Jump to content

pennsylvaniaron

Basic Sponsor
  • Posts

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by pennsylvaniaron

  1. 2 hours ago, rhahgleuhargh said:

    @pennsylvaniaron

    I disable Windows Defender in my VMs, since they are reformatted every month. In my round of test, no update was asked by WU, but I'll make a try in a few days to see if Windows Defender definition update is asked. If you suspect a bug due to your tweaks, just make a test without them and recheck. I don't think that integration causes WU bugs.

    If you want to integrate Defender updates I think it's possible to do it in RunOnce via WTKinstaller or setupcomplete.cmd.

    rhahgleuhargh thanks for the feedback. As you know I have been a member of this blog for a long time and have been making the iso for over 2 years. every month when my vm is completed and i go to do WUD there have always been naturally a few different updates each month but ALWAYS MRT and defender definition (kb). All of a sudden this month the defender kb update fails. This has never happened before. I realize that there are a few different methods and many variations for creating the iso, classic, convenience and thiersee uses his own method. I thought it was a $M server issue but all my home computers are getting the defender updates, no problem.

    While minor it seems to be a bug (all of a sudden) in my install. My concern is that I believe if an update keeps failing and you dont hide it I think it prevents new updates from being recognized.

    Lastly how do you DISABLE windows defender in your VM?

    regards

  2. thiersee I understand that.

    But if no one else is getting an error on the simple WUD install of the monthly windows defender definitions then it has to be in my installation. I used last months (october) iso on my VM and that also got failed to update defender definitions. I did remove the IE11 meet the browser tweak because it doesn't seem to be needed anymore. other than that its a typical new iso creation. I am using the lastest NFW 4.7.2.3221.1, FP, reader, ccleaner and telemetry. Guess I'll keep experimenting.

    regards...

  3. gentlemen, while I do not think this is big issue, its confusing. The november iso disk I created went perfectly. However WUD will not install defender updates. I check my own computer and the latest defender update was successful. I then re-installed the nov. iso on the VM a second time and now the latest defender update 1.281.239.0 will not update. The initial 4 out of 5 updates including MRT were installed with no problems. I can't see how our project here can be doing this, just asking if anyone else has this "bug"?😮

    regards...

  4. 2 hours ago, Thiersee said:

    As I already said before:

    KB3185319 is an old update for IE11, I get it requested ONLY on HPx86

    KB4099950, may be you use an older version (before 17.4.2018); re-download it and retry

    KB4041083 & KB4049016 are older superseded NET-FW (ALL versions) related, they CAN be 4.7.2-related, but they can be 3.5.1-related too; which size have the requests in WU?

    Thiersee my error on 4099950. starting my VM I looked in WU recent update list after I installed the updates and 4099950 was obviously there from the iso integration. So I did the entire install on VM over just now just to confirm and I have 3 updates (also mrt and defender total 5). Using convenience method. 

    4041083 (18.9mb)

    4049016 (18.9mb)

    3185319 (52.1mb) Why am I getting this on a _64 install?

    (I am using NFW 4.72.3190.1.) (kb4099950 in silent as #1.) when loading updates in WTK (3177467 comes up with 2603229 and 3046269.) I do not check them. they go under known issues in WTK. after that they get installed as the last 3 entries in the update list. A subsequent WU check comes up with NO new updates. Deep clean uninstalls 2534111, 2685811, 2685813

    regards...

     

  5. On 10/13/2018 at 10:28 AM, rhahgleuhargh said:

    Yes, it is only for pro !

    rhahgleuhargh, thanks for the edit. Before the edit it was unclear. thx for straightening that out. thx also to thiersee (messaging)

    my win 7_64 HP iso results: WU asks for

    4041083, 4049016, 3185319 4099950 (this update was in silent list at top and i watched it get installed on VM so dont know why it was asked for.

    regards

  6. On 10/6/2018 at 2:26 PM, pennsylvaniaron said:

    hello. I am considering building a new rig using an AMD Ryzen 7, summit ridge processor. I have read differing opinions if  windows 7 will work with this processor and corresponding motherboards (b350 chipset). Some have said that it will work but Microsoft somehow blocks updates with this setup. Also read there is an unofficial patch to unblock the updates.

    ANY information greatly appreciated!

    Regards...

    Anyone?

    regards...

  7. hello. I am considering building a new rig using an AMD Ryzen 7, summit ridge processor. I have read differing opinions if  windows 7 will work with this processor and corresponding motherboards (b350 chipset). Some have said that it will work but Microsoft somehow blocks updates with this setup. Also read there is an unofficial patch to unblock the updates.

    ANY information greatly appreciated!

    Regards...

  8. 5 hours ago, Thiersee said:

    Hi Ron,

    3135819 (IE11) appears sometime on my installation too, but not always.

    4457918 is the actual rollup for NET-FW, both 3.5.1 and 4.7.2; if you install it the other two (4041083 & 4049016) should disappear, they have been replaced by newer updates.

    Regards

    Hey thiersee thanks for reply. I am using the link you gave me for NFW 4.7.2 (3151.7) to download that file. kb4457918 is not in the Convenience UL's. Would this be a separate step to get kb4457918 and integrate on my own? I'm trying to keep this as automated as possible.

    regards...

  9. 4 minutes ago, Thiersee said:

    Hi Ron,

    let me make just one example:

    some add-on (x64) does not run well on Office 2010 x64, therefore MS recommend to use x86, if you need such add-on; of course on a x86-system you must run Office 2010  x86.

    For sure there are other programs with this problem.

    yes I can see that, but in your example why don't users just use office (x32). while I use win 7_64 I have both versions of office 2010 (x32, x64) but choose to run x32 only because I read that it is more compatible. I don't know what add-ons you refer to but I'm sure there is some incomptability problems with software. Can't think of anything else.

    regards...

  10. Thanks much for the updates for September. MUCH appreciated.

    I do have a curious question at least curious to me. Why does anyone still use the x86 version of windows 7🤔.  I haven't run into many (if any) computers with less than 4gb ram (which in the past was the reason for using x86) and if so I just add the 1 or 2 gb. Is the reason some old software doesn't run well on the x64 version? 

    regards...

×
×
  • Create New...