i think will do but you are not sure if you delete don't have risk's thats i'm wonder and i don't touch my aio
so I installed the newest update today alongside KB3074683, after installing I noticed both listed, am I correct in assuming that the newest update simply bypassed whatever fixes KB3074683 had, that is why it is still listed? KB3074683 had been installed for quite some time
new updates don't "uninstall" old updates you have to do it yourself, or let the scheduled system task to do it (it's monthly i guess)
When i do this: Dism installpackages: kb3074678, kb3074686 and kb3074683 /Resetbase Dism installpackages: kb3081424 The mounted image is smaller in size than when i directly install: kb3074678, kb3074686 And then /resetbase And then install: kb3081424 /resetbase isn't applicable after installing kb3081424 (offline)
Confirmed. Verified with fresh enterprise install.wim and solely 3081424 using /preventpending. It reports failing because needing to modify using pending.
Did you also notice that when the zdp kb307683 (which is superdeded by kb3081424) is used and resetbased , and than installing kb3081424, the size of the mounted wim seems to be smaller than when it's not used and resetbase is used after kb3074686 and kb3074678 and than installed kb3081424? And does the kb3081424 needs also to be integrated in boot.wim and winre.wim?
Excellent. This is the first time I manually installed an update/hotfix. I downloaded the cab file for KB3081424 and installed using an admin command prompt: Code: DISM.exe /Online /Add-Package /PackagePath:C:\Updates\windows10.0-kb3081424-x64_dcd67b594f9f1cce94a17987f8ba130aa85e511f.cab Worked just fine, and I didn't have to go through any forced Windows Update, no forced restarts, no bullsh*t. (Thanks sledge101 for the link.)
I didn't try that. That's strange, but I approve if they're going to be pro-active on reducing the size with their massive updates.
Why should the dism online use be preferred over the normal windows update way? Offline, oke, but online...
I'm pretty sure they use the same servicing stack and such. I don't know of any advantage to using dism other than perhaps being quicker to integrate a whole directory of updates at a time.
Thanks for replying, murphy78. I took my AiO GA reset based wim (already containing kb3074683, kb3074686 and kb3074678) and just integrated the new kb3081424 in it and the size was: 8.77GB (Home x86) I took a clean multiple editions x86 msdn iso, mounted index 2 (home x86), integrated kb3074686 and kb3074678, did a reset base, and than integrated kb3081424, the size was: 9GB (Home x86) What i conclude from this is that you better use the superseded zdp kb307683 and do a resetbase, it will make the wim file smaller than without using it. The hotfixes uptodate should be: - kb3074678 - kb3074686 - kb3074683 - resetbase - kb3081424 Correct me if i'm wrong. Just leeves me with the question what to do with boot.wim and winre.wim?
Oke, i understand you have automatic updates blocked? and that's why you did it manually by using the dism command? I'm just asking because kb3081424 would also have been installed by normal use of windows update (because i don't understand what you mean by "avoiding forced updates").
back in win8.1 with update, they made it so winpe versions such as boot.wim and winre.wim ignored pending commands and performed the resetbase. I can only make assumptions as to why they don't do the same thing with install.wim files. When I get more time I'll test this out by adding it to my GA and see if I can replicate your results and/or provide any additional info.
Thanks, i am only trying to get my finger on it, when an update also should be integrated in the boot.wim and winre.wim. Once i somewhere read a 8.1.U1 comment by you, explaining you could run alle updates on winre.wim, it would automatically skip the non neccessary/compliant updates. Can't wait till you get and share your results