Patch Tuesday

[yodap]

Expect a large load of MS updates and patches this Tuesday. Click on the link and then Executive Summaries to see all 16.

https://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-oct.mspx

 

[Nibiru2012]

Upon looking at the link it looks like I will have 11 of the 16 updates applicable to me.

...come on SP1!

 

[Fire cat]

Arg! All these updates are starting to annoy me!

 

[TorrentG]

Arg! All these updates are starting to annoy me!

Probably not even close to how much it would if someone rooted your machine instead of you having applied them, heh heh.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Arg! All these updates are starting to annoy me!

FC it's just Steve Ballmer sending you his love! LOL!

 

[catilley1092]

Probably when SP1 comes out, I'll just do a clean install. That way, most of the updates will come into the SP, and I won't have all of these duplicate updates.

After all, M$ reported that what SP1 would be mostly the updates we already have, so that would be a great time to reinstall. No need to have KB971033 installed twice.

Looks like we're catching up to XP fast!

Cat

 

[Nibiru2012]

Probably when SP1 comes out, I'll just do a clean install. That way, most of the updates will come into the SP, and I won't have all of these duplicate updates.

After all, M$ reported that what SP1 would be mostly the updates we already have, so that would be a great time to reinstall. No need to have KB971033 installed twice.

Looks like we're catching up to XP fast!

Cat

First of all, even if you didn't do a clean install you wouldn't be installing duplicate updates. The Service Pack "seeks" for what needs to be updated and only applies those updates. It doesn't install an update if it's already in the system.

 

[draceena]

But it certainly looks "neater" in appearance to have "Windows 7 SP 1" versus "KBxxxxx, KBxxxxx, KBxxxxxx, KBxxxxx, ect, ect"

 

[Nibiru2012]

I suppose you're correct about that "neatness" part. Personally I don't worry about that because I don't look at my Update Listing but once in a Blue Moon anyway.

There are some things I'm OCD about such as hardware, the correct way to install certain drivers, etc., this little thing I'm not. Personally it's no big deal.

 

[TorrentG]

Yeah, agreed there's no need for clean install if original is working well.

I already have SP1 on my machines and they have not been clean installed, and have been upgrade installed, with each leaked and official release since beta 7000.

That's like 30 or 40 upgrades, on each.

All running perfectly. Uptime of 16 days on this computer I'm on now and uptime of 10 on the downstairs machine (the other gets turned off because it's a netbook and my father's.) The only reason uptime isn't longer is because my neighborhood had a power outtage and I don't have any UPS.

 

[J.T]

Reading back, SP1 will be installed automatically and only the relevant updates, so I can just let my PC do its own thing on the day ?

 

[yodap]

Just to be clear, this is just a bunch of updates and not SP-1. Some may need a reboot. You will be notified if needed.

 

[etalmar]

I have my Windows updates set to "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them", as I do not like any updates to be done without my knowing in advance exactly what is being updated.

There was a 4.0 .NET framework upgrade that I decided to allow a few months back and it did not play nice with my 64-bit system, making it hang terribly during shutdown, so I deleted it and hid it from showing again during future updates. I know that was the culprit, because as soon as I deleted it, shutdown process went back to its normal time of 5 to 6 seconds. Since then, I scrutinize every update to see if I really need and/or want it or not.

 

[catilley1092]

That's what I do, is check for updates and notify me when they are available. Of course, MSE updates daily, so that one is in there. So what I do about that is, I select a short scan nightly anyway, so I checked the box to update prior to a scheduled scan.

BTW, what's all this 4.0 NET stuff for anyway? There's two such updates, one is the client profile, the other is a x86 whatever for XP. I mention XP because I'm updating a VM as I'm typing this post. I allow the updates, but never have seen the use for it.

But, it hasn't caused any problems for me during shutdown. At least it hasn't as of yet.

Cat

 

[etalmar]

Cat, I felt that the 4.0 NET framework is unnecessary, as I already have NET 3.51 on my system and everything was working very well until that update became available.

Here's a link from Micro$oft that explains the function of .NET Framework 4. I love their rationale for touting more bloatware ... "The .NET Framework is Microsoft's comprehensive and consistent programming model for building applications that have visually stunning user experiences, seamless and secure communication, and the ability to model a range of business processes.The .NET Framework 4 works side by side with older Framework versions."

 

[catilley1092]

I recall the first time that I seen this type of software was in Win 2K, it started with .NET Framework 1.1, later upgraded to 2.0.

So, if you have only the latest version installed, 4.0, then I don't see where 3.5 (and below) is required. Seems like bloat on top of bloat. Although I can see some benefits in having it, just not so many versions.

Cat

 

[TorrentG]

I have my Windows updates set to "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them", as I do not like any updates to be done without my knowing in advance exactly what is being updated.

There was a 4.0 .NET framework upgrade that I decided to allow a few months back and it did not play nice with my 64-bit system, making it hang terribly during shutdown, so I deleted it and hid it from showing again during future updates. I know that was the culprit, because as soon as I deleted it, shutdown process went back to its normal time of 5 to 6 seconds. Since then, I scrutinize every update to see if I really need and/or want it or not.

Nope, it wasn't the culprit. It was the method that allowed you to become aware of some other weakness on the machine.

MS updates are always 100% proper, without exception. They are tested so thoroughly that it isn't funny. If anyone has an issue with one or more, the issue is from the sole computer's environment.

 

[catilley1092]

I don't know about that one. A couple of months ago, I done a clean install of Vista SP2, I had my drivers on a USB flash drive. After I installed my hardware drivers, I had a crystal clear screen. Then Windows Update slid in an older video driver, and I had to go to the Control Panel and adjust the resolution.

But most of the time, they are right. No updating system, regardless of the OS, whether it's Windows, Linux or Mac, is perfect. I don't expect them to be, either.

Cat

 

[TorrentG]

Drivers are different. They are not patches to the OS and they are from manufacturers themselves.

That is precisely why you'll always see me say "Update from the manufacturer's website and never use the device manager or Windows Update."

All Microsoft software and OS update patches are always 100% perfect, without exception.

Bad driver versions do sneak their way through though, so always refuse these.

 

[etalmar]

All Microsoft software and OS update patches are always 100% perfect, without exception.

Seriously? Given the general mindset of large corporate structures in today's business climate, I do not believe that somehow Microsoft has still managed to *always* release 100% perfect patches. Sorry, but that is bordering on the absurd to make such an erroneous claim.