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
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Win7 pro SP1
I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Peter Jason wrote:
Win7 pro SP1 I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter The advice from the Win10 newsgroup is to let it run. 24 hours is not unreasonable. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Peter Jason wrote:
Win7 pro SP1 I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter What I've noticed here, is the installer logic may be trying to acquire a video card driver, before the installation starts. If your system didn't have a Windows 10 video driver, that might be a gating item. Too bad the installer didn't admit to what it was doing, as status messages help users a lot when they are provided. Also, to acquire updates, you might need a working BITS subsystem. If your Windows Update was previously 100% functional, then you know the rails are greased for acquiring downloads. ******* Using MediaCreationTool today, *freshly downloaded*, should cause a later version of the OS to be downloaded for you to make a DVD or whatever. So perhaps one copy of MediaCreationTool will fetch 10240, while one you downloaded today will fetch 10586 or 11082 or whatever Microsoft wants you to have. That won't, though, solve the video card driver problem. The installer should still make preparatory "driver fetches" before it starts. I don't get the impression they want to install the OS using just the VESA fallback driver. I think in Windows 8 you could do that (that's how I got some Win8 Preview to install on my FX5200 card that didn't have a driver - card runs 1024x768 with no acceleration to speak of). Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:24:19 +1100 "Peter Jason" wrote in
article should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? I've upgraded half a dozen machines at a charity where I volunteer. That "waiting for updates" is maddening and takes a minimum of 45 minutes, sometimes over an hour. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Jason wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:24:19 +1100 "Peter Jason" wrote in article should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? I've upgraded half a dozen machines at a charity where I volunteer. That "waiting for updates" is maddening and takes a minimum of 45 minutes, sometimes over an hour. I think a person would also have to compare that wait, to how long you wait for regular Windows Update windows to paint themselves. The delay could be due to the bug in Windows Update, where wuauserv rails a CPU core at 100% for 40 minutes or so. There is a succession of patches to WU, and occasionally one of those reduces the wait. Because of the backward progress observed for '710, one would have to assume this is the usual Microsoft "bandaid" fix for the problem. And not a real fix. http://www.askwoody.com/2015/dont-ch...documentation/ "- Windows Update has always been set to "Never check for updates"; – Monthly manual update at least one week after Microsoft Patch Tuesday; – Up to and including August 2015: "Checking for updates" ran a long time; – 2015.09.16 w/o KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 43 minutes, and presented 17 updates to choose from; – 2015.10.21 with KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 2.5 minutes, and presented 13 updates to choose from. – 2015.11.18 with KB3083710 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 33 minutes, and presented 15 updates to choose from. So back to square one with KB3083710. However, KB3102810 got installed today, so maybe my December update will get faster again " Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:24:19 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:
Win7 pro SP1 I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter Thanks to all. It took over an hour, and the whole installation over 2 hr. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Ken1943 wrote:
There is a succession of patches to WU, and occasionally one of those reduces the wait. Because of the backward progress observed for '710, one would have to assume this is the usual Microsoft "bandaid" fix for the problem. And not a real fix. snip 710 ? Ken1943 I am referring to the log of results presented by a poster to askwoody.com . The pattern of delays for Windows Update to start, is similar to the bug behavior in WinXP days, for Windows Update. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same bug. The start delay for Windows Update, is reduced in time, any time that Microsoft modifies the file manifest and dependencies, so the CPU-bound loop won't take as long. At one point, Microsoft "pruned" an Internet Explorer part of the tree, in an attempt to prevent wuauserv for considering the history of Internet Explorer patches for too long. In the askwoody comments section, if that poster had noticed that after '324 update, the thing was fixed permanently, I wouldn't need to present the evidence. But after the '710 update, the problem is back. Which suggests their attempts at a fix are bandaid based, and not a rewrite of the non-scalable code. One of the fixes, does fix the excessive RAM usage. Some users on Windows 7, see up to 2GB of RAM used by the svchost hosting wuauserv. And one of the patches reduces that to the 20% level, so only 400MB is wasted, and the user has some RAM to use for ordinary work. But there is never an admission of facing the bug squarely, no "we know what the problem is and we know how to fix it". There is no evidence they have a better method to figure it out. I think they should upload the user's state information to an Azure instance, and waste Microsoft cycles on this :-) Rather than wuauserv spinning for 40 minutes on each user machine. At least that would get Microsoft focused on improving the performance. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:20:39 -0600, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Peter Jason wrote: Win7 pro SP1 I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter The advice from the Win10 newsgroup is to let it run. 24 hours is not unreasonable. I beg to differ. It is ridiculously unreasonable. If you said "not unexpected", I would have been forced to agree. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
In message , Stan Brown
writes: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:20:39 -0600, Paul in Houston TX wrote: [] The advice from the Win10 newsgroup is to let it run. 24 hours is not unreasonable. I beg to differ. It is ridiculously unreasonable. If you said "not unexpected", I would have been forced to agree. Agreed on both points (-: [I still don't understand what the railed CPU core - or whatever - is actually _doing_ during these locks. To me, update is something like your machine saying to MS "this is what I've got so far", with the MS end then figuring out what subsequent updates you need - presumably taking into account updates that supersede/fix earlier ones, and, OK, taking account of users whose last update left them with a buggy one. OK, I could understand if they've been lazy and are just doggedly leading users through all updates, including buggy ones, rather than doing a rollup (service packs in all but name, which I gather W7 SP1 - and possibly W8.1 - are going to be the last ever issued/released/whatever), but from what I read here and elsewhere, it sounds as if this delay is occurring _before any actual update downloading (let alone installing) takes place_. Hence my puzzlement as to what is actually happening - being done - during the delay.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf _IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS_ BEFORE ALL TECHNICAL INTERVENTION ON THE [CASE CUT THE ELECTRICAL FEEDING REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROVIDES THE GOOD WORKING OF A CASE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS BOOK) [seen on bacon cabinet in Tesco (a large grocery chain)] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Checking for Updates"?
Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:20:39 -0600, Paul in Houston TX wrote: Peter Jason wrote: Win7 pro SP1 I am trying to install Win10 from the ISO disk of August15, on top of my existing system, but the upgrade seems to have stalled on the "Getting Updates", "Checking for updates" window, with the little balls going round & round & round & round... So far this has been going on for 20 minutes; should I backstep and skip this "get Updates" option? Peter The advice from the Win10 newsgroup is to let it run. 24 hours is not unreasonable. I beg to differ. It is ridiculously unreasonable. If you said "not unexpected", I would have been forced to agree. Good point! I cannot update during daylight hours (USA) during the week. It gives me the whatever it is... 001 error. Works just fine at night. Have to assume that all the business machines are updating during the day and tying up the servers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|