So with all the controversy going about whether to install or not install the unofficial Microsoft updates posted all over the net. The Microsoft agent asked me, "With all do respect, do you know better than Microsoft to install these updates? Microsoft did not install these updates/hotfixes yet for a good reason, it will only show the neccessary updates via Windows Update if deemed neccessary." Verdict: Do not install any update unless it appears in Windows Update.
Well I had the "Windows Task host shutdown problem" and applied one of hotfixes so I think you can install all of them but as I said many time before they'll be included in the SP1 anyway.
MS also told you not to use leaked win7 beta builds since they CAN contain malware, did you listen to them back then as well? and it was told so many times already, they will get included in SP1, so exactly whats the harm for (most) of people to install them prior of SP1? MS only releases updates on WU, if they are critical for security or they solve MAJOR issues majority of people are having and they are considered safe for 99.9% of computers. Nature of this updates is solving MINOR issues that most of people dont have. But ye whatever, im just saying people should be able to choose on their own, not like some people here are already marking them like they would be sort of malware and they will blow up computers one by one...
nah you where linking signed MS files with "offical" this 2 things cant be linked properly linked at all. Signed means geniune (aka you can be sure they are coming from MS), while "offical" you need to establish target group first. For avrage windows user that means only what comes from WU. For bit more informed user, that means what is accessible upon request from KB articles as well. This all goes under GDR branch code (General Distributon Release), but nature of some of this updates is only LDR (Limited Distributon Release) aka "testing" for SP1. All updates that public can officaly gets from MS includes both GDR and LDR code branch, while some of those leaked ones (most of those you can find KB article yet), includes only LDR branch code. but ye ill stop now, its just funny how people that didnt even try them but just "heared from someone 3rd" are now loudest here how dangerous this updates are etc etc. This is just like i would want to convince some doctor with years of expiriance the nature of some illness, that i just read about it in some article. Bottom line, if YOU didnt try them, you are in no position to criticise them. They CAN couse problems, ofc they can, you can also get hit by a truck as soon as you get out of your apartment, but that doesnt mean you will stay home till rest of your life does it? And even if you stay at home, there could be fire/earthquake...
Exactly my point, that is why the repository directs people to verify the HASH, to avoid possible malware infected distributions of windows. What if the leaked version is not the version that makes it into SP1, what if some of these were meant for evaluation purposes (beta) and were not meant for general release. Again, I will say that if you can't back up the patch with a KB article then why would you install the patch, the catch 22 is that if the patch has a KB article you should just download it there. That is exactly what we are doing, providing choices, Stunna, you and a few others provide a rabid, install them all and let god sort it out attitude towards leaked releases and when a few of us say "look, just read the kb article before you install it, and if you can't find a KB article then pass on it" you try to shut us down. You never argue that point because you know you can't dispute it, you just sidestep it and try to paint us out as saying something we are not. If you want to install every f*cking leaked release that pops up on the internet go right ahead, who am I to tell you not to. I will say that you people reading this may want to think about it and get some information first. Knowledge is power, that is why MS calls it the knowledge base. support.microsoft.com Search the KB BEFORE installing any update that didn't make the windows update. Many of these patches will cause unforeseen issues and can break other applications not related to the update because they overwrite files that other applications depend on.
@SoLoR: Ok now I see your point of view between "official" & "signed" and I somehow agree with you but this does not automatically mean that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
ofc but thats also because they might not be considered 100% safe for everyone not because there would actualy be something wrong with the update i never said people cant have issues with them, i just said that if everyone would install them, great majority would not have issues... however someone might. But ye im doing sometimes reformats just for the hell of it (to clean up system, not because it would actualy be something wrong with it), so i personly dont care if i need to reformat if some update would totaly screw up my system beyond repair. Just saying, that this updates should work for majority of people (_should_ not will), however if you are using them eather use them because there is some purpose OR because you dont care in case you need to reinstall windows. I know i dont care... its 3h job tops.
Well, you should turn that entire paragraph into your signature, a disclaimer to warn the unwary, I think I now know why many of them are signed but still do not have KB articles associated with them, they are in beta. Thanks for the input, I understand where you are coming from but I don't necessarily agree with the idea of installing them. This touches on another subject though, if people are going to play Russian roulette with updates, freeware, or otherwise trash their system, they had better backup their activations to avoid reactivating every other week.
ah ye, this happened with my Vista Retail... 10 activations went bye bye in a year (about 6-7 for computer install and 3 for VMware, didnt know back then its limited...)... luckly i started to use Win7 beta after and now im having oem activation, even tho i bough upgrade of Win7 i never activated with that key.
Well if it means anything AT ALL. 99% of these supposed unofficial hotfixes are now available VIA THE MICROSOFT WEBPAGE. Albeit by request only. In other words: A problem is outlined in a Knowledge Base article corresponding to the number that comes after the Windows6.1-KB... on the updates. This KB article provides a link to another page where you choose your architecture. This page also asks for your email address so that microsoft might email you a link by which to download the requested hotfix from. Upon receiving this email you are given a link to a password protected self-extracting executable file along with said password. And finally, upon downloading and extracting said file, you are yielded... What MANY of you, quick to conclude "if the shoe fits? Call Microsoft and get the idiot, who is only there so they can charge you an extra $100 per product for supposed technical support, to give you his, NOT Microsofts, official answer about it" type people would call an UNOFFICIAL update. I know for a fact that every service pack that Microsoft release contains all the hotfixes released up until that service packs production freeze date. Whether those hotfixes were made available via Microsoft update OR NOT. I think anybody who takes the time to start anymore threads on the validity of these updates, and anyone who preaches that this is not microsoft endorsed stuff we are doing to our operating systems, COMPLETELY misses the point on why Zukona released these updates in the first place, why other people continue to update and package them, maybe even why this whole board is here in the first place, and, I ask them to please go look at some NFO art for a few hours then proceed with life as they normally would.
These updates are like the biggest question mark for me ever........one minute i think install........the next i think not :S
CORRECTION: Microsoft WON'T install these updates UNLESS they have a good reason to Sorry. It's just that you seriously can't be thinking that Microsoft really cares about us so much that they would withhold something from us for a good reason. They are more likely to let something loose upon us and only fix it IF they have a good reason to. Why do you think it took 3 years after the release of Vista for us to get 7? Is there anything really drastically different about it? It's what Vista should have been, pretty much, and that's about it.