If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
Char Jackson wrote on 05/19/2016 2:27 AM:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 19:59:06 -0400, Stan Brown wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2016 18:15:51 -0400, . . .winston wrote: Simplifying updates for Windows 7 and 8.1 https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2016/05/17/simplifying-upd=ates-for-windows-7-and-8-1/ qp This convenience rollup package, available to download from http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=3125574, contains all the security and non-security fixes released since the release of Windows 7 SP1 that are suitable for general distribution, up through April 2016. Install this one update, and then you only need new updates released after April 2016. FSVO "simplifying". Of course it will include the various Windows 10 foistware updates. No thanks! I installed the rollup on a VM copy of Win 7 Ultimate that was otherwise reasonably up to date, minus the GWX stuff, thanks to GWX Control Panel. After the installation of the rollup, which went without a hitch, GWX Control Panel hadn't changed its status one bit. It still said there was no sign of any GWX-related crap, and no WU settings had been changed. MS *seems* to have done the right thing here, which seems odd after all of the recent missteps. Look at it another way...The Rollup is useful after July 29th and possibly until Win7 EOL with monthly rollups now being deployed(not the same but still a bit similar to routine updating of Win10). Does it really make sense to include a Get Win10 app, that's focused on the free upgrade, in any Rollup that's applicable after July 29th. As usual, the conspiracy theory showed up without validation. Thanks for not jumping on that bandwagon and taking the time to validate and post your results. -- ...winston msft mvp windows experience |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
.. . .winston wrote:
As usual, the conspiracy theory showed up without validation. Thanks for not jumping on that bandwagon and taking the time to validate and post your results. There are three levels of relationship between a consumer and a business. 1) Trust 2) Trust but verify 3) Verify always When I work with gas furnace repair men, the rule is "Verify always", no exceptions. They were never at (1) - after they tried to condemn the combustion chamber on a fully operational furnace. That particular gas furnace lasted another 20 years, before the chamber actually had a crack in it. With my car service people, they started at Trust. Then one day, I found a pair of pliers sitting on top of my air cleaner, after I'd driven all the way home. And the pliers didn't fall off. The service facility then got classed as (2), Trust but verify. Every time afterwards, when I went for service, I would be looking for free pliers, while still in the service parking lot. One time, my windshield washer bottle had a corner ground right off it, because it was not secured properly after a repair. Reinforcing the status of (2). I trusted them to do complicated work (change timing belt), but not to reassemble the car properly after a repair. It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). It's not that the company moral compass determined '583 not be installed in the rollup. It's only the vague assumption that a previous policy did not want '583 shipped to non-deserving customers, that prevents its deployment in the rollup. For example, an OS which is not activated, would be a poor candidate for accepting '583. That's a *logical* reason for it to not be present. But when the end-users have slipped to (3), they really want proof (as they would assume such logic is flawed, and there *is* no logic as to what Microsoft would do next). I really don't blame them. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On 20/05/2016 6:17 PM, Paul wrote:
. . .winston wrote: As usual, the conspiracy theory showed up without validation. Thanks for not jumping on that bandwagon and taking the time to validate and post your results. There are three levels of relationship between a consumer and a business. 1) Trust 2) Trust but verify 3) Verify always When I work with gas furnace repair men, the rule is "Verify always", no exceptions. They were never at (1) - after they tried to condemn the combustion chamber on a fully operational furnace. That particular gas furnace lasted another 20 years, before the chamber actually had a crack in it. With my car service people, they started at Trust. Then one day, I found a pair of pliers sitting on top of my air cleaner, after I'd driven all the way home. And the pliers didn't fall off. The service facility then got classed as (2), Trust but verify. Every time afterwards, when I went for service, I would be looking for free pliers, while still in the service parking lot. One time, my windshield washer bottle had a corner ground right off it, because it was not secured properly after a repair. Reinforcing the status of (2). I trusted them to do complicated work (change timing belt), but not to reassemble the car properly after a repair. It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). It's not that the company moral compass determined '583 not be installed in the rollup. It's only the vague assumption that a previous policy did not want '583 shipped to non-deserving customers, that prevents its deployment in the rollup. For example, an OS which is not activated, would be a poor candidate for accepting '583. That's a *logical* reason for it to not be present. But when the end-users have slipped to (3), they really want proof (as they would assume such logic is flawed, and there *is* no logic as to what Microsoft would do next). I really don't blame them. Paul I agree with you completely Microsoft has now got to earn its trust again with its consumers. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maurice Helwig ~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On 20 May 2016, Paul wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8: It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). Quite right. Microsoft has lately given us MANY reasons to distrust them, and more are coming regularly. It has been a very long time since they have given us any reason to trust them, and they don't seem at all interested in doing so. I don't understand why a company whose business is to sell to consumers would go so far out of their way to alienate those very customers, but that's just what they are doing. It might result in higher "numbers" in the short run, no matter how contrived and misleading, but it can only backfire in the long run. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On 20 May 2016, Maurice Helwig wrote
in alt.comp.os.windows-8: I agree with you completely Microsoft has now got to earn its trust again with its consumers. Yes, but I don't see any sign that consumer trust is of any importance to them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
Paul wrote on 05/20/2016 4:17 AM:
. . .winston wrote: As usual, the conspiracy theory showed up without validation. Thanks for not jumping on that bandwagon and taking the time to validate and post your results. There are three levels of relationship between a consumer and a business. 1) Trust 2) Trust but verify 3) Verify always When I work with gas furnace repair men, the rule is "Verify always", no exceptions. They were never at (1) - after they tried to condemn the combustion chamber on a fully operational furnace. That particular gas furnace lasted another 20 years, before the chamber actually had a crack in it. With my car service people, they started at Trust. Then one day, I found a pair of pliers sitting on top of my air cleaner, after I'd driven all the way home. And the pliers didn't fall off. The service facility then got classed as (2), Trust but verify. Every time afterwards, when I went for service, I would be looking for free pliers, while still in the service parking lot. One time, my windshield washer bottle had a corner ground right off it, because it was not secured properly after a repair. Reinforcing the status of (2). I trusted them to do complicated work (change timing belt), but not to reassemble the car properly after a repair. It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). It's not that the company moral compass determined '583 not be installed in the rollup. It's only the vague assumption that a previous policy did not want '583 shipped to non-deserving customers, that prevents its deployment in the rollup. For example, an OS which is not activated, would be a poor candidate for accepting '583. That's a *logical* reason for it to not be present. But when the end-users have slipped to (3), they really want proof (as they would assume such logic is flawed, and there *is* no logic as to what Microsoft would do next). I really don't blame them. Paul It is true MSFT has caused a deterioration of the trust of end-users. But just look at what you've been reading here for the last few years. It's doubtful that any distrust by the majority of users in this forum and increased significantly. Surmising that 5583 was left out because MSFT would be concerned about its presence on a non-activated clean installed 7/8x may be logical but considering other mechanisms already existing and preventing activation of 10 and its free upgrade digital entitlement would make that logic lean more toward conjecture than reality. Even so, the conjecture certainly could qualify as humor. -- ...winston msft mvp windows experience |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
In message , Nil
writes: [] Quite right. Microsoft has lately given us MANY reasons to distrust them, and more are coming regularly. It has been a very long time since they have given us any reason to trust them, and they don't seem at all interested in doing so. I don't understand why a company whose business is to sell to consumers would go so far out of their way to alienate those very customers, but that's just what they are doing. It might result in higher "numbers" in the short run, no matter how contrived and misleading, but it can only backfire in the long run. I suspect the majority of the public aren't even aware of the shenanigans; they'll just get W10 with their new computer. A slightly higher proportion than of yore will be irritated because their W7/W8 computers were upgraded, but only if that stops things working - and for the majority of users, I suspect it won't. For the things most people do - web browsing, email, Skype - there's little if any change. So though "us" in the above are increasingly distrustful of MS, I suspect we're a sufficiently tiny proportion of their main revenue stream (especially if it now includes further revenue from data gathered from W10 machines) that they're pretty unconcerned. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On 20/05/2016 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I suspect the majority of the public aren't even aware of the shenanigans; they'll just get W10 with their new computer. A slightly higher proportion than of yore will be irritated because their W7/W8 computers were upgraded, but only if that stops things working - and for the majority of users, I suspect it won't. For the things most people do - web browsing, email, Skype - there's little if any change. I agree. for most people it makes no difference whether they are on Windows 7, Windows 8.1 or Windows 10. All they want is something they can browse the web, do shopping, login to their facebook and twitter account and check their emails. In fact some of them are so happy they have got Windows 10 that is fast and does everything nicely. I setup their machines for them!!!. there are the same people I work with so they know what I am talking about. -- 1. /*This post contains rich text (HTML). if you don't like it then you can kill-filter the poster without crying like a small baby.*/ 2. /*This message is best read in Mozilla Thunderbird as it uses 21st century technology.*/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On Fri, 20 May 2016 13:49:24 -0400, Nil wrote:
On 20 May 2016, Paul wrote in alt.comp.os.windows-8: It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). Quite right. Microsoft has lately given us MANY reasons to distrust them, and more are coming regularly. It has been a very long time since they have given us any reason to trust them, and they don't seem at all interested in doing so. I don't understand why a company whose business is to sell to consumers would go so far out of their way to alienate those very customers, but that's just what they are doing. It might result in higher "numbers" in the short run, no matter how contrived and misleading, but it can only backfire in the long run. And they keep ramping it up[. Now if you simply close the box inviting an update to Windows 10, Microsoft interprets that the same as clicking OK. And that box itself pops up after a Recommended update is installed. This was reported in RISKS Digest, reposted from "Windows 10 goes full malware"[1]: Microsoft is adding another chapter to the long[2] and sordid[3] story of its latest OS. As reported[4] by Windows Magazine, closing the upgrade permission window by clicking the familiar red x results in "approval" of the installation. Per this[5] Microsoft support document, "If you click on OK or on the red ?X?, you're all set for the upgrade and there is nothing further to do." [1] https://slashdot.org/submission/5878...-10-goes-full- malware [2] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2956574/microsoft- subnet/windows-10-privacy-spyware-settings-user-agreement.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...30/windows-10- automatic-download-windows-7-8-pc-computers [4] http://archive.is/o2MFC [5] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3095675 I haven't looked at this last one because it requires Javascript. There's no good reason to require Javascript to view static content, so this must be Microsoft doing something ELSE bad. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:45:25 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
A slightly higher proportion than of yore will be irritated because their W7/W8 computers were upgraded, but only if that stops things working Windows 10 gets all the publicity, but there's another potentially unwanted "upgrade". Many of my customers have reported that when they run a repair of Office 2013, it changes to Office 2016. In theory that's a good thing, as Office 2016 is slightly less annoying than 2013. But older add-ins that worked on Office 2013 may not work on Office 2016, and then the customer is forced to do without them or pay for upgrades of those add-ins. That's nice extra revenue for my employer, but it's unfair to the poor users who did not ask to get a new version of Office that won't support their existing add-ins. As far as I know, there's no easy way to go back. Even if you restore from backup, you still have the original problem that caused you to need a repair of Office 2013 in the first place. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
Stan Brown wrote:
Windows 10 gets all the publicity, but there's another potentially unwanted "upgrade". Many of my customers have reported that when they run a repair of Office 2013, it changes to Office 2016. In theory that's a good thing, as Office 2016 is slightly less annoying than 2013. But older add-ins that worked on Office 2013 may not work on Office 2016, and then the customer is forced to do without them or pay for upgrades of those add-ins. Since I have never heard of a free upgrade of Office anything, you sure these customers have a paid version of Office 2016 (perhaps due to Office 365) and not a trial? Could've been some bundleware they installed with something else they intended to install. Did they actually have Office 365 and got the Office 2013 local apps that were available back then and now they let Office 365 upgrade to the newest versions (2016) of the local Office apps? The point of subscribing to Office 365 is that it will include the latest Office apps. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 13:49:24 -0400, Nil wrote: On 20 May 2016, Paul wrote in alt.comp.os.windows-8: It's easy to see by the feedback in this group, that with regard to MSFT and Windows Update, we've slipped to level (3). Quite right. Microsoft has lately given us MANY reasons to distrust them, and more are coming regularly. It has been a very long time since they have given us any reason to trust them, and they don't seem at all interested in doing so. I don't understand why a company whose business is to sell to consumers would go so far out of their way to alienate those very customers, but that's just what they are doing. It might result in higher "numbers" in the short run, no matter how contrived and misleading, but it can only backfire in the long run. And they keep ramping it up[. Now if you simply close the box inviting an update to Windows 10, Microsoft interprets that the same as clicking OK. And that box itself pops up after a Recommended update is installed. This was reported in RISKS Digest, reposted from "Windows 10 goes full malware"[1]: Microsoft is adding another chapter to the long[2] and sordid[3] story of its latest OS. As reported[4] by Windows Magazine, closing the upgrade permission window by clicking the familiar red x results in "approval" of the installation. Per this[5] Microsoft support document, "If you click on OK or on the red ?X?, you're all set for the upgrade and there is nothing further to do." [1] https://slashdot.org/submission/5878...-10-goes-full- malware [2] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2956574/microsoft- subnet/windows-10-privacy-spyware-settings-user-agreement.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...30/windows-10- automatic-download-windows-7-8-pc-computers [4] http://archive.is/o2MFC [5] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3095675 I haven't looked at this last one because it requires Javascript. There's no good reason to require Javascript to view static content, so this must be Microsoft doing something ELSE bad. That seems correct to what the dialog says, which says "scheduled" (past tense). Since the upgrade has already been scheduled, you have to take ACTION (not inaction) to unschedule the upgrade. Clicking OK or exiting the dialog using the X titlebar icon means you choose inaction. This is typical of foistware (opted in by default) bundled in with an installer that uses negatively worded prompts to opt out of the foistware. You have to carefully read the option to understand if unchecking or checking a box will result in not installing the foistware. First they opt-in, by default, their foistware so you have to *act* to opt out. Then they use negatively worded options so you have to, say, *un*check a box to opt-out. Microsoft took a clue from anti-virus vendors that long ago moved to a subscriptionware-based scheme. Microsoft is taking another clue from foistware on tricking users on how to opt-out. You would think by now that users would realize that Microsoft has pushed out bad updates so users should NEVER have Automatic Updates configured to "automatically download and install". Some boobs just never learn or choose to remain ignorant. The stories about hospitals getting nailed shows that boobs are working even in IT departments. If a nurse trying to power up gear for a patient sees a Windows 10 get started (or completed) then the blame is on their IT department (or equipment supplier) for installing the updates without review or authorization or improper configuration of the equipment. Those in charge of the equipment are also responsible for preventing infection by ALL malware - and the Windows 10 upgrade has long qualified as malware since the updates commit an action or effect not wanted by the afflicted users. Too bad the anti-virus vendors haven't gotten off their lazy asses to categorize the non-Windows 7/8 updates on Windows 7/8 (i.e., all updates that have only to do with migration to Windows 10) as malware. The OS author is no longer trustworthy so their updates should be equally treated as untrustworthy. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
Stan Brown wrote on 05/21/2016 6:57 AM:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:45:25 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: A slightly higher proportion than of yore will be irritated because their W7/W8 computers were upgraded, but only if that stops things working Windows 10 gets all the publicity, but there's another potentially unwanted "upgrade". Many of my customers have reported that when they run a repair of Office 2013, it changes to Office 2016. In theory that's a good thing, as Office 2016 is slightly less annoying than 2013. But older add-ins that worked on Office 2013 may not work on Office 2016, and then the customer is forced to do without them or pay for upgrades of those add-ins. That's nice extra revenue for my employer, but it's unfair to the poor users who did not ask to get a new version of Office that won't support their existing add-ins. As far as I know, there's no easy way to go back. Even if you restore from backup, you still have the original problem that caused you to need a repair of Office 2013 in the first place. If you've(or they) installed subscription ware i.e. Office 365 then by purchasing that product they've also, for an active subscription, purchased and agreed to receiving the latest version available. I.e. They did ask to be upgraded to the latest version. If the Office 2013 was the desktop client installed version then the only way to upgrade to 2016 is by user, IT, or another entity with access to the device intervention....a repair of Office 2013 desktop won't upgrade to 2016. Maybe those customers aren't aware what someone sold them. -- ...winston msft mvp windows experience |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:00:24 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Since I have never heard of a free upgrade of Office anything, you sure these customers have a paid version of Office 2016 (perhaps due to Office 365) and not a trial? Could've been some bundleware they installed with something else they intended to install. Did they actually have Office 365 and got the Office 2013 local apps that were available back then and now they let Office 365 upgrade to the newest versions (2016) of the local Office apps? The point of subscribing to Office 365 is that it will include the latest Office apps. What you say is possible, but not likely, I think. These were corporate customers, not individual home users. I didn't see their process, because they called only after the damage was done, but I and my colleagues have taken enough trouble reports of this class that I think the phenomenon must be real. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update
On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:20:29 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Too bad the anti-virus vendors haven't gotten off their lazy asses to categorize the non-Windows 7/8 updates on Windows 7/8 (i.e., all updates that have only to do with migration to Windows 10) as malware. The OS author is no longer trustworthy so their updates should be equally treated as untrustworthy. I agree with you, but I think they are afraid of Microsoft's deep pockets. Even though a suit by Microsoft against an anti-virus vendor who called GWX and Windows 10 would probably fail, the legal fees could bankrupt the smaller company. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|