Looks like the SSU might be at fault on NT6.0 x86 then. Time to roll back to a previous backup and stay away from 2025-01 Updates and hopefully it will be fixed with the next SSU Update then. NT6.0 is the only version who still gets x86 updates in the NT6.x line so not possible to compare with other versions anymore.
I remember seeing a thread about Windows Update memory leaks on Windows Vista and a patch was provided to make it behave more like Windows 7. Maybe the latest update undid said patch: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/restore-windows-update-for-vista.82336/page-14#post-1775211 Hi, I think it might be a good idea for a moderator to move these messages to a separate thread in the Windows Vista forum, as they seem to be discussing a specific issue related to Windows Vista. Thanks!
It's possible that the issues are hardware-specific, rather than related to the update itself. I've seen cases where certain hardware configurations or components can cause compatibility issues with Windows updates. Additionally, you could try running a memory stress test or other diagnostic tools to see if there are any hardware-related issues that could be contributing to the problems. I've also had no issues with January's updates since installing them. However, I'm running Windows 7 on a virtual machine, which might be a different scenario from a physical installation. It's worth noting that virtualized installations might behave differently from physical ones.
The "spike" in memory usage is not strange considering your system only has 1GB RAM, that is not enough to do anything useful in a fully patched Server 2008 machine.
I just used this stand alone installer to get the Jan 2025 .Net 4 update for my Win 7 VM. I was aware that I had not gotten .Net 4 updates for quite a while and I went and viewed Installed Updates and saw that the last prior .Net 4 up date I had received on my Win 7 VM was from Jan 9, 2024. Would I need to go back and get any prior .Net 4 updates also, because I don't know how far back they are cumulative. Perhaps @Enthousiast could comment on this.