With the free upgrade period offer over I've been considering setting up another Window 7 VM to see what updates they push out to it. Last time I did that I came back to the VM running Windows 10 with no human intervention.

That would be very interesting one, please, don't delay it :)

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

With the free upgrade period offer over I've been considering setting up another Window 7 VM to see what updates they push out to it. Last time I did that I came back to the VM running Windows 10 with no human intervention.

That would be very interesting one, please, don't delay it :)

Why do I suspect that none of the GWX updates will happen?

---

I just find it a bit interesting that in the last two months of trying to con people into moving to 10, they went with the rollup route, and as soon as August came around.. back to individual updates again.

Looks like the August rollup just rolled out yesterday. Nothing to explain what's in it, though, so I didn't install it, at least not this week.

EDIT: Whoops...I didn't follow the improvements and fixes link. The rollup appears to be benign:

August 16, 2016 — KB3179573
This update includes quality improvements. No new operating system features are being introduced in this update. Key changes include:

Improved performance on specific networks that have a high-bandwidth and low latency.
Addressed issue with users encountering a bugcheck, when trying to access a domain DFS namespace (for example, \\contoso.com\SYSVOL) on a computer that is configured to require mutual authentication (by using the UNC Hardened Access feature).

This problem may occur if the selected domain controller has security update KB3161561 installed, and if the SmbServerNameHardeningLevel registry entry is configured to a non-zero value on the domain controller.

Okay, that's interesting indeed. I saw individual updates in WSUS and assumed we were back to individual updates now that the free upgrade period was over. Maybe they're already starting that whole thing about WSUS getting each and every update, but only the rollup is available to everyone else.

What I find even more interesting though is when I went to that improvements and fixes link, and expanded the July rollup... it mentioned absolutely nothing about the new Update Client that is contained within, via superseding the June 2016 rollup.

I'm still calling that sneaky and shady.

I'm still going to continue being vigilant in WSUS though--researching all the updates that come through. Maybe one of these days, I'll just have to turn updates off entirely.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I have an update request on one of my machines that is about 300 megs and for the heck of it I told it to go ahead.

I let it set there for about 15 minutes and it never did download anything. Figuring that I had done something wrong, I rebooted and tried it again, still nothing. I guess they don't really want to update my machine and are just teasing me....ha!

---

I let it set there for about 15 minutes and it never did download anything. Figuring that I had done something wrong, I rebooted and tried it again, still nothing. I guess they don't really want to update my machine and are just teasing me....ha!

I think there's something broken in the update client right now. Had a Win7 box the other night that sat forever showing 0% complete on updates, couldn't seem to get them to download, but when I went to look at detail, they were all there waiting for install ... did a shutdown and everything loaded, eventually ...

---

What I find even more interesting though is when I went to that improvements and fixes link, and expanded the July rollup... it mentioned absolutely nothing about the new Update Client that is contained within, via superseding the June 2016 rollup.

I've gotten the impression over the last several months that Microsoft's definition of "rollup" is somewhat flexible. Sometimes, it seems to mean a cumulative update that includes everything that came before, such as that "convenience rollup" for those installing Win7 SP1 on a new machine. That usage generally makes sense to me (or at least it would if that "rollup" was actually complete and convenient, which I recently found it not to be). Then there are these monthly rollups which seem to contain little more than one or two patches and which are explicitly described by M$ as not cumulative. Some sort of consistency would be nice.

I'm still going to continue being vigilant in WSUS though--researching all the updates that come through. Maybe one of these days, I'll just have to turn updates off entirely.

Well, as I see it, "turning off" updates and "not installing" updates are really two different things. I've had Windows Update set to "Never check for updates" for as long as I can remember. That just prevents WU from doing the check automatically. I still run a "Check for updates" manually on a regular basis, usually every Wednesday or Thursday on my daily driver and less frequently on the other boxes, depending on what's turned up on the daily driver check. That approach has served me very well for many years. I still can keep my machines up to date while fending off any unwanted updates.

Last week, I was also reminded of a somewhat obscure benefit derived from installing Windows updates regularly....shadow files. These are essentially incremental backup files that WU tucks away when creating a restore point. Those files have saved my a$$ on 5 or 6 occasions over the last several years, when a file from my own (sometimes erratic) backups was missing, corrupted, or older than what was available in the shadow files. A recent manual edit of one of my own local Seti task DB tables caused some corruption and when I went to restore the DB from my (supposed) 3-times-per-week backup, I found that the backup had actually been failing since June 19. Restoring to that date and then reapplying about 7 weeks worth of twice-daily updates to get it back current again would have taken me a couple days. However, an August 4 WU run had stored copies of all the DB files in the shadow world, making restoration and recovery so much simpler.

I let it set there for about 15 minutes and it never did download anything. Figuring that I had done something wrong, I rebooted and tried it again, still nothing. I guess they don't really want to update my machine and are just teasing me....ha!

I think there's something broken in the update client right now. Had a Win7 box the other night that sat forever showing 0% complete on updates, couldn't seem to get them to download, but when I went to look at detail, they were all there waiting for install ... did a shutdown and everything loaded, eventually ...

Thanks for the info. I didn't leave it running overnight or even for hours, so perhaps it may have downloaded sorta in the blind if I had let it. Might try that, but I really hate to leave anything unattended with MS on the other end.

---

Windows 10 Update Delivery Optimization explained

Excerpts:

>  "Delivery Optimization is turned on by default on all editions of Windows 10."
>  "... your PC or device may be used to deliver updates to other Windows 10 users, and it may download updates from peers and not Windows
    Update."

Without asking permission, or an Opt-In, MS is using your computer to do its job.

<flashback to Avatar>

Dr. Grace Augustine:  You see? You see? I mean they’re just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain.

Windows 10 Update Delivery Optimization explained

Excerpts:

>  "Delivery Optimization is turned on by default on all editions of Windows 10."
>  "... your PC or device may be used to deliver updates to other Windows 10 users, and it may download updates from peers and not Windows
    Update."

Without asking permission, or an Opt-In, MS is using your computer to do its job.

<flashback to Avatar>

Dr. Grace Augustine:  You see? You see? I mean they’re just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain.

Yes and no. You can control whether you send/receive from only PCs on your home network or others. (Settings>Updates/Security>Advanced>How Delivered) With that caveat, I call it a win ...
Running 5 boxes here, I appreciate taking the hit to my ISP only once, and letting the Gig-E I have here at the house take the hit for the rest. What I don't like is that there's no logging visible to let you see what you got and from where. Would be interesting to know, and perhaps useful if I had a local box cause a problem.

---

icecold here on my desktops.

The only i used Windows 10 day by day was my small 8" Tablet, all the other pcs are running Windows 7 again.

---

A thought just occurred to me, which usually means I'm a week late, regarding the WIn10 Update format. It would appear M$ has possibly created the perfect virus distribution network with the 'peer to peer' portion of the protocol. As Jimbocus stated the lack of logging would seem to make it rather easy(for a sufficiently knowledgeable miscreant) to insert something in the update that would also be passed to subsequent recipients and so on.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I have an update request on one of my machines that is about 300 megs and for the heck of it I told it to go ahead.

I let it set there for about 15 minutes and it never did download anything. Figuring that I had done something wrong, I rebooted and tried it again, still nothing. I guess they don't really want to update my machine and are just teasing me....ha!

This was a phenomenon I noticed a while back when getting updates from MS directly and when getting updates from my local WSUS server.

When checking for--and downloading--updates from MS, there seems to be a ton of disk activity and CPU usage, as the Update client is scanning all the files on your computer that would be affected by the update, to see if you need portions of it or not. You end up downloading only part of the update because you don't need all of it.

When checking for--and downloading--updates from WSUS, there is minimal disk activity and CPU usage, and the download starts almost right away and begins installing, because it doesn't check the individual files that would be affected, it's just a simple check of "X update is available on the server and is not currently installed on the client machine. Begin downloading update to install on client machine."



Especially with larger updates, when downloading directly from MS, you'll have to let it sit for a while.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I have an update request on one of my machines that is about 300 megs and for the heck of it I told it to go ahead.

I let it set there for about 15 minutes and it never did download anything. Figuring that I had done something wrong, I rebooted and tried it again, still nothing. I guess they don't really want to update my machine and are just teasing me....ha!

This was a phenomenon I noticed a while back when getting updates from MS directly and when getting updates from my local WSUS server.

When checking for--and downloading--updates from MS, there seems to be a ton of disk activity and CPU usage, as the Update client is scanning all the files on your computer that would be affected by the update, to see if you need portions of it or not. You end up downloading only part of the update because you don't need all of it.

When checking for--and downloading--updates from WSUS, there is minimal disk activity and CPU usage, and the download starts almost right away and begins installing, because it doesn't check the individual files that would be affected, it's just a simple check of "X update is available on the server and is not currently installed on the client machine. Begin downloading update to install on client machine."



Especially with larger updates, when downloading directly from MS, you'll have to let it sit for a while.

Thanks for the great explanation. Never thought of it that way before. Makes sense. Guess I've got a plan for Saturday, where I can keep an eye on it.
[/img]

---

What I find even more interesting though is when I went to that improvements and fixes link, and expanded the July rollup... it mentioned absolutely nothing about the new Update Client that is contained within, via superseding the June 2016 rollup.

I've gotten the impression over the last several months that Microsoft's definition of "rollup" is somewhat flexible. Sometimes, it seems to mean a cumulative update that includes everything that came before, such as that "convenience rollup" for those installing Win7 SP1 on a new machine. That usage generally makes sense to me (or at least it would if that "rollup" was actually complete and convenient, which I recently found it not to be). Then there are these monthly rollups which seem to contain little more than one or two patches and which are explicitly described by M$ as not cumulative. Some sort of consistency would be nice.

I just checked with WSUS again since the last time I checked it was... over the weekend, I think.

Tuesday's batch that showed up is a bunch of variations of 7/8.1 upgrade to 10 pro/education/enterprise 1607 (KB 3012973), Update for Windows 7 (KB 3177723) and Update for Windows 7 (KB 3179573).

3177723 is a useless one.. Egypt cancelled DST. 3179573 is the August 2016 rollup that has next to no information about what it actually does, other than what you can discern from the "improvements and fixes" link. But last week, there were about 8 security updates that showed up in WSUS, so I'm thinking all of those are in the rollup, as well as July and June's rollup.

I know what you mean about inconsistency.. is it simply just all of this current month's updates rolled up into one, or is it all of this month's, combined with the previous one that did the same thing, combined with the previous one that did the same thing? I know their end-goal is to have one single update that encompasses every single update from the release of SP1 to present, which basically makes it an ever-evolving service pack.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I'd like to point out that just because you don't use anything in an Egyptian time-zone doesn't mean it's useless...

---

Soli Deo Gloria

I'd like to point out that just because you don't use anything in an Egyptian time-zone doesn't mean it's useless...

Okay yes, it IS useful to some people, but I don't have any plans to bring my desktop machine to Egypt anytime soon, nor do I know anyone there, so I don't need to set my timezone to that for any reason. It's just like I don't need the update for the new timezone rules for North Korea, either.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

My computers just went into no more updates mode.

I installed Sophos to handle my AV and malware needs.

---

My computers just went into no more updates mode.

I installed Sophos to handle my AV and malware needs.

Most of my machines never do updates.
http://i.imgur.com/TH5OjMS.png
But I did have to install an update on my HTPC once to get something to work.
http://i.imgur.com/WJ9Ggf8.png

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

I'd like to point out that just because you don't use anything in an Egyptian time-zone doesn't mean it's useless...

Okay yes, it IS useful to some people, but I don't have any plans to bring my desktop machine to Egypt anytime soon, nor do I know anyone there, so I don't need to set my timezone to that for any reason. It's just like I don't need the update for the new timezone rules for North Korea, either.

Until you get a SPAM from one of those places and the oddball time causes your e-mail client to ....

---