Replies

In addition to Erik’s comments, it should also be mentioned that Firefox patching when used with Windows 7 is guaranteed for almost another year if the esr version is used.  Esr provides these security updates and some bug fixes, but without feature updates and changes that can sometimes be more annoyance than benefit, anyway.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

jburk07

Paul T wrote:

Better off with the one off license. You still get bug fixes but no new features.

I see that for One-Time-Purchase it says, “Access to minor updates & fixes for this version only.”  So does this cover all bug fixes?  No need to be concerned about the word “minor” here?

For the record, I meant to say I have .NET 4.8, not .NET 4.7.  Too late to edit.  (I also have 3.5.1.)

I have .NET 4.7, not 4.8.  When I run WESUI and dotNetFx I usually end up with *more* Restore points than the number of KBs being installed.  But I do remember an instance early on, when I ran only an instance of dotNetFx, and there was no restore point created.  Since the update was indeed listed in Installed Updates, I didn’t worry about it.

Yep, IMO the benefit-to-risk analysis for Classic/Open Shell definitely favors sticking with it, especially with regular imaging.

Thanks for all the helpful information, watchouts, and links, including current and possible future Macrium options.  Any further suggestions/opinions also welcomed.

EDIT:  Oops, meant to post this as a reply to the question I added today.  Oh well…

Does anyone know if there is a trustworthy place to still obtain Macrium Reflect Free?  Major Geeks, perhaps?  I have never used Macrium, as I’ve used R-Drive Image (paid) for years but it’s slow and the support is not good (replies are quick, but 80% of the time it is “update to the new version”…which is NOT free if it’s been over a year since purchase).  So I was thinking of switching to a new imaging solution concurrent with my move to Windows 10 on a new pc.  Would welcome any recommendations, either free or paid.  I assume the paid Macrium Reflect Home (paid) would be well-regarded?  Thanks.

From 12-29-22:

abbodi86 wrote:

Server 2008 R2 will get extra ESU year
Embedded Standard 7 will still get 10 months of ESU
Embedded POSReady 7 will still get 22 months of ESU

Does this mean that October 10, 2023 will be the last date that Win7 Embedded Standard KBs will be usable for Win 7 updating via the method outlined in this topic?

Can’t say for sure whether they’re update related, but since applying the updates on June 28 (SMQRs in my case) I’ve had two BSODs, on July 11 and July 18, and my Win7 machine has rarely, if ever, had Blue Screens before this.  Disk check, System File Checker, and a short memory test don’t reveal any problems.

1 user thanked author for this post.

jburk07

I don’t think I’ve had a restart request from the Standalone Installer for quite awhile.  Just the “press any key to exit,” or something along those lines.  At first its absence concerned me a bit, but it always says installed successfully, and the updates indeed show up in Installed Updates.

For some reason, “RunOnce_W10_Telemetry_Tasks.cmd” appears on only one of the two Win 7 SP1 that I run the standalone installer on.  I just delete it, since I’m not overly concerned about the telemetry on these computers (not that I like it…).

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Erik

SteveIT wrote:

Did you install KB5027140 and KB5027275 in a single run of W7ESUI, or two separate runs? Similarly for DOTNETFX4 and KB5027129 and KB5028586, was it a single run or two runs of the script?

Can’t speak for George1, but in my case it was KB5027140 and KB5027275 in a single run of W7ESUI (v4); and KB5027129 and KB5028586 in a single run of dotNetFx4 (_u).  Two Win7 SP1 computers,  no problems.  The install time was on the longer side, especially for the W7ESUI run.

3 users thanked author for this post.

SteveIT, SueW, jburk07

Would appreciate your response re my concern about installing Intel DSA updates that are never released in a parallel Lenovo version.  In my case I’m talking about a 1-year-old model, and the concern is particularly re graphics.

[rick41]

Even though I installed Intel DSA, I have been avoiding use of it with my Lenovo Thinkpad P1 Gen5.

One reason has been that warning about overwriting OEM graphics driver customizations.  I spent quite awhile tweaking the graphics (in my case meaning simply color parameters, contrast etc) to get them exactly how I want them.  Yes, I’ve saved the settings as a preset, and you described how that warning applies only to older machines.  But despite all that, I have to wonder why —  if there were any significant enhancements present or worthwhile in the new graphics drivers —  Lenovo wouldn’t routinely offer parallel driver updates for Intel graphics (or any other hardware) in its own update programs like Vantage or System Update.  Instead, such offerings are less frequent than Intel DSA’s.

Further, with WiFi working just fine, is there really any reason to update networking drivers if no security issue is involved?  Again, wouldn’t any significant enhancements be offered in Lenovo’s own update utilities, especially while the machine is still a reasonably recent model?

EDIT:  Corrections

• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by rick41. Reason: Corrections

rick41 wrote:

EDIT: Meant to mention that FileHippo has a download for Office Compatibility Pack which is v12.0.6612.1000, the same you were updated to.

For the record, today a Norton popup said this FileHippo download is infected with PUA.Superfluss.

This is strange on multiple counts:  (1)  I thought FileHippo was trustworthy; (2) why is Norton detecting this just now, when I had downloaded it almost 3 weeks ago?;  (3) ironically, I just did a Norton full system scan yesterday — which I do very infrequently  — and it reported that no threats were found; and (4) Norton reports that the file has been used by tens of thousands of people in the Norton Community, and that it is “mature — released 3 months ago.”  Out of curiosity I uploaded the file to VirusTotal, and, based on someone else’s submission just 2 hours earlier, 15 of 70 vendors flag the file as malicious.

Regardless, I don’t need that download anyway, as I instead installed the version I had saved in April, 2014 (that is apparently the same as the version CNET has), which Win10 Windows Update then updated.

.