Windows Updates madness (rant)

[tcsenter]

Damn you, Microsoft!

This is for clean install of Windows 7 64-bit with SP1 integrated. There are probably around 18 ~ 20 updates just for NET Framework 2.0 ~ 3.5. And after these are installed, there are like ten more offered, patching the updates! And after those, you'll get more! So it eventually becomes way more than 183 important updates, probably around 220+.

Why doesn't MS release "rollup" patches that supersede others? Or take all these patches every so often (like once per year) and incorporate them into an updated redistributable installer for NETFX, like MS used to do for a lot more things?

It now takes 15 minutes to install Windows 7 (using the latest install bits), and 3+ hours to patch it. If you let Windows download and apply all the important updates automatically, it always has several updates that FAIL. DAMNIT!

/rant

 

[MustISO]

I do installs quite a bit and it's a pain in the ass. Certainly much better with an SSD on a fast system, updates go very fast but it's still crazy. SP2 would have been a great thing but that's never going to happen.

 

[VirtualLarry]

*Shrug*. I did a fresh install of Win7 64-bit a few days ago. It was a SP1-U disc from DR. I had 124-odd updates to install. Not 183. Not sure why the discrepancy.

Edit: Takes under an hour, with an SSD.

 

[mikeymikec]

Didn't we have a thread almost exactly like this one in the last week or two?

Leave it doing a long shut down when you go to bed. The only annoying can be when it decides to fail all 1xx updates

 

[Auric]

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

 

[Ketchup]

I really don't understand why XP was taken all the way to sp3 and MS is leaving 7 at sp1. Maybe this is part of their method of pushing to a newer OS.

 

[razel]

Windows 7 is 6 years old. SP1 came out early 2011 so that's 4 years of updates you need. It says 66 of those updates it wants most are 222MB. That's not that bad.

People will either cry about not getting monthly security updates for an OS or cry about installing security updates often. I'd just rather not cry at all. Deal with it. Click update, call up a friend and go out for a bit then come back. Why cry?

 

[ninaholic37]

People will either cry about not getting monthly security updates for an OS or cry about installing security updates often. I'd just rather not cry at all. Deal with it. Click update, call up a friend and go out for a bit then come back. Why cry?

The point is that it would make more sense and be easier to have it integrated or in an SP2. I would think that would apply to both the user and MS. ketchup79 is probably right and they're just doing it to annoy Windows 7 users. No one is crying, they are raising valid points about the stupidity and ridiculousness of MS that millions of users will have to face to stay updated. When you download a Linux distribution, it's usually up to date and there's no need to go through this.

It could just as easily be said that you are "crying about people's observations", if members wanted to stoop down to your level of thought process.

 

[escrow4]

The point is that it would make more sense and be easier to have it integrated or in an SP2. I would think that would apply to both the user and MS. ketchup79 is probably right and they're just doing it to annoy Windows 7 users. No one is crying, they are raising valid points about the stupidity and ridiculousness of MS that millions of users will have to face to stay updated. When you download a Linux distribution, it's usually up to date and there's no need to go through this.

It could just as easily be said that you are "crying about people's observations", if members wanted to stoop down to your level of thought process.

Its going on 6yrs old. Use 8.1 if it bothers your that much. 7 is pffft nowadays anyway. No reason to keep a death grip around it.

 

[mikeymikec]

I really don't understand why XP was taken all the way to sp3 and MS is leaving 7 at sp1. Maybe this is part of their method of pushing to a newer OS.

But then, if one started with Win8 RTM, the update procedure is more tedious, especially on a HDD boot system.

I think MS's use of SPs has changed, what with the fully auto Windows Update feature, increased availability of broadband, and that their operating systems don't need to have as much changed/added any more.

NT4 had six; a lot was added, and service packs were used before the concept of (automatic) Windows Update came along.

Win2k had four; again there were some changes but it was mostly because of the lack of a fully automated Windows Update system. It also had a patch rollup after SP4.

WinXP was the first with auto Windows Update IIRC. SP2 rolled in some new features like the Security Center and WPA2. I don't remember any feature additions in SP3, I think it was the last SP that served as a patch rollup.

I think one other thing had an effect, the concept of "I won't try that version of Windows until SP1 has come out". I can understand MS wanting to do away with that idea.

I think Win7 could do with something like a rollup patch or SP2 because in my line of work, IMO there's at least a 20% chance of the initial slew of updates after SP1 just failing completely and I have to tell it to do something like 10 at a time which is really time-consuming.

Win81 will need something like that for the same reason in time as well.

Its going on 6yrs old. Use 8.1 if it bothers your that much. 7 is pffft nowadays anyway. No reason to keep a death grip around it.

escrow4, can you try to shake up your normal routine of going on pretty much every "older Windows" thread and saying the same thing? Any regular here knows your opinion about older versions of Windows, so repeatedly voicing the same opinion isn't going to add anything of value to the discussion.

 

[ninaholic37]

escrow4, can you try to shake up your normal routine of going on pretty much every "older Windows" thread and saying the same thing? Any regular here knows your opinion about older versions of Windows, so repeatedly voicing the same opinion isn't going to add anything of value to the discussion.

Personally, I think escrow4 and I make a good team. We are both extremists on the opposite side of the fence, so in any thread we both post in, you know both sides or two different opinions will be covered, which always makes things amusing, in a predictable sort of way. See you again for round 334 escrow4. :awe:

 

[matricks]

Why doesn't MS release "rollup" patches that supersede others? Or take all these patches every so often (like once per year) and incorporate them into an updated redistributable installer for NETFX, like MS used to do for a lot more things?

What if I told you... they do? Windows 8.1 was RTM in October 2013, in April 2014 an updated installation image was released, and in December they released another updated image. You can use Microsofts media creation tool to always get the latest 8.1 image released. I'm not sure if it includes later versions of .NET (4.5 in case of Windows 8.1), but it still helps a ton.

Service packs were usually released when significant changes were introduced. Look at wiki/Windows_XP#Service_packs, for examples. Windows 7 SP1 wasn't all that significant, it was pretty much just a package of already released updates, and I don't doubt that the mentioned "I'm waiting for SP1" crowd is part of why it was released.

I hope the bi-annual image updates are here to stay, both before and after Windows 10. It would be convenient if Microsoft would just zip an archive of all needed updates since last released image, they have the resources if they want to, but now is far better than it used to be, as you on Windows 7 are painfully aware. :biggrin:

 

[silicon]

Damn you, Microsoft!

This is for clean install of Windows 7 64-bit with SP1 integrated. There are probably around 18 ~ 20 updates just for NET Framework 2.0 ~ 3.5. And after these are installed, there are like ten more offered, patching the updates! And after those, you'll get more! So it eventually becomes way more than 183 important updates, probably around 220+.

Why doesn't MS release "rollup" patches that supersede others? Or take all these patches every so often (like once per year) and incorporate them into an updated redistributable installer for NETFX, like MS used to do for a lot more things?

It now takes 15 minutes to install Windows 7 (using the latest install bits), and 3+ hours to patch it. If you let Windows download and apply all the important updates automatically, it always has several updates that FAIL. DAMNIT!

/rant

your rant is right on. it takes so long to get these updates why doesn't MS release a new service pack to encompass them?

 

[lxskllr]

I don't think the gripe is a large number of updates, but the retarded way Windows delivers them. I can update an old copy of GNU/Linux fairly quickly in one shot, with the main time loss being network speed. Updating, then updating the updates with multiple reboots is as stupid as it gets. It also takes *FOREVER* for Windows to do it's thing. They must download artisan data placers that hand select each bit to carefully place on the drive one at a time.

 

[Auric]

Its going on 6yrs old. Use 8.1 if it bothers your that much. 7 is pffft nowadays anyway. No reason to keep a death grip around it.

Windows 10 is practically released so I'm calling its deathwatch now. Bring on Windows 11 Technical Preview! :awe:

I hope the bi-annual image updates are here to stay, both before and after Windows 10. It would be convenient if Microsoft would just zip an archive of all needed updates since last released image, they have the resources if they want to, but now is far better than it used to be, as you on Windows 7 are painfully aware. :biggrin:

Service Packs were archives that could be extracted over the original, differing from individual patches without a supported method to manage them. So, if not providing such dual-use SP then the third-party stuff fills the gap. It seems reasonable not to waste their resources on an OS that is two generations old. 8 may have flopped but most users will probably either be maintaining 7 rather than reinstalling, else moving on to 10 -and those who remain so keen on 7 probably have the gumption to manage the updates one way or t'other.

 

[Dahak]

Yes I get annoyed with this as well, but have been using a mix of WSUS offline and Windows Update Downloader, so I have downloads ready but it still takes time to install them.

The biggest one that annoys me is the .net framework updates. Why cant they have them be all cumulative instead of having to install 5 update to 3.5 all around the same 50mb size

 

[Ketchup]

I did find an interesting post on the topic:

When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service/patch each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component Based Servicing (CBS) (read all about it in The Servicing Guy's blog: http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/). What it does basically is it installs the entire OS's all files including all languages and all drivers shipped with the OS into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard links files from there to C:\Windows\system32. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS. Now WinSxS can contain multiple copies of the same file if it is used by more than 1 Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS.

When a Vista or Windows 7 update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of files and the worst part is it still maintains the older backup of the previous versions of components. It does not give the user to not backup the earlier versions like XP's /nobackup switch. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. The very reason Windows 7 is bloated and updates take so long is because of this servicing mechanism it uses (Component Based Servicing).

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...ong-with/b785ff84-b00e-43b1-8628-40cdccb77aca

 

[us3rnotfound]

I think it's evident of the complete POS that Windows is in terms of security.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think it's evident of the complete POS that Windows is in terms of security.

Because it's a piece of software in which security flaws have been found? Which OS do you recommend that doesn't have any?

 

[Albatross]

Something about windows 10 introducing an apt-get equivalent.

 

[xSauronx]

I don't think the gripe is a large number of updates, but the retarded way Windows delivers them. I can update an old copy of GNU/Linux fairly quickly in one shot, with the main time loss being network speed. Updating, then updating the updates with multiple reboots is as stupid as it gets. It also takes *FOREVER* for Windows to do it's thing. They must download artisan data placers that hand select each bit to carefully place on the drive one at a time.

it does sort of bite
i have long since stopped rebuilding systems just for the hell of it. its something i didnt really do after windows 7 got mainstream. its a pain and id rather fix a system than rebuild it if its malware laden or something, and ill just remove some software otherwise to clean it up. partially over updates, partially over software installs/backups, partially because if it doesnt have an SSD it is just painful no matter what you go through.

unless its a work system. i have windows 7 and windows 8.1 images and a local update server, so part of the image deployment process just gets the updates from that server and applies them in one go before finishing deployment. i think a new image takes about an hour and a half to boot, deploy/install, and update. its probably getting about 8 months of updates right now.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Thank you. Did not know this. I do wish they they'd put cumulative updates/versions of .NET up because those are usually the ones that take the longest to install, even on existing machines that have already been deployed!

I did find an interesting post on the topic:


http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...ong-with/b785ff84-b00e-43b1-8628-40cdccb77aca

 

[imagoon]

This issue only really hits the people that install from the DVD. The rest of us do all the updates, sysprep, capture the WIM and place it on the install DVD. Next time you boot the install DVD (or better yet, the USB stick) the "Windows 7 with 4 years of patches" appears as an install option.

 

[Lorne]

XP had a REG edit to open up the WAU DL speed, Can this be done on Win 7 as well?

 

[JoeBleed]

this is a valid rant. anyone in this thread try this on top of adding office 2010 or 2013 before running updates?? you're looking at about 2.2gb of updates. even on decent i5 machines being pushed from a local WSUS it takes 2-3 reboots and about 2 hours. I had better luck with qchain and ordering the updates myself with win2k and XP. I don't get how they can't seem to order them correctly to not cause failures every time.

As others have said, i .net updates seem to be the worst as far as time consuming. office updates..... i really question rather they're updating anything or flat out deploying whole sections of the damn program... /s

All we want are at least roll up packs that we can integrate into install media when it's needed.

And, unless i misunderstood, service packs rarely bring new features unless it's something very critical they're deeming a feature to make you think you're getting something neat for free. NT4sp3 was common when i got into NT and networing and i don't recall a service pack ever including something that wasn't fairly critical for security patching.