197 Updates Waiting for Install

[Boris[_2_]]

I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.

I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up in the
update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting. About 40 of
them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework 3.5.1 and 4. The
others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7 x64.

The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.

I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them, or
none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what order, and how
many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could really cause
problems if not installed correctly.

I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.

Opinions?

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2015 18:08, Boris wrote:
> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>
> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up in the
> update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting. About 40 of
> them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework 3.5.1 and 4. The
> others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7 x64.
>
> The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.
>
> I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them, or
> none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what order, and how
> many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could really cause
> problems if not installed correctly.
>
> I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.
>
> Opinions?
>
I only ever seem to have problems with the .NET updates, so I install
all the others, then do the .NET updates one at a time.

Or, you could update to Windows 8.1 and *really* foul up the system. ;-)

It might be worthwhile updating to the latest FF version, too, if you're
having trouble with it hanging randomly, which it does here a few hours
after it's started. So far, FF35 is better, if not yet quite perfect.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Boris[_2_]]

Boris > wrote in
9.88:

> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>
> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up in
> the update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting. About
> 40 of them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework 3.5.1 and
> 4. The others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7 x64.
>
> The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.
>
> I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them,
> or none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what order,
> and how many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could really
> cause problems if not installed correctly.
>
> I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.
>
> Opinions?
>

Perhaps I should explain why I'm not a fan of auto-updates:

The last time I tried to install two particular Important updates was on
1/20/15. Both failed. The first was KB2993651, and it returned Error
80070005. I tried multiple times. Then I looked at what this Important
security update was supposed to fix:

"After you install this security update, fonts that are installed in a
location other than the default fonts directory (%windir%\fonts\) cannot
be changed when they are loaded into any active session. Attempts to
change, replace, or delete these fonts are blocked, and a "File in use"
message is displayed." Then, for more information, you were directed to
five more links. Furthermore, the known issues were, After you install
this security update on your computer that is running Windows 7 or
Windows Server 2008 R2, you may experience a system crash or an
unexpected restart. To resolve this issue, install hotfix 3000064. For
more information, click the following article number to view the article
in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
3000064 The computer restarts unexpectedly after you install security
update MS14-045 on Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2.

And, it went on to say that this issue also occurs after installing the
following updates...there were five more updates listed here.

Sorry for my cynicism, but who needs all of this possible trouble, and
what casual user could figure all this out, and why is this called an
'Important' security update when most will never try to change fonts
during an open session. How about calling it 'Optional'?

[Boris[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote in
:

> On 08/02/2015 18:08, Boris wrote:
>> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up
>> in the update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting.
>> About 40 of them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework
>> 3.5.1 and 4. The others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7
>> x64.
>>
>> The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.
>>
>> I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them,
>> or none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what
>> order, and how many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could
>> really cause problems if not installed correctly.
>>
>> I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
> I only ever seem to have problems with the .NET updates, so I install
> all the others, then do the .NET updates one at a time.
Ah, good strategy, but I wonder if I even need the updates; and, they are
huge.
>
> Or, you could update to Windows 8.1 and *really* foul up the system.
> ;-)
My wife has a Win8.1 laptop, and I hate it. I keep having to fix it for
her. I keep telling her to upgrade to Win7. <g>
>
> It might be worthwhile updating to the latest FF version, too, if
> you're having trouble with it hanging randomly, which it does here a
> few hours after it's started. So far, FF35 is better, if not yet quite
> perfect.
Oops, I meant to write that I am running FF35.0.1. It does sometimes
randomly hang, and it sometimes will tell me that my version of Flash is
vulnerable, even though the version is what the Mozila tells me I should
have. The only way I've been able to fix this problem is to uninstall
FF, and reinstall it, and then reinstall Flash.
>

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/8/2015 7:35 PM, Boris wrote:
> Sorry for my cynicism, but who needs all of this possible trouble, and
> what casual user could figure all this out, and why is this called an
> 'Important' security update when most will never try to change fonts
> during an open session. How about calling it 'Optional'?

I always look at the description of the updates and decide whether to
install them or not. I generally weed out about half of a pile that way
based on the fact that I don't use whatever it's supposed to fix. I
haven't knowingly had any problems with .NET updates, and I have several
programs that use that library, so I generally accept them.

Although all of my computers connect to the Internet, I don't go to
naughty places where malware hangs out. I'm certainly aware of the "a
new computer connected to the Internet got 197 viruses in fifteen
minutes without ever accessing a web site" scare, but I'm not ready to
accept that it's going to happen to me. So I'm a little skeptical about
updates that are simply "security updates" without explaining what they
guard against.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

The scary thing i just read about is keeping away from bad places
Is no longer enough to keep safe.
Supposedly cryptowall was hacked into ad servers and if you
Go to an innocent web site like yahoo news, their ad server
Could infect you.
I keep offline backups, in the drawer, not connected.
Of course, i have to connect them from time to time to back
Up new files.

Its to the point where all the conveniences these advanced software
Features are supposed to provide, are no longer convenient if they
Expose you to the bad guys. I liked the days when you
Put the disk into the drive when you want to run a program.

Mark

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:46:04 +0100, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 2/8/2015 7:35 PM, Boris wrote:
>> Sorry for my cynicism, but who needs all of this possible trouble, and
>> what casual user could figure all this out, and why is this called an
>> 'Important' security update when most will never try to change fonts
>> during an open session. How about calling it 'Optional'?
>
>I always look at the description of the updates and decide whether to
>install them or not. I generally weed out about half of a pile that way
>based on the fact that I don't use whatever it's supposed to fix. I
>haven't knowingly had any problems with .NET updates, and I have several
>programs that use that library, so I generally accept them.
>
>Although all of my computers connect to the Internet, I don't go to
>naughty places where malware hangs out. I'm certainly aware of the "a
>new computer connected to the Internet got 197 viruses in fifteen
>minutes without ever accessing a web site" scare, but I'm not ready to
>accept that it's going to happen to me. So I'm a little skeptical about
>updates that are simply "security updates" without explaining what they
>guard against.

How many computers actually connect to the Internet these days? Every
one I come across connects to a DSL router and is more or less hidden
behind NAT. Unless you are foolish enough to either dump malware on it
or use the DMZ function of the router, it is pretty much safe.

d

[geoff]

On 9/02/2015 7:08 a.m., Boris wrote:
> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>
> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up in the
> update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting. About 40 of
> them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework 3.5.1 and 4. The
> others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7 x64.
>
> The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.
>
> I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them, or
> none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what order, and how
> many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could really cause
> problems if not installed correctly.
>
> I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.
>
> Opinions?
>


You should always install all of them as soon as convenient - not wait 4
years. Some, especially the.NET ones, will take a long time to install.

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/02/2015 7:35 a.m., Boris wrote:

> Sorry for my cynicism, but who needs all of this possible trouble, and
> what casual user could figure all this out, and why is this called an
> 'Important' security update when most will never try to change fonts
> during an open session. How about calling it 'Optional'?
>

Well don't install your updates then. Sheesh.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/8/2015 8:46 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> How many computers actually connect to the Internet these days? Every
> one I come across connects to a DSL router and is more or less hidden
> behind NAT. Unless you are foolish enough to either dump malware on it
> or use the DMZ function of the router, it is pretty much safe.

Really? OK, I feel better now.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/8/2015 7:43 PM, Boris wrote:
> FF35.0.1. It does sometimes
> randomly hang, and it sometimes will tell me that my version of Flash is
> vulnerable, even though the version is what the Mozila tells me I should
> have.

I've had the same problem recently. I wonder if it's possible to just go to the plug-ins in Firefox and uninstall Flash Player from there. . . . nope. I open up the plug-ins and it shows the current version that I have installed (16.something, which is the current version) but tells me that version 11 is blocked.

At least when a web site asks me if I want to go ahead and use it, I can tell it "yes and remember" which I thing means remember for that site, but definitely not remember, dammit.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gray_Wolf]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 13:00:48 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

>On 2/8/2015 7:43 PM, Boris wrote:
>> FF35.0.1. It does sometimes
>> randomly hang, and it sometimes will tell me that my version of Flash is
>> vulnerable, even though the version is what the Mozila tells me I should
>> have.
>
>I've had the same problem recently. I wonder if it's possible to just go to the plug-ins in Firefox and uninstall Flash Player from there. . . . nope.

The only way I know to remove flash is through the control panel
uninstall.

Here's an option for Flash: https://www.youtube.com/html5 It worked
well when I was having freeze problems with Flash Player


> I open up the plug-ins and it shows the current version that I have installed (16.something, which is the current version) but tells me that version 11 is blocked.
>
>At least when a web site asks me if I want to go ahead and use it, I can tell it "yes and remember" which I thing means remember for that site, but definitely not remember, dammit.

[gregz]

Boris > wrote:
> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>
> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates, but I do let them pile up in the
> update window. There's now 197 Important updates waiting. About 40 of
> them are Security Updates/Updates for .NET Framework 3.5.1 and 4. The
> others are Security Updates/Updates for Windows 7 x64.
>
> The dates on them run the gamut from 2011 to 2014, with a few 2015.
>
> I'm wondering if I should finally install all of them, some of them, or
> none of them, and if I should install any, which and in what order, and how
> many at a time. My fear is that with so many, I could really cause
> problems if not installed correctly.
>
> I'm also running FFox 30.5.0.1, IE8, and Windows Live Mail 2011.
>
> Opinions?

I got about the same. Seems like after I got the hp laptop, endless
updates, bios, etc. Two years ago, I had to fix windows at every boot.
After unistalling a couple things, including comcast security, I got my
machine back. No updating since.

Greg

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Boris" > skrev i en meddelelse
9.88...

> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.

> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates

Important information omitted, what is the box doing?

a) if an dedicated production machine and works: do nothing

b) a) if it is an office + internetputer: automatic updates
on manual install, only install after a fresh backup.

b) automatic updates automatic.

> Opinions?

The opinion is professional.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Bill[_20_]]

In message >, geoff
> writes
>You should always install all of them as soon as convenient - not wait
>4 years. Some, especially the.NET ones, will take a long time to
>install.

I just bought a machine that had been reinstalled to factory condition
via the recovery partition, so it was running W7 Pro with no service
pack.

I went online and installed SP1. Rebooted and it told me there were182
updates to download.
I'm not sure that I understand why Microsoft's update site doesn't
contain an updated version of the SP, but maybe it's for a good reason.
I let it install automatically and it hung at update175. After thrashing
about a bit, I got it going and it spent some hours undoing all the
updates it had achieved. This was day 1.
Day 2, I tried again with the same result, so went back and did a manual
update using "search techniques" ie half the updates, and when those
work, half the remaining updates and so on until the quantity remaining
gets small enough to go for it. All went fine, with no hiccups.

Normally, I just have it tell me about updates and decide when to
install, letting almost all of them trough. I don't seem to have much
trouble.

I'm pratting about with the Windows 10 preview. At the moment it only
does automatic updates via a new settings menu, and it was like getting
blood from a stone getting anyone to say that manual updating would be
reinstated before it was released. I'm not sure I trust MS, but hope
springs infernal.
--
Bill

[Boris[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote in
:

> On 2/8/2015 7:43 PM, Boris wrote:
>> FF35.0.1. It does sometimes
>> randomly hang, and it sometimes will tell me that my version of Flash
>> is vulnerable, even though the version is what the Mozila tells me I
>> should have.
>
> I've had the same problem recently. I wonder if it's possible to just
> go to the plug-ins in Firefox and uninstall Flash Player from there. .
> . . nope. I open up the plug-ins and it shows the current version that
> I have installed (16.something, which is the current version) but
> tells me that version 11 is blocked.
Same here.
>
> At least when a web site asks me if I want to go ahead and use it, I
> can tell it "yes and remember" which I thing means remember for that
> site, but definitely not remember, dammit.
>
Same here.

[Boris[_2_]]

Gray_Wolf > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 13:00:48 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> > wrote:
>
>>On 2/8/2015 7:43 PM, Boris wrote:
>>> FF35.0.1. It does sometimes
>>> randomly hang, and it sometimes will tell me that my version of
>>> Flash is vulnerable, even though the version is what the Mozila
>>> tells me I should have.
>>
>>I've had the same problem recently. I wonder if it's possible to just
>>go to the plug-ins in Firefox and uninstall Flash Player from there. .
>>. . nope.
>
> The only way I know to remove flash is through the control panel
> uninstall.
>
> Here's an option for Flash: https://www.youtube.com/html5 It worked
> well when I was having freeze problems with Flash Player
>
>
>> I open up the plug-ins and it shows the current version that I have
>> installed (16.something, which is the current version) but tells me
>> that version 11 is blocked.
>>
>>At least when a web site asks me if I want to go ahead and use it, I
>>can tell it "yes and remember" which I thing means remember for that
>>site, but definitely not remember, dammit.
>
>

First, I apologize for accidentally posting this issue to this ng. I'll
repost to alt.windows7.general. And, we seem to drifted off to
FFox/Flash issues, while the OP was about Windows Updates.

Anyway, I've found that one has to uninstall Flash via Control Panel, and
then go to the adobe flash site and download (not the stub) the NAPI
plug-in version, not the IE version, for FFox. But, even when I do this,
after a while, I'm back at the same old warnings. Argh...

[Boris[_2_]]

wrote in news:95854c12-e7a7-43b4-ac28-9de413532420
@googlegroups.com:

> The scary thing i just read about is keeping away from bad places
> Is no longer enough to keep safe.
> Supposedly cryptowall was hacked into ad servers and if you
> Go to an innocent web site like yahoo news, their ad server
> Could infect you.
> I keep offline backups, in the drawer, not connected.
> Of course, i have to connect them from time to time to back
> Up new files.
>
> Its to the point where all the conveniences these advanced software
> Features are supposed to provide, are no longer convenient if they
> Expose you to the bad guys. I liked the days when you
> Put the disk into the drive when you want to run a program.
>
> Mark
>

Ah, the old CPM days.

[Boris[_2_]]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in news:54d88aec$0$46271
:

> "Boris" > skrev i en meddelelse
> 9.88...
>
>> I'm running Win7 HP, 64-bit, SP1. It's been running fine.
>
>> I'm not a fan of auto-installing updates
>
> Important information omitted, what is the box doing?
>
> a) if an dedicated production machine and works: do nothing
>
> b) a) if it is an office + internetputer: automatic updates
> on manual install, only install after a fresh backup.
>
> b) automatic updates automatic.
>
>> Opinions?
>
> The opinion is professional.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>
>

The box is running fine, other than sometimes my browsers (FFox 35.0.1
and IE8) hang, and then come back to life. It's used as my home
workhorse.

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:46:22 GMT, Don Pearce wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:46:04 +0100, Mike Rivers >
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/8/2015 7:35 PM, Boris wrote:
>>> Sorry for my cynicism, but who needs all of this possible trouble, and
>>> what casual user could figure all this out, and why is this called an
>>> 'Important' security update when most will never try to change fonts
>>> during an open session. How about calling it 'Optional'?
>>
>>I always look at the description of the updates and decide whether to
>>install them or not. I generally weed out about half of a pile that way
>>based on the fact that I don't use whatever it's supposed to fix. I
>>haven't knowingly had any problems with .NET updates, and I have several
>>programs that use that library, so I generally accept them.
>>
>>Although all of my computers connect to the Internet, I don't go to
>>naughty places where malware hangs out. I'm certainly aware of the "a
>>new computer connected to the Internet got 197 viruses in fifteen
>>minutes without ever accessing a web site" scare, but I'm not ready to
>>accept that it's going to happen to me. So I'm a little skeptical about
>>updates that are simply "security updates" without explaining what they
>>guard against.
>
>How many computers actually connect to the Internet these days? Every
>one I come across connects to a DSL router and is more or less hidden
>behind NAT. Unless you are foolish enough to either dump malware on it
>or use the DMZ function of the router, it is pretty much safe.

Sorry, but it is not. Even assuming routers themselves are not
vulnerable (but they are sometimes), you never know if you visit a
legitimate website if it hasn't been hacked to load malware on any
visitor's machine, even without clicking on anything . And how do you
know is a Flash video isn't installing malware? Always apply security
updates, unless it is a machine without local network or internet
connection, wired or wireless, and it has no accessable USB ports or
they are all disabled. I avoid using Internet Explorer, Flash and Java
if at all possible.

Mat Nieuwenhoven