Apparently, 1 more free Windows 7 update

Apparently, Windows 7 used WILL get one more free update - to fix a mess up Microsoft made to Windows 7 on the last update :smiley:

So, 1 more, it seems :slight_smile:


This is exactly why Microsoft keeps support open for years after a product EOL.

What makes me laugh is the response from the press and blog writers. “It’s unusual for Microsoft to issue public patches and updates to operating systems that are marked as out of support, as customers typically have to purchase ESUs.”

1 Like

Better make that 2 updates, but this one will be pushed instead of having to go and find.
If you look in the update panel you should see a preview of another monthly quality rollup
Expect another hardly tested bag of trouble landing soon.

The early testing relies on some users installing the previews and being the crash test dummies.
This is probably why we have been getting such dumb bugs, as who if they have the choice wants to risk the OS they rely on ?
I don’t think have never used the previews as I don’t generally have an expendable test rig.

I would love to see the stats for the install rate of the previews as it would possibly clarify things.

1 Like

This looks to be the official roll-up for the fix.

  • Addresses an issue that might cause your wallpaper to display as black when set to Stretch after installing KB4534310.

Since there is no such thing as a hotfix now for any Microsoft OS, there is only a preview release and a monthly roll-up. A different process (less QA) but same result. Otherwise the updates are issued for Extended Security Update (ESU) customers only.

1 Like

Yeah it has the fix, plus either the last rollup again or a whole lot of new updates which ESU customers will get also.
314 MB is rather excessive for 1 fix.

Meh, Hotfix or Microcode. Service Pack or Feature Update, Virus Definition or Security Intelligence Update.
Microsoft are experts at calling a spade a shovel.
They are surrounded by too much management speak and double-talk.

I’ve said it before that the out of bounds updates for previous abandoned OSs demonstrate that whatever they say, they are forced by the reality of installer base and the implications of not pushing out certain updates.
When they end of days came, I predicted we will see more updates no matter what.
Mark my words there will likely be another as long as the user base is a threat in some form.

1 Like

Complaining against Microsoft? why the uproar tone, they are not the only desktop OS or any OS that push out updates all platforms get updates and fixes frequently period. 314MB is not excessive, even though Apple does not get reported that often in the news of there updates, they have had updates that have exceeded well over that size for MAC Desktop OS.

So MS is fixing mistakes from the last update, at least there are fixing it. Apple hasn’t had issues with iOS 13? How many updates have been out since its launch. Linux and Uubutu get updates to when things are found, during the course of last year Steve Gibson reported on his podcast that security issues were discovered for both and he recommended updating to the latest versions.

MS is not doing anything different from what they stated and what has been known for years, every version of Windows prior to Win 10 has a 10 year support cycle and a EOL. The next is Win 8 which its EOL ten years is Jan 2023 I believe. Non ESU customers for Win 7 will not be getting all updates for it in the future just because they are fixing a couple problems with the last updates now doesn’t mean anything. Win 7 usage numbers are going down its normal for a EOL of life cycle of a version of Windows it doesn’t occur overnight it takes time, MS knows this because its normal.

Updates are a part of OS software regardless if its a desktop or mobile platforms, when has it not?

1 Like

You miss the point I made.
It isn’t an anti-microsoft rant, it is an anti-BS observation based on history and knowing the reality of leaving millions of insecure systems in the wild when they have the ability to avoid a disaster.

I have no problems with getting updates.
I do have problems with not being honest about the nature or content of updates.
eg. the detailed info in the updater became useless years ago when they stopped telling you what the updates were and just copied the basic info over.
eg. having to wait to see what others have found in the recent updates and then shared with the community.

This new update contains the fix for the desktop problem.
This was made available as a standalone microcode update which is 30 - 50 MB depending on the system.

If Microsoft are not giving us more updates they promised they wouldn’t then what are we getting ?
Don’t get me wrong I am grateful for most updates. I just prefer them not to come smelling of BS and hypocrisy.

As I said already I expect they will push out another at some point, because they don’t really have the choice when certain security problems raise their head.
How long do you leave a botnet festering while you know you can and should do something about it ?

I am hardly alone wishing for more transparency

1 Like

The Windows product cycle (XP, Vista, Win 7, Win 8, etc.) that has been in place forever until Win 10, It is not BS and non transparency, when Win 7 was launched 10 years ago, it was known that January 14, 2020 was going to be the last scheduled patch Tuesday update for Win 7 and that is for non ESU customers which is all consumer/individuals the home user. There was no more promised updates for those people or computer. However because that last update created a problem and broke things, they are doing the right thing to fix the problems that this update broke, that is the only reason your seeing these updates for Win 7 on computers that are not supposed to get updates beyond January 14, 2020.

But people and computers who do not qualify for you to purchase additional support (ESU for Enterprise and Organizations) on Windows 7. you still have to decide what to do either upgrade that PC to Windows 10, retire it, buy a new computer or keep Win 7 and just not connect that computer to the internet. This had been talked about for a couple of years on TWiT that Win 7 end of life date was coming up on January 14, 2020.

Apple has done the same thing, they don’t support a particular MAC OS desktop edition forever, there is a cut off date for there OS’s too.

I went to Windows 7 when it launched 10 years ago and I knew this date would come just like prior editions of Windows. I upgraded all my 4 win 7 PCs to Win 10 during the last year in 2019 finished the last PC in November, I just upgraded a friends wife laptop to Win 10 from Win 7, they knew for years Win 7 would reach its EOL, you have to move on its the users responsibility. Its the nature and technical aspect of desktop OS’s and the internet on PCs when your a individual consumer.

1 Like

It was microsofts lack of transparency that made me opt to use Autopatcher instead of windows own updater.
I used to enable the option to display the detailed info about each update, but over time they stopped adding that and copied the basic text to the detail field.
As time went on the basic info became more general and vague to the point that now they just say the same thing no matter what is in the update.
Swapping to Autopatcher gave me back the detailed text from the extended info in the MS site, so I could make a better judgement on installing only the updates that actually apply to my PC. eg. I don’t need updates for things my OS or HW don’t have or use, or languages/keymaps I will never swap to.
I don’t need the sneaky telemetry pack they foisted on Win 7 users under the usual generic update name that tells you zero.

The new Win 10 UEFI patch does more than it says on the tin.
Users that don’t have an outdated Kaspersky recovery disk, do not need it.
Basically nobody needs it now because that ship sailed last year, but if it was clearly labelled you could make that decision before bricking your PC when you didn’t need to.

Why must we be forced to hoard so much clutter and files for things we don’t want or use ?
Transparency and clarity will avoid many incidents of TITSUP for home and business users.
Transparency would mean that MS were honest from day 1 about the privacy settings not being as private as advertised, and when caught out, that they would speak plain English rather than spout more management double-talk trying to make people ignore it.

There that is an anti MS rant :+1:

That’s not my understanding. The disk is flawed, and could be used as a malware vector against ANY unpatched PC. This is why MS is anxious to get the update installed, because an updated PC will no longer trust this old product and blocking it from booting so that it cannot be abused to do things it was not originally intended to.

Yes good point someone could use an old image, but it won’t work on all PCs
This is something HP should be fixing, as the mobo checks the certs and MS certs are the preferred authority, and apparently this issue is restricted to some HP systems.

As the fix is apparently only marking the cert as not valid for 1 product, this fix does a lot more than suggested considering its size, age (half a year old)
As pointed out on Woodys Computerworld article, invalidating a cert should be simple, normal and not need a large update to achieve, or bring down a bunch of other things in the process.
If MS were transparent about the whole nature of the update it would help users to diagnose possible conflicts, rather than the usual wading through conflicting angry comments in the answers site, until a consensus is finally reached.

If you know what you are getting you have a higher chance of knowing much quicker what brought windows to its knees once more.

The poor quality of Windows updates is one of the big motivating factors for my use of Linux and other non-Windows OS’s (BSD, etc.) For one thing, it’s possible to keep the same UI over a long period of time; for another, the updates to stable Linux OS’ like Debian, RHEL/CentOS, etc. are designed in such a way that breakage is highly unlikely if the system is managed properly. In fact, these major Linux distros have improved and proven their worthiness over the years, whereas Windows just seems to go from one problem to another.

There is no OS that receives updates that don’t cause regressions. The difference, in general, between the various vendors, is how much they care about breaking with legacy. There is no OS that has better legacy support than Windows… if for no reason than it is the oldest OS still standing. (MSDOS/Windows is fully 20 years older than Linux.)

1 Like

Actually only 8.5 years older for the kernel.
Windows 1.0 November 1985
Linux Kernel 1.0, March 1994, Slackware 2.0 distro July 1994 (I first used it in 1993)