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

.. . .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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

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.

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

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.

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.*/

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...

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...

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.

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.

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

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...

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...