel update trigger each and every month. The goal was to get back to NOT spend time on Windows Update hence why I restored back without effort to debug.

Reply | Quote

Still install nothing. It’s a rollup of non-security patches, and in the past I’ve recommended that folks not install non-security patches. Excuse the double negative.

Reply | Quote

An inconvenient truth …

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/67305/convenience-rollup-makes-big-difference-windows-7-updating-still-broken

Reply | Quote

Glenn, what you said about establishing a reference point with the new update is entirely correct. However, as I understand at this stage, KB3125574 is not for general release yet and as such it may be further improved in the future. Until then, it is probably better to uninstall it to have a fully supported baseline. Based on my testing, it uninstalls correctly, although you may have to reinstall few updates which were already installed in the past. Windows Update would take care of those if needed.

Reply | Quote

This is an interesting finding. The rollup may have installed a future version of KB2952664 which should not be the case as it claims to be a cumulative update up to April 2016.

Reply | Quote

I’m trying to re-build Win7 from scratch using the SP2 rollup – and it isn’t going well. Running on a virtual machine, the SP2 installation is taking more than 12 hours already, and it isn’t done yet.

Reply | Quote

Woody, try to set the process priority to background under System/Performance/Advanced and check if svchost.exe takes less time to finish its job.

Reply | Quote

Done. Let’s see what happens. Thx!

Reply | Quote

FWIW – Installed 7 Pro on an old dual core with 3GB RAM and created an image. I then ran WU, and after 3 hours of checking for updates I gave up and re-installed the fresh image. I then updated using Simplix Pack. After the update I checked WU and within minutes downloaded and installed 2 avaiable updates.

I then put the fresh image back and updated with the SP2 rollup. After completion, WU took about 3 hours to show numerous updates available (should have made note of how many).

I repeated the test with both the SP2 rollup and Simplix Pack and had the same result as before.

Haven’t had time to test with WSUS Offline Update.

Reply | Quote

I researched this setting a lot back in the Windows XP/2003 time and it makes a huge difference in the time slices allocated to the CPU. There are actually few more settings available only by setting the registry key directly, but the only really useful are those 2 exposed in the GUI. The priority set for background processes is actually the server default setting, as the servers are not supposed to do much interactive work, but rather run multiple services for most of the time. Backgorund processes priority means essentially that every process running get an equal time slice from the CPU in a predictable manner, while programs priority triggers a very complicated algorithm in which the foreground window gets a lot more time from the CPU and in addition clicking in any window and taking the focus takes even more CPU time, while the background processes get neglected. I prefer the background priority setting on any machine which I use, desktop and server, while for those running only one piece of software at a time, the default setting may be more useful to a certain degree.

Reply | Quote

cyberSAR, what is Simplix Pack, another tool like WSUS Offline?
3GB RAM is hardly enough for how hungry svchost.exe used to get before one of the recent updates for Windows Update client. I think that was first fixed in October 2015 and any other more recent updates to the WU client would behave the same, i.e with reduced memory requirements.

Reply | Quote

I think KB3020369 is mandatory install regardless of KB3125574, like all Servicing Stack updates if you intend to install any patches released after that update.

Reply | Quote

http://www.wincert.net/forum/index.php?/topic/12103-10-mai-2016-update-list-gdr-pour-windows-7-sp1-x86x64-fr-en-de-es-it/&page=52#comment-119383

This thread is in multiple languages, but the one which I would like to refer is from Thiersee”

*************************************************

Hi guys,

I did in the last days some tests with this “Convenience Rollup” but it does not make sense for me to continue!

The last test today:

1) fresh ISO x86 HomePremium

2) integrated IE11 & RDP 8.1 prerequisite, ALL the 3.5.1-patches from the last UL + KB3020369 (section Prerequisite) , Convenience Rollup (section Updates), IE11+patch and the patches of this month (section Internet Explorer); if you want I can post the INI I used in WTK. Integration in WTK OK.

3) I installed the ISO in a VM and searched for updates: 31 found (no updates for NET-FW 3.5.1)

4) started the w10.exe (went good), restarted WIN and searched for updates: 25 updates found.

5) started a deep cleaning (510 MB!), a lot of KBs uninstalled.

6) restarted WIN and searched again: 27 updates found, two of them for NET-FW 3.5.1!

I tried with DISM too: same result!.

Thiersee

**********************************************

Thiersee used a different method with the same mixed results which I experienced and others who tested this latest and greatest “Convenience Rollup”.
I think Microsoft has some work to do on it to clean up the metadata and supersedence which shows one thing on Windows Update and another one on WSUS. I think this is what is broken and not the update itself, i.e the binaries.
When this will be sorted correctly by the Microsoft developers, then this update will be a really good thing.

Reply | Quote

ch100 Simplix Pack to update Live Win7 System/ Integrate hotfixes into Win7 distribution
Set allows you to update Windows 7 SP1 (x86 x64) and Server 2008 R2 SP1 live operating systems, as well as integrate the updates in the distribution (Install.wim). Can be installed on any language. Includes all critical, recommended, and security updates and updates for all versions of Internet Explorer.

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/45005-Simplix-Pack-to-update-Live-Win7-System-Integrate-hotfixes-into-Win7-distribution

Reply | Quote

Thanks, I didn’t know about this alternative tool.

Reply | Quote

Having second thoughts about this rollup after completing most of the testing. I think the testing done via WSUS is not how it was designed to be used. The confusion is created by Microsoft which published the rollup in the Catalog and this is how it gets imported in WSUS.
The rollup, as is now, is supposed to be installed once only in the conditions which are documented in the Technet article and the relevant KB.

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askpfeplat/2016/05/20/windows-7-sp1-and-server-2008-r2-sp1-convenience-roll-up-now-available-at-a-download-location-near-you-kb3125574/
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/3125574

This means installing Windows 7 SP1, next KB3020369 and next KB3125574. This is all and the last time when it should be required.
There are other imaging procedures, like including the rollup in the ISO or other imaging procedures.
Installing KB3125574 later may work, but it is not how it was designed and may also create side-effects.
It is a rollup mostly for enterprises, but end-users can also use the documented procedure when doing clean installs, or when doing upgrade in repair mode for existing systems.
Importing it in WSUS is wrong and should not be allowed and this should be mentioned in the Technet or KB documentation. This can change later if the update rollup will be modified to be made suitable to be used on Windows Update, but until then, it is highly recommended not to be used outside of the intended purpose.

Reply | Quote

I’ll try to get a short report up momentarily.

Reply | Quote