• rick41



    Viewing 15 replies - 31 through 45 (of 167 total)
    • Updated a second Win7 laptop.  Used the same method as I outlined in  #2538546 , but this time with no errors in the first attempt at the W7ESUI portion.  The only difference was that *I ensured I was using a fresh download of each patch* before installing.


      1. Installed KB5022509 and KB5023823 together, using the new version of DotNetFx4.  Took about 10 minutes.  Then rebooted, with no noticeable time added to the reboot.
      2. Installed freshly-downloaded copies of KB5022872 and KB5022523 together, using the new version of W7ESUI.  Took about 20 minutes.  Then rebooted, with roughly 5 minutes added to the total reboot time.

      Not noticing any issues.


      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • My experience, which was good after an initial (likely self-induced?) stumble.

      I have Win7 Pro 64-bit.  Ran my .NET 4.8 updates first, namely the “regular” Feb Quality update KB5022509, and the out-of-band KB5023823.  I did these in a single run, using the updated .NET installer version (dotNetFx4_ESU_Installer_u).  Took awhile — maybe even 15-20 minutes or more — but I don’t find this unusual or concerning relative to past experience, especially since there were two exe’s being installed instead of the usual one exe.

      Where I then ran into problems initially was installing the two msu updates, namely Feb SQMR KB5022872 and Feb .NET 3.5.1 Quality Rollup KB5022523, using the new version (0.4) of W7ESUI.  Now, I was in a bit of a hurry (probably should’ve put off the tasks until later), so I can’t recall exactly what fixes or sequencing I tried, or at what points I rebooted (or didn’t).  I do know that when I tried installing them separately instead of simultaneously, they still both failed.

      What I do know for sure is that after I deleted and re-downloaded both msu’s, they installed fine (in a single run).  Maybe I had initially downloaded the wrong version for one or both of them?  (Although the error message I attach does seem to reference the correct patch for KB5022523.)  Or is it possible MS actually silently modified the files from when I first downloaded them awhile ago (I guess that one’s unlikely…)?

      FWIW, I know that somewhere along the line I got an “already installed” type error message.  And I also got the attached “Illegal operation attempted on a registry key that has been marked for deletion” on KB5022523.

      Hopefully (and probably) the initial stumble was my error.  As always thanks to abbodi86 for the scripts, and to PKCano for the timely updates and advice.


      • This reply was modified 12 months ago by rick41. Reason: EDITED for a couple minor corrections and clarifications
      • This reply was modified 12 months ago by rick41. Reason: Multiple clarifications and minor corrections
      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Could non-removable battery limit recovery from power loss? #2537409

      Thanks.  I had seen the battery listed as an FRU (factory replaceable unit) rather than a CRU (customer replaceable), so I assumed — apparently incorrectly — that I would probably be unable to disable it without access to the BIOS.  I didn’t really take a look at the battery when I upgraded the storage and memory.

    • in reply to: Here comes February’s valentines of patches #2537240

      I encounter the same thing frequently, and also wait for all the updates to finish before restarting.  But I wonder what would happen if one *did* click Restart Now when the cumulative update was still downloading.

    • in reply to: AI is after your bank account #2537216

      About five years ago one of the big brokerages implored me to enroll in their “convenient” voice recognition system so that I wouldn’t have to enter my password to access my account when calling.  I declined, but at some point found that when I’d call and tell the voice prompt I wanted to speak to a CSR, it would transfer me directly to the CSR instead of asking me to enter my pw.  And the CSR would say something like, “Thank you for using our voice recognition system.”  I just went with it.  But this report is prompting me to request that they remove voice recognition login on my account.  I’m not fearing any imminent breach, and I’d like to see corroborating reports before assuming this is a real risk, but in the meantime why take a chance — especially when voice login isn’t something I really wanted to begin with.

      4 users thanked author for this post.
    • Can this OoB be run concurrently with the 2023-02 .NET Quality Rollup?  I would assume that the answer is yes, but thought it wouldn’t hurt to double-check.

    • Is the updated version of the .NET 4.8 patch for Win 7 embedded 64-bit possibly just for security-only instead of quality rollup?  Or was the update possibly released earlier than 17th Feb 2023?

      I ask because I downloaded the quality rollup for .Net 4.8 on both 15th Feb and again early-a.m. today (as I had temporarily “misplaced” the prior download), and they appear identical.  That includes contents comparisons by Beyond Compare 4.

    • It did for me.  Win 7 Pro 64-bit.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Here comes February’s valentines of patches #2534923

      Maybe luck of the draw, but I actually have several sites refusing to serve me because I have an “outdated browser,” while none (thus far) have refused service due to my using Windows 7.  That “outdated browser” is a fully up-to-date Firefox 102.8esr.   Despite the fact that 102.8esr has the latest Firefox security updates, I think some sites don’t know know from esr and think I’m 8 versions behind in my browser update.  Regardless, sending a Win 10 user agent probably wouldn’t help in these cases.  Ironically these same sites have no complaint (yet) if I use Chrome, which has ceased updating in Win 7.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • Now this is bizarre.  It looks like on Feb 8 they added back the 64-bit and 32-bit rollups for 2022-10, 2022-11 and 2022-12.  But the strangest part is that, while  they also added back the 2022-09 Rollup KB5017361, they are now calling it the 2023-02 Rollup.  Maybe there’s some method to the madness that I don’t understand.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • Seems to be fixed now, at least for January Rollup KB5022338 64-bit (I haven’t tested any others).

    • in reply to: cloning or imaging? #2516717

      Thanks for the reply.  I’ll use compression going forward.

      But perhaps I wasn’t clear in asking the first question.  I don’t want to resize any of the existing partitions (although my software does have that capability, and I have used it in the past).  Instead, I want to leave the additional 1.5TB of space available to add brand new partitions.  My question is whether the Windows Recovery partition — which is currently the last partition on the original 500gb drive — will continue to function if new partitions are later added to the right of it in the layout.  I am guessing the answer is “yes,” but wasn’t sure.

      Maybe another option would be to relocate the Windows Recovery partition to the “end” of the drive when restoring the image?  (I *believe* my software offers that option, as the manual talks about the ability to drag to relocate partitions when restoring.)  The question again is, would Windows Recovery work if I move it to the end?

      I guess I can just try out these options and see how they turn out, since I can always go back to the image and restore differently if I encounter issues.  That’s another benefit of an image over a clone.




    • in reply to: cloning or imaging? #2515996

      Wow, what a superb video.  So clear and comprehensive, with fantastic graphics!

      Maybe I shouldn’t be piggybacking on another thread, but I have an imaging question.

      My new Win10 machine has a 500gb SSD that shows the following partition structure (after I disabled BitLocker, but that’s another, already-solved issue).  It is visible with R-Drive image, the imaging software I’ve been using for years:

      UEFI Partition
      MS Reserved
      System (C:)
      WinRE (about 2gb)

      I am replacing the 500gb SSD with a 2TB SSD.  I only use imaging (not cloning) and my plan was to image the entire drive and then restore it as-is (so all 4 partitions, same order) to the first 500gb of the new drive.  Later I would add a few more (data) partitions after WinRe to fill in the remaining 1.5gb of space.

      My question:  Will everything still function OK, including Windows Recovery functions, with the WinRE partition sitting in the middle of the partitions?  (As usual I do plan to create a recovery disc or USB stick, before changing drives.)

      That’s the main question, but a VERY secondary one is this: Does enabling compression in image creation make the image any less reliable?  I always set it to no compression, but I’m wondering if I’m just wasting space by doing this (the time savings isn’t really a motivation for me, just image integrity).

    • There will be another (final) set of Win 7 ESU updates released on January 10, 2023, right?

    • Thanks.  Any advice on the SSU question (last two sentences of my last post)?

    Viewing 15 replies - 31 through 45 (of 167 total)