Windows 7 SP1 Rollup Update

| CEIP, telemetry on program performance, isn't in that
| category. And has been present in multiple packages
| in Windows Update, and also available for separate
| download. And as a rollup, these could easily be
| included. If you want surgical control, you want
| some other sort of update strategy, not the rollup.
|

That's an interesting way to look at it, that getting
real fixes without spyware would require "surgical control".
That seems to also be what the chatters on Slashdot
are finding. Basic civility would dictate that spyware
be opt-in, as it has been in the past, but of course
I'm not surprised. I was only trying to qualify Winston's
polyanna advice.

I wonder how many man-hours have been wasted by
people who are dedicated to picking out the few really
critical updates out of the increasingly foul stew that
is Windows Update. I guess it's not so bad if it's just one
admin in a big company, but for individuals it's a big
undertaking. It's become topic #1 in this group.

Mayayana wrote on 05/19/2016 8:48 AM:

I wonder how many man-hours have been wasted by
people who are dedicated to picking out the few really
critical updates out of the increasingly foul stew that
is Windows Update. I guess it's not so bad if it's just one
admin in a big company, but for individuals it's a big
undertaking. It's become topic #1 in this group.



Individual people dedicated to picking out the few really critical updates ?
- That quantity is so marginal that it would be an unnoticeable spec
in the tails of the Bell shaped curve.




--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience

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

On Wed, 18 May 2016 22:21:33 -0400, . . .winston wrote:
Let me know when you can validate any of the conspiracy theory that the
Rollup includes the GWX or related content.


You said Microsoft said it includes "all" security and nonsecurity
updates. To anyone but you, that's conclusive.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Wed, 18 May 2016 22:20:14 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Stan Brown wrote on 05/18/2016 8:05 PM:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 03:54:47 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Is KB3035538 a security or non-security update? Whichever it is,
*Microsoft* says it will be in the first all-encompassing rollup.


I thought in March, when the new broke of Windows 10 malware in a
Windows 7 "security fix", that Winston might shut up with his
relentless campaign of disinformation. I should have known better.
The latest facts are, I fear, no more likely to shut him up.


Which Win10 malware was included in a Security Fix?

Short memory, the?

http://www.askwoody.com/2016/ie-patc...en-a-security-
update-is-not-a-security-update/

I've only posted that about half a dozen times.

That's it. You are simply not worth my time engaging with any more.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote on 05/19/2016 11:03 PM:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 22:20:14 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Stan Brown wrote on 05/18/2016 8:05 PM:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 03:54:47 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Is KB3035538 a security or non-security update? Whichever it is,
*Microsoft* says it will be in the first all-encompassing rollup.


I thought in March, when the new broke of Windows 10 malware in a
Windows 7 "security fix", that Winston might shut up with his
relentless campaign of disinformation. I should have known better.
The latest facts are, I fear, no more likely to shut him up.


Which Win10 malware was included in a Security Fix?

Short memory, the?

http://www.askwoody.com/2016/ie-patc...en-a-security-
update-is-not-a-security-update/

I've only posted that about half a dozen times.

That's it. You are simply not worth my time engaging with any more.


Just another of your references to something falsely beleived to be true.

Look closely, Stanley, at the link you provided(and proved yourself
wrong again).

Woody has yet to have a single person, including himself show that
3139929 displays a banner ad in IE.

Need another clue...from your link (quoted content below)

"I’ve been trying and trying, and can’t get it to work."
"Has anybody taken a screen shot of the banner? I’d sure like to see it."
"I haven’t seen it in the wild, and haven’t received a screenshot from
anyone else."
"Alas, it’s a shot of msn.com. The folks at msn.com have been showing
banner ads for Windows 10 since last August, if memory serves."
"9.999% chance that the ad you saw was on msn.com – the default home
page for IE. That’s generated by msn.com, not by IE."
"The IE patch doesn’t install Win10. All it does is (reportedly) put
an ad for Win10 at the top of new tabs. That’s it. And we haven’t even
seen the ad yet."

Let us know when you see the malware generate an ad in IE11 (that's not
an MSN routine ad).

Oh...and when you see it do let MVP Woody know(his email is on your
link). Better yet, reply to me, I can get it to him much faster via a
private forum.



...winston
msft mvp windows experience

Stan Brown wrote on 05/19/2016 11:01 PM:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 22:21:33 -0400, . . .winston wrote:
Let me know when you can validate any of the conspiracy theory that the
Rollup includes the GWX or related content.


You said Microsoft said it includes "all" security and nonsecurity
updates. To anyone but you, that's conclusive.


Are you really this blind or forgetful of what you read ?


qp
Fyi...the operative words for the rollup was 'security updates and
non-security *fixes*' not 'non-security updates'.
/qp



--
...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...