Yet. Consolidated news about this month’s patches for Win10 version 1803, the CVE-2018-8174 VBScript zero-day (which isn’t bad yet), the Win10 version
[See the full post at: Patch Tuesday problems and fixes, but there’s no cause for alarm]
|
Patch reliability is unclear. Unless you have an immediate, pressing need to install a specific patch, don't do it. |
-
Patch Tuesday problems and fixes, but there’s no cause for alarm
- This topic has 77 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
AuthorViewing 22 reply threadsAuthor-
There’s definitely problems 🙂
https://www.reddit.com/r/windows/comments/8i9i97/kb4103718_removing_network_drivers_on_win_7/
NIC drivers randomly disappearing.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
The latest response on my Microsoft support case is:
We are investigating all of the May updates. For Windows 7/2008R2, we’re looking into the issue where the NIC is uninstalled. For 2012/2016, we’re looking into an issue that creates a new NIC after the update is installed.edit to remove HTML
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I’ve just looked in the Master Patch List, and am most gratified to see that there are no issues “at the moment” with the Windows 7 patches.
It would be nice to have a defcom setting for Win 7 and 8.1 separate from the current one that, these days and perhaps for the foreseeable future, it seems mostly to reflect the load of Win 10 problems cascading monthly from MS.
But I imagine that it would not be terribly practical, probably also confusing to some, and one can always keep an eye on the Patch List, anyway.
Please, Woody and Patch Lady, do keep up the good work you do, and thanks for doing it.
Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).
MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV-
I would love to run MS-DEFCON levels for each version of Windows, but it’d take an enormous amount of work. Ginormous.
I can’t tell how many versions of Windows there are any more.
On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender
-
-
Oy. Sounds like a variation on
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Specify the version and bit of Excel, please.
1 user thanked author for this post.
A silly question….Do employees at MS ever read any forums regarding issues with their updates, patches, cumulative updates, and feature upgrades? I have been pretty lucky so far on my Win 10 home machine, but I just read through the Windows forum link that was cited on another topic here (21 pages in like 2-3 days?). I now have severe heartburn.
Shouldn’t they care? Can someone at MS put the breaks on these updates? Business must be good at computer repair shops….
Since I bought my Win 10 Dell machine in Oct, 2016, I have spent like 200 hours of time Googling various issues/glitches that have occurred on my machine. I NEVER did this with XP, Vista, or Win 7 machines……Oy….
-
-
-
Anonymous writes: “A silly question… Do employees at MS ever read any forums regarding issues with their updates, patches, cumulative updates, and feature upgrades?” …… “Shouldn’t they care?”
Maybe what those MS employees care most about is keeping their jobs. So spare them a thought.
As David Thoreau wrote at the beginning of “Walden Or The Life In The Woods”: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation”.
So, of those MS employees using their talents and energies in busily patching Windows 10 and brewing its next incarnation, the ones that started work there with high ambitions and hopes of real, even great, accomplishments, may be leading now what sort of lives, exactly?
Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).
MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV
-
-
As noted in my article, the only known exploit for the “critical” security hole involves a Yiddish RTF file. The other security hole isn’t particularly pressing.
We’ll definitely see the first exploit out in the wild sooner or later but for now, if you aren’t in charge of a Chinese governmental group, you’re ok.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Actually, several MS employees read AskWoody – and more than a few post here. I think that’s great.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Nibbled To Death By Ducks:
Sorry, I wasn’t thinking and forgot to explain that I am Group B. So: only interested in the Security Only update, while the one you mention is the rollup and it most certainly has been found to have the problem you just described. Security Only, so far, is listed in the Master Patch List as having, of known problems, “none at this time”… I am afraid I have given the wrong impression that I was referring to Win 7 in it’s totality. My bad!
Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).
MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Would this statement from Microsoft apply?
“Windows 10, version 1607, reached end of service on April 10, 2018. Devices running Windows 10 Home or Pro editions will no longer receive monthly security and quality updates that contain protection from the latest security threats. To continue receiving security and quality updates, Microsoft recommends updating to the latest version of Windows 10.”
Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter
-
-
-
-
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: Yes
Question 3: I believe that if you uninstall 9633, you will be uninstalling the KB numbers contained in 9633 and that no other uninstall will be necessary (I have never uninstalled what I would call a “package patch” such as 9633 so I can’t say with certainty what will happen). The advantage of installing the KB numbers that are in 9633 individually is that if there is a problem you will know which KB caused it. If it turns out that one of the KB numbers is not applicable to your computer, you will get a message to that effect (I have tried to install such an update before – by mistake – and that is what happened).Hopefully this clarifies my earlier statement, but if not, let me know and I’ll give it another try.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yep, I agree with everything you just said.
I’ve never had any problems with .NET patches, although from what I’ve read here at askwoody, it seems that people are having problems with them at an increasing frequency. Then again, I suppose the same can be said about a lot of MS patches, unfortunately.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Well, that’s a different question! I was just describing the contents of the 9633 patch.
The 3 KBs in the 9633 patch are listed in the Master Patch List as having no issues at this time. However, it does seem that some folks have had problems with at least one of them.
So, for myself, I’m waiting on ALL May patches before installing. I rarely, if ever, install anything before DEFCON goes to 3, and even then I sometimes wait longer.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
@OscarCP @DrBonzo @columbia2011
Recently we had an update KB 4099950. For those of you who downloaded it from the Catalog, you will recall it had a .exe file bundled with it. You probably downloaded both files and wondered what to do with the .exe.
If you had installed the update through Windows Update instead, you would not have seen that .exe file and may not have known it even existed because the Windows Update mechanism takes care of the bundled files and assures they are installed/processed in the proper order. (That’s how it’s supposed to work if MS gets it right to begin with.)The .NET Rollup is a bundle for multiple versions of .NET, not a single update itself. If you go to the Catalog and click the “Download” button, you will see the updates for the individual versions of .NET and are left to try to figure out which update(s) apply to which version(s) of .NET you have installed.
However, if you use Windows Update, the update mechanism will automatically install the individual patches you need. It is these individual patches you will see as installed updates, not the bundle.
The problem with using the Catalog is, that sometimes there are other updates bundled as well for certain versions of .NET or Windows. An example of this was the D3D Compiler for Win7 when .NET 4.7 first came out. Unless the D3D Compiler was installed there was a problem for Win7. This is not necessarily obvious if you are unaware and are only looking for .NET KBs.That is why, IMHO, it is better to install the .NET Rollup through Windows Update so it is installed properly. Because you just may not know…. (It is even recommended for Group B – see AKB2000003)
-
Even though I’m group B I do usually install the .NET Rollup and usually from WU.
Several months ago there was an issue with the Rollup that wasn’t present (to the best of my knowledge) in the Security Only patches, so I downloaded and installed from the Catalog. One of the multiple files I downloaded apparently wasn’t appropriate to my computer and when I tried to install it, I got a message to that effect.
I agree, though, that unless you know all the versions of .NET on your computer, it can get a bit confusing if you’re not installing from WU.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
The KB 4099633 update pretty much broke our exchange server.
Emails within our company seem to work, but emails in and out of our firewall are not going through.
Our OWA does not work outside of the firewall, and unable to get any web access on the server.
All started on the 11th when it was auto installed. I thought it was the firewall, so I replaced it. This did not fix it. I uninstalled the update, which seemed to fix the issue.
I forgot to flag the update to not reinstalling, and it has now installed again. When I went to go uninstall it again, It appears to be missing from the update list. It shows it in the update history with a new time stamp, but I can’t seem to find the update in the install history to uninstall it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Thank you.
That was very helpful.
For others having the same issue, I used this CMD command to check and uninstall the update(s)
wusa /uninstall /kb:xxxxxxx /norestart
(Change xxxxxxx to the KB number)
It will look for the update and start the uninstall it, if it finds it, and not restart after complete.It didn’t find the KB4099633, so I tried the following:
KB4096495
KB4096418
KB4095874
KB4019990It only found and uninstalled the last 2. Then I had to restart the server, wait until it’s fully booted, and then our firewall for it to work.
Thanks again
Edit to remove HTML.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Just a heads up. Has anyone here seen these two recent articles?
Major OS Players Misinterpret Intel Docs, and Now Kernels Can Be Hijacked
and from CERT:
Vulnerability Note VU#631579
Hardware debug exception documentation may result in unexpected behavior
Microsoft is aware about issues with NIC drivers after installing May Monthly Rollup KB4103718. A mess with Microsoft continues! How much will Microsoft develop problems from scratch! Since January 2018 there is no confidence in updates!
https://support.microsoft.com/mk-mk/help/4103718/windows-7-update-kb41037181 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yes 7 SP1 and 4103718 is causing the issues with remote apps being very grainy. Users are logging into RDWebAccess and connecting to the Remote Desktop Session Host through a Gateway server. The RDSH is serving up the Remote Apps. Uninstalling the monthly roll up returns the Remote App to the proper resolution. All Remote Apps are impacted.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
We have 100’s of machines that have reported it. We found 8.1 seems to have the same issue with the May monthly rollup or security only. We have a incident in with Microsoft, but have not progressed much.
Different video cards/drivers etc. have no impact. If we get anywhere I will update…1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I have W7 and W8.1 in both 32 bit and 64 bit variants and I have installed the Security Only update and IE update via the Windows Catalogue, and the .NET Rollup update via Windows Update for all 4 combinations. The only observable issues so far are:
1) Windows Firewall Notifier (WFN) 1.9.0 no longer gave notifications when a program tried to make outgoing internet access when there was neither an explicit “allow” or “block” rule present in the Windows Firewall. (WFN behaves in a similar manner to the paid for version of Windows Firewall Control, setting the Windows Firewall to block by default, and in the absence of an explicit rule giving a notification to allow the user to setup an explicit firewall rule with a few mouse clicks. I’ve used it without problem for about 4 years!)
I replaced WFN 1.9.0 with the much more recent WFN 2 Beta 3 from March 2018 and this does give notifications and allows explicit rules to be set (although for WFN 1.9.0 users the GUI looks a little different e.g. go to “Firewall Settings” and select “Block and prompt” for “Outbound” and then “Apply” to switch on notifications). WFN 2 Beta 3 seems to work OK so I’ll stick with it and see how things go. (I’m only using the basic version without the map database. I have not looked at what the map stuff is for.)
2) Some Windows Service uses “svchost.exe” to try to make outbound communication with 3 addresses 62.252.168.65, 23.43.32.148 and 62.252.168.56 which I did not have blocked (or allowed) previously. Not knowing what these are (possibly .NET telemetry following the Rollup update?) I have blocked them without any obvious side-effects.
HTH. Garbo.
PS: The W8.1 file explorer bugs which seem to re-appear every few months did not re-appear this month. The W8.1 32 bit Sandboxie problem triggered by the April W8.1 updates and fixed by Sandboxie Beta 5.25.1 remains fixed after the May W8.1 updates.
-
And for completeness, the unrecognised attempted outgoing access to the 3 addresses listed in 2) above, occurred within a day or 2 of the updates being installed, and then maybe 2 or 3 days after this (3, 4 or 5 days after the updates – I cannot be more specific) there was a further unrecognised outgoing access attempt to address 93.184.220.29 which I have added to the blocking list in 2).
It may be coincidence, but in W8.1 this occurred after I updated my copy of the program MyFamilyTree and opened it for the 1st time after its update. I know recent versions of MyFamilyTree use .NET 4.7 (because it was why I installed .NET 4.7 in the 1st place), so maybe this supports my guess that these outgoing attempts are related to the .NET Rollup update. (Alternatively I may be seeing a pattern which is not there?)
This extra outgoing access attempt occurred in W7 also, but I do not remember if it followed any particular activity there (that was a couple of days ago – my mind was elsewhere).
HTH. Garbo.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
After being quiet for a week or so, yesterday there was a new batch of unrecognised Windows service “svchost.exe” outgoing to the internet requests (see my earlier point 2) above) which my hardened Windows Firewall blocked and Windows Firewall Notifier (see 1) above) notified me about. My full list of remote addresses for TCP communication to both or either remote ports 80 and 443 is now:
62.252.168.65, 23.43.32.148, 62.252.168.56, 93.184.220.29, 23.43.32.168, 62.252.168.32, 104.31.74.124, 104.31.75.124, 172.217.19.206, 172.217.17.78, 216.58.212.110, 216.58.213.78, 66.225.197.197, 216.58.213.110
Some of these occurred on one W7 PC, some on another W8.1 PC, but I did not keep track of which was which. Rather than use WFN to create a new rule for each new address I now just manually add the new address/port to the existing Windows Firewall rule originally created using WFN, use the Windows Firewall “export list” to get a text copy of the outgoing list for reference and include the new address(es)/port(s) in the list on the other PC when I next use it.
I don’t know if any of this is significant or just irritating (to me at least), but blocking these outgoing access attempts does not appear to be causing any problems so far.
BTW: After 10 days or so WFN 2 Beta 3 (see 1) above) is behaving as well as the earlier long standing version 1.9.0.
HTH. Garbo.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I swapped my usual HDD in the old 32 bit PC with an old HDD containing W10 1709 which I update and look at out of curiosity every few months. I updated to the latest cumulative update KB4103727 (and Flash KB4103729) downloaded from the Windows Catalogue (Windows Update does not work reliably on this PC anymore – possibly as a result of my firewall blocking outgoing access by some non-obvious service indirectly related to Windows Update?).
This went well and after taking my usual measures running some scripts to regain control of the PC again (in case the update reset anything important) I checked for my Windows Firewall Notifier (WFN) observation 1) above on this W10 1709 PC, by deleting an “allow” rule for a program and then requesting an update in the program. As in 1) above I found that although the outgoing access was blocked (no expected update response, just an unable to access message) WFN did not give the expected notification. As in 1) above I replaced WFN 1.9.0 with WFN 2 Beta 3, enabled notifications, repeated the update request inside the program and this time I received the expected notification. So whatever changed with respect to WFN 1.9.0 in May 2018 for W7 and W8.1 also changed in W10, but WFN 2 Beta 3 fixes things.
A short time later (I think after a re-boot) I received a notification that some Windows Service wanted to use “svchost.exe” to try to make outbound communication to one of the addresses in my latest list above. So whatever caused these new outgoing access attempts in W7 and W8.1 as described in 2) above, also appears to affect W10 1709 on this PC after its May 2018 update. I created a new Windows Firewall “block” rule for “svchost.exe” for all of the remote addresses as described above. I ran the W10 PC for a further hour or so (cleaning up, updating a few 3rd party programs, defragmenting …) and there were no further unrecognised outgoing access attempts, so it appears as if the list above also covers things for W10 (so far at least).
I have seen no more unrecognised outgoing attempts in W7 since the start of the week (5 days ago). I have not been using W8.1.
So in summary my W7 and W8.1. observations 1) and 2) above also appear to affect w10 1709 after its KB4103727 cumalative update.
HTH. Garbo.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
The servicing stack update is an update to the updating mechanism itself. If you use Windows Update on Win10 you may or may not see it as it is automatically installed with the CU if present. And it definitely improves the updating experience.
On Win 7 and 8.1, the servicing stack is a stand-alone update. It will not appear in the queue until/unless there are no more pending installs. This is one of the reasons @MrBrian recommended hiding updates in the “important updates” list that you don’t intend to install. You may miss a servicing stack update for months if the pending updates are in the queue. (for example, Group B needs to hide the Rollups).
Group B is complicated, and is getting more difficult all the time with MS’s hotfixes, re-patches, and other mess-ups (can’t use the proper words for the latter here).
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Thanks for the information.
After making another copy of the system partition to go back to if I messed things up, I manually downloaded the 2 versions of the servicing stack update KB4131372 and the newer KB4132650. I installed the newer KB4132650 without problem. I then tried installing the earlier KB4131372 expecting this to fail (because a newer version is already installed) and it failed. So far so good.
I re-enabled things to allow the W10 Windows Update (WU), this time temporarily enabling a Windows Firewall “allow” rule which allows “svchost.exe” outgoing access for any program or service i.e. not limited to the Windows Update service “wuauserv” and this time WU ran OK. I had forgotten to re-enable this temporary rule a few hours earlier 🙁
I had expected/hoped that it would indicate Martin B’s non-security CU KB4103714, but instead it just presented KB4134661 with the unusual words “status: awaiting download”. In my limited experience of W10 it normally starts downloading immediately before the user has a chance to decide anything. So I disabled the WU service and disabled the temporary “unlimited svchost.exe” allow rule while I investigated KB4134661.
KB4134661 has the 1 line description “This Windows update provides a notification of an improved privacy experience on upgrade to the Windows 10 April 2018 release”. This immediately brought back memories of GWX (“come into my web” said the spider to the fly). Entice the unsuspecting victim with an “enhanced experience” before hooking them.
As this is all an experiment (not my day-to-day PC and I made the backup beforehand), I manually installed Martin B’s non-security CU KB4103714 (which took a long time to complete). This appears to have gone OK. I’ve cleaned up using the Cleanup tool and now the command window instruction “dism /Cleanup-Image /StartComponentCleanup /online” works (it did nothing previously) and the system partition is nearly 1GB smaller than before this update. Although W10 still takes much longer to start up on this PC than W7 or W8.1 (and it is doing stuff, there is continuous disk activity, not breaks of inactivity), once things have settled down it appears similar in responsiveness to W7 (and maybe slightly more responsive than W8.1). This is not how I remember it!
I made another system partition copy as a futher backup. I again tried running WU as described above and again it offers KB4134661 with the unusual words “status: awaiting download”. I left it in this state overnight and by morning nothing had changed, although the WU service “wuauserv” was no longer running (I had not stopped it).
I forced the issue by manually downloading and installing KB4134661 and again tried running WU half-expecting to see some indication of W10 1803 download starting, but it just indicated that there are no updates! So either my suspicions about KB4134661 are unfounded or it may have installed some sort ot timed instruction which would download and install W10 1803 in the background at a later time.
I uninstalled KB4134661. I again ran WU and was again offerred it.
So in conclusion:
a) Servicing stack update KB4132650 appears to replace KB4131372, but does not break or improve WU on my PC.
b) WU works if I temporarily allow “svchost.exe” unlimited outgoing access for all programs and services not just the WU “wuauserv” service (and I do not allow this most of the time).
c) I had missed 6 months of non-security updates, but by (manually) installing KB4103714 things seem better than before.
d) Although W10 remains my 3rd place choice MS OS after W7 and W8.1, I have a better opinion of it now than I had 24 hours ago.
Thanks again. Garbo.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
BTW your gut feeling about KB4134661 was correct. You don’t want it. Hide it with wushowhide (every time it shows up)
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
@columbia, Woody, et al:
That link pulls up a page with Cyrillic/Greek characters, which gave me a bit of a start; here’s the link that goes to the English-us version:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4103718/windows-7-update-kb4103718
Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330, Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", 12GB RAM, Group "0Patch", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations. Linux Mint Greenhorn
--
"Windows Update? Bah! I could carve a better ecosystem out of a banana!" -Jamrach Holobom3 users thanked author for this post.
Win 7 32-bit group B reporting in, after something odd happened last evening and I had to reboot anyway since my computer suddenly got unusually slow, installed 4099633 (.NET bundle), 4103768 (IE) and 4103712 (security-only bundle), no ill effects noticed so far. Did not uninstall and reinstall 4099950 even though I had installed it before the April 17 change (and forgot whether I did so from catalog or WU… probably catalog though).
1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 22 reply threads - This topic has 77 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
Plus Membership
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
Get Plus!
Recent Topics
-
iOS 17 : If your new iPhone gets stuck on the Apple logo when you transfer…
by 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
-
Apple zero days out – September 2023
by 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
-
No shortcuts to files on Taskbar in Win11
by 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
-
“New” Google Sites vs Network Solutions: domain resolution
by 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
-
Topic: Privacy Report on Modern Cars
by 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
-
Microsoft’s massive Windows 11 update, featuring Copilot AI, begins rolling out
by 2 hours, 41 minutes ago
-
MailStore Home updates
by 1 day, 3 hours ago
-
T-Mobile users say they see other people’s account information
by 1 day, 14 hours ago
-
Retirement of Exchange Web Services in Exchange Online
by 2 days, 2 hours ago
-
What Remote Desktop credentials do I use to access a MS Account computer
by 15 hours, 53 minutes ago
-
Office 2003 Compatibility with One Drive in Windows 11
by 2 days, 13 hours ago
-
Has KB5030219 been pulled for Windows 11 Pro for Workstations?
by 16 hours, 7 minutes ago
-
By default encryption on Apple
by 2 days, 7 hours ago
-
KB5029331 Macrium/Reflect
by 2 days, 8 hours ago
-
Windows 10 Build 19045.3513 (22H2) to Release Preview Channel
by 2 days, 19 hours ago
-
Microsoft worker accidentally exposes 38TB of sensitive data in GitHub blunder
by 2 days, 4 hours ago
-
Change CPU/Mainboard without reinstallation of OS and Apps – Win10
by 2 days, 10 hours ago
-
Mouse slows to crawl if Edge in focus
by 3 days, 14 hours ago
-
Windows and Surface chief Panos Panay is leaving Microsoft
by 3 days, 4 hours ago
-
Essential Office Portable
by 3 days, 16 hours ago
-
Essential Office: Disable Spell Check
by 3 days, 16 hours ago
-
Apple 2030
by 1 day, 14 hours ago
-
Wi-Fi 7? Why not!
by 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
-
Second city — the AI view from Washington
by 4 days, 1 hour ago
-
Zeroing in on zero days
by 2 days, 10 hours ago
-
LMDE – Software Update
by 1 day, 16 hours ago
-
MacAfee anti virus left overs
by 1 day, 10 hours ago
-
Google issues update for Chrome 109 (Win 7 – Server 2012r2) that fixes WebP
by 15 hours, 24 minutes ago
-
Microsoft apparently canning P2P Win32 services on Windows 11 23H2, Windows 12
by 11 hours, 47 minutes ago
-
Inserting from clipboard into posting
by 4 days, 10 hours ago
