Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

alacran

Convenience rollup update for Win 7 SP1

Recommended Posts

NoelC    1,364

At this point I can't recommend using it without the ability to have SFC remain working.  If Microsoft fixes it, perhaps I'll consider using it THEN.

What kind of sloppy work is it by Microsoft when their update cause their system to fail its own integrity checks?

One has to ask oneself...  Is this yet another ploy to make an older Windows system seem all the more messed up, in order to prod the user into "upgrading" to Windows 10?

A snake eating its tail indeed!

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclaz    927
15 minutes ago, NoelC said:

At this point I can't recommend using it without the ability to have SFC remain working.

Oww, come on :) , it is not the end of the world, when you run SFC you know that you will have this single error and that it is a false one, "harmless" as abbodi1406 called it.

Sure it is "sloppy work" but "sloppy work with no remarkable adverse effects in practice", there have been over the years tens of much more serious issues including the "abnormal time" it takes Windows 7 to check for updates and install them that actually has some "serious impact" in people's workflow.

And even IF update works (when it used to) it may take hours to download all the updates (particularly on a slow connection) think at all the hours were wasted by people installing 7 because of the STUPID new idea of not releasing periodical Service Packs, JFYI:
 

The image (via Wayback Machine) ;):

Spoiler

LaptopBurka04.jpg


 


 

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelC    1,364
18 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

Oww, come on :) , it is not the end of the world, when you run SFC you know that you will have this single error and that it is a false one, "harmless" as abbodi1406 called it.
 

Sure, then how many real faults could thereafter be hidden then go unnoticed?  Some people care about the integrity of their systems.

Just yesterday I checked my Win 8.1 system, and it reported (gasp!) an integrity violation.  It seems I did the terrible thing of removing "Search" from my Start Menu.  I don't know whose idea at Microsoft it was to protect Start Menu items, but that was it.  It took some sleuthing in CBS.log to figure it out, and sure enough SFC /SCANNOW restored it...

StartMenuOnWin81.png

It's ridiculous that they would put that menu entry - which I don't use and don't want - under system protection, and sure, I could have just said, "it's harmless, ignore it", but then I might never be sure whether something else more serious, more dastardly had crept in.

Instead it's back in the menu now, and THERE I'm saying "it's harmless, ignore it", after which I can check my system and know that everything else is still healthy.

Cue angels singing...

Verified.png

In all seriousness, this feature has utility and meaning, and I won't tolerate Microsoft screwing up my "system integrity".

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclaz    927

Well, in a perfect world someone would write a SFC replacement with a (optional) .ini file (or similar) listing inclusions and exclusions, the user could manually edit the lists, then once verified that everything in the list is OK, hash/checksum/sign it to avoid manipulation by malware.

After all it doesn't seem to me like "rocket science" at least conceptually:

1) fill a list with (say) filenames, sizes, versions and hash
2) verify that all files in the list match
3) if not attempt restoring the original 
4) if restore fails log the error (possibly in a less verbose/convoluted manner than what a CBS.log now looks like)
5) loop to #2 for next file

But - from a purely logical standpoint - there is some flaw in your reasoning, you are trusting a tool written by the same guys that are not capable to provide updates correctly.

Anyway a quick peek at the CBS (now not so quick given the senseless complexity of those logs) would assure you that the issue was with the remove Search thing., but if there are two or three exceptions it wouldn't be too hard to write a simple batch (or similar script) veryfying that the errors are only the known ones, let's say:
Error #1 Windows Search removed
Error #2 Stupid  usbport.inf.resources in Convenience Rollup

A (much less than optimal) way is to simply run (as suggested by MS) a

findstr /c:"[SR]" %windir%\logs\cbs\cbs.log >sfcdetails.txt

This:
findstr /c:"[SR]" %windir%\logs\cbs\cbs.log|FIND /i "Repair"|FIND /V /i "Verify" >sfcdetails.txt

should be slightly better.

As a side note (and JFYI) there exist a couple nice tools that make (in my limited experience) a good work in analyzing the CBS.log:
http://batchapp.webs.com/miscellaneous.htm

and SFCFIX:

https://www.sysnative.com/niemiro/apps/SFCFix.exe
though this latter (if I recall correctly) might not be suitable as ti attempts to fix the corruptions anyway :unsure: (surely it saved my day a few times :) however)

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelC    1,364

>now not so quick given the senseless complexity of those logs

Hear hear!

Thanks for the links.

I usually get a long way there by starting with a search for the word "corrupt".

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_05_30_111251.png

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelC    1,364
54 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

But - from a purely logical standpoint - there is some flaw in your reasoning, you are trusting a tool written by the same guys that are not capable to provide updates correctly.

I understand what you're saying, though there IS a palatable difference between the software written by the ignorant children at Microsoft TODAY vs. the actual OS engineers of yesteryear.

The biggest problem is in discerning when the smart people retired and the dolts took over.

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclaz    927
7 minutes ago, NoelC said:

I understand what you're saying, though there IS a palatable difference between the software written by the ignorant children at Microsoft TODAY vs. the actual OS engineers of yesteryear.

Well, to me the ones that made the CBS.log so verbose AND did not provide a senceful way to parse it for the actual useful info seem a lot  like belonging to the "bad" kind of MS engineers (but it can be much worse than that).

If you think about it it would make a lot of sense, the "good" ones were busy writing kernel level software and let trivial things such as simply logging the actions of a simple verification program in userland to some "kids" (with no offence intended for the "kids", here it is meant only as "less experienced" or "less practical"), the level of (mostly unneeded) details in the logging seems to me like what a student would do in order to show his/her teacher how accurate his/her programming is (and - to make a comparison for the old people - traditionally "mixing" standard output with standard error is the typical "newbie" mistake).

10 minutes ago, NoelC said:

The biggest problem is in discerning when the smart people retired and the dolts took over.

Yes :), but maybe we are looking at it too much as black/white.

Like shades of gray, it depends on the amount of black and amount of white, and there is not a definite line to separate those.

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelC    1,364

Right, and of course not all the smart (and morally sound) people left Microsoft at once.

Regarding details in the log file, wouldn't you rather have all those details that can be filtered out than...

windows-10-installation-errors.png

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, xpclient said:

Hahaha I couldn't resist posting this funny:

CRgHi_3U8AADHfp.png:large

A golden opportunity was missed in here, to replace the "Installing Windows" prompts to "Doing Something" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alacran    23

New rollup: "May 2016 update rollup for Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1"

According to Microsoft, Windows 7's users that will install "Convenience rollup update" in the future will need to install only update rollup released after this one, starting with May 2016 update rollup which is already available for download at:   https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3156417

Direct download links for x86 & x64 available in the page.

Issues that this update fixes:

This update package fixes the issues that are documented in the following Microsoft Knowledge Base articles:

KB3155039 Error 1326 when you change domain account password in Windows.

KB3155218 Memory leak occurs in the Lsass.exe process after you install security update 3067505 in Windows.

NOTE: This may content telemetry incorporated.

alacran

Edited by alacran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tripredacus    286

Too little too late. Windows 7 goes end of sale in less than a month, and oh MS finally gives people what they've been asking for for years. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
submix8c    89

Naturally, because they were to busy creating the new monstrosity to care about anything else. Look at all the XP Post-SP3 fixes. Also note the "End Of Support" method, which precludes "bumping" Win7 into another cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×