The KB2661672 and KB2737468 are superseded? Thanks EDIT: Ok, it's good (superseded) And Kernel version is the same?
komm, i found an error about KB2712808, when i'm copying files into the correct folder before updating, i've attached the error i get below. It also appears when updating my x64 desktop too.
Very good find. 2712808 is superseded, and also not needed to satisfy wu, if 2737353 is installed. I forget to remove it from the satisfy wu database inside of KUC. So you do not need it. Bug will be removed in version >=0.8.008.007
I have Sp1 integrated .iso I want to make that .iso up to date. I will use just myself. Should i download all those updates or which ones?
I noticed that Windows6.1-KB2631813-x86.msu is listed in x86/Client/ as well as x86/Client/WMPNetShare MediaCenter/ in the KUC Repo. Any reason why this fix is being listed twice? Al
Burf, does your Visual C++ Redist Installer V17 use the same silent install switches as McRip's? Your info file didn't have an references to them. Thanks
Thanks burfadel, i knew that KB947821-v24 has been out for awhile, i just thought i would repost with the official download link, since it's now available on the MS servers too.
It's for the OXPS (Open XPS) to XPS (Microsoft XPS) converter XPS is useful for 'printing' out pages without actually printing them, you can simply save them using the XPS document writer printer option in your printer list, and it saves the print output as a .XPS file that can be viewed using the XPS viewer (double clicking on it) or printing it later, or even on a different machine that may not have the original software used to create the document.
Just installed Windows 8 last night, activated fine (using an online server, hopefully one day a local method can be found). So, sometime in the next couple of weeks I'll post a Windows 8 compatible installer. I only quickly did change to it so I could update to LDR updates when I installed, and added the first update to the Windows 8 WUsatisfy list . Being on Windows 8 though means I will now have to rely on others for the WUsatisfy list for Windows 7. The list is something that isn't 'exact which is why the lists vary a little. Classicshell is definitely a welcome addition to Windows 8, but like Windows 7 it's about proper start menu management. The consumer preview was definitely better looking, taking out aero I think was because it isn't used for metro. Like the consumer preview though, UAC was a real pain, insisting on 'being enabled' even when disabled, and it actually was trying to block be from changing or modifying files from my Windows 7 install on other hard drives, which run into many terabytes and a lot of files! Setting the 'EnableLUA' to 0 was the only option. If Microsoft didn't have that option, not only would Windows 8 be of an annoyance, it literally would have been impossible for me to use. The first thing someone may say was the file system security settings set correctly. They were! Even with full file and folder access it simply would not let me change things without EnableLUA disabled. If this is commonplace it will cause a lot of annoyance to a lot of people. It may not be an issue if you do a direct upgrade, I'm not sure. On a standard system for a non-power user just having UAC disabled (with enablelua enabled) would be ok in most cases, or at the worst, the lowest UAC setting. Not sure whether you can use Metro with UAC mostly disabled but LUA enabled. Another very ugly aspect of the change from aero to what they have now is the colour choice under personalisation. Set on auto is default. I have a reasonably large collection of wallpapers (around 20,000) I set to shuffle every 5 minutes (around 70 days worth of wallpapers running 24/7), and when the wallpaper changed, so did the auto colour. Needless to say, some of the colours Windows chose were hideous, so I set it to manual and set it to a shade of blueish green. Yes, the taskbar is transparent and you can also get classic menu transparent (smoked glass with reduce glass colour enabled), but it is NOT translucent, so doesn't look as good as Windows 7. It doesn't really affect general computer use, but it is hideous. Now, to Windows 8 apps. Having EnableLUA disabled means I can not use apps at all. Having EnableLUA just imposes too many restrictions that actually mean I cannot use the computer. So, I was just looking through the folders, and thought I'd mention my findings on the 'WindowsApps' folder. This is the folder containing the Windows Apps (obviously). The standard set of apps is obviously very minimal, and yet consists of 15,796 files and 2,826 folders (540MB). Some of these files are probably temperary files caused by stuff downloaded automatically by the apps when Windows first started. The nature of having news reads, weather apps etc! but this brings us back to another issue - lots of download use on mobile devices, which could add up when considering data costs or limits on 4G networks for example. It also means potentially hundreds of thousands of files which I'm sure is less than ideal, despite NTFS being able to handle it. The VC++ runtimes install fine, but instead of installing the latest to the syswow64 and system32 folders it uses the WinSxS folder instead. Even if the old versions are removed from add/remove programs, they still exist in the WinSxS folder. The latest versions of runtimes do not exist in the syswow64 and system32 folders like with Windows 7. This is less than ideal, not only because they use more space, but potentially programs could use the older versions instead. Not sure whether that is the case or not, but considering the older versions may have security (some runtimes did) or reliability issues this seems stupid. In this WindowsApps folder I came across the VS2012 runtimes. It seems Windows actually comes with the VS2012 runtimes by default for the apps. The file dates of the runtimes is the same as the separate VS2012 runtimes -26 July, but with a different timestamp. There is an 'issue' though, something which is in the stupid bin like removing aero, the file versions! Also not all the VS2012 files are included, I believe those only used for apps. The latest known VS2012 version, included with the VC++ installer and with the same file date as the Windows Apps version is 11.00.50727.1, yet the Windows Apps version is 11.00.50712.1! That whole 8 minutes between the timestamps makes all the difference, right? wrong, the Windows Apps version was the one that was 8 minutes newer! The files are basically the same too, a file compare between the two versions came up that they are very similar, so they aren't identical with the versions, and they aren't part of a different subset. So, what it comes down to is Microsoft must have made a mistake? Anyways, just thought I'd mention my findings. Reason why I put this under this thread is because under the Windows 8 Hotix thread, it is likely that you already have it installed, at least this way it can add to your opinion of whether to install it or not. The simple fact is, it is designed to be 'app' oriented, and by not having desktop mode as easy to access (due to no start menu and booting to the app screen, even if you disable 'enablelua' meaning you can't use it anyway), and by making the desktop look ugly, Microsoft are pinning there hopes on people being sucked into using simple apps. So, your existing programs are more difficult to load, and harder to find. The existing app panel on the right side of the app screen is a POS (and I don't mean Point Of Sale!), it's definitely no where as easy to use existing programs if you don't know how. I think Microsoft are banking on this to promote 'friendly apps'. Apps that you would never normally want to pay for due to their simplicity, yet apps like people buy by the dozen for other platforms . It's all about chasing the $ signs. Reason why Windows 8 is so cheap is Microsoft reckons they can make it up through the app store. Now, if Windows 8 costs $45 to upgrade (just using rough figures here), and normally it would cost you $149, Microsoft are hoping to make no less than an average of $100 per upgrade. If they take 30 percent of the app profit, that means the user has to spend $333 in the app store to make up the difference. It doesn't stop there. This wouldn't be 'profitable' for Microsoft in the sense of being beneficial, so it seems they are banking on people spending say, $500 in the app store over the life of Windows 8, on AVERAGE. In their dreams!
Yup, another Vista/Me fiasco. MS can shove Win 8 where the sun don't shine and if the next version is like this I'm switching to Linux, or, perhaps, Apple. I have no intention of fighting my OS to do the things I enjoy as I want to do them. Thanks for the heads up Burf'.
It's not that the Metro UI isn't usable, in terms of the Apps pages (replaces the start menu), but it is even more important to have a 'clean' start menu and remove superfluous shortcuts and folder entries to be able to find what you are looking for. Although the Metro Apps do have their shortfalls like I wrote above, I would at least make a little use of it if it were possible without UAC. As far as I see it, when using Metro you probably won't be doing things that require you to have it completely disabled, so it's unfortunate that there isn't a UAC 'mixed' mode that you can use. That is, when using Metro have EnableLUA on and a level of UAC, and have it disabled only for desktop view. Having no start menu is a means of forcing people to use the app bar in Metro. My criticism would be much less if mixed UAC mode were an option (so it wasn't so damn ugly), if they hadn't removed Aero, and they hadn't removed the start menu. UAC must be enabled to use Metro apps as they are a potential backdoor for malicious activity (especially those that constantly download stuff in the background). Like I said, for mobile devices this downloading could cause serious issues for some who are more likely to go over their download quota, which is still very common, especially on 3G/4G networks. So, to the things I do like. It is quicker, and I like how different screens can have different wallpapers. Like I said earlier, I just set it to shuffle through 20,000 or so wallpapers and the computer monitor changes the wallpaper independently of the connected TV. Basically the general user may adapt, power users not so much. Also a lot of people like putting pets or family as wallpaper, and of course Metro doesn't have wallpaper.
@burf so do you wanna stick to Windows 8 permanently? To be honest, I've completely switched back to Windows 7. I can't say that Windows 8 is that faster than Windows 7. I've been doing a lot of tests regarding speed and couldn't realize any essential difference in speed. Especially I could not take to the Metro stuff. For desktop computers Windows 8 is the biggest crap, in general. I had to completely disable the damn LUA/UAC crap to get all software running properly. That's totally fu...ed up. If Microsoft forces the metro politics in the future I will switch over to linux based systems. But as long as Windows 7 is supported I'll stick to Windows 7. Then I'll switch to Linux based systems, if Microsoft continues forcing the metro politics...
I'll probably stick with Windows 8, but after modding it's only barely 'acceptable' to me. The LUA/UAC crap is problematic, I believe it's to overcome a potential security issues that may arise due to Metro Apps. If Windows 8 were any more restricted I definitely wouldn't be using it. Supposedly 'Windows Blue' is coming out mid next year, but there is no word on what that actually is, whether it is merely a Service Pack, or a service pack that you now have to pay for... under the guise of a new Windows iteration (Windows 8.5 etc). Could be Windows Blue cuts out the option to disable 'EnableLUA', but I doubt that (LUA = Limited User Access), in which case it would be completely useless. Windows 8 definitely won't be liked in an office environment. If anyone does install it and use apps, let us know how large the C:\Program Files\WindowsApps folder grows. I don't even use the apps, and have EnableLUA disabled, and it has downloaded several hundred megabytes and 7000+ files! - and I should point out I uninstalled a whole heap off apps, which you can do from the 'Start' screen. On a 'plus' size, one of the downloads were the proper VS2012 runtimes, the ones that should have come with Windows to begin with! and no the old ones like I mentioned earlier. Of course, the old ones are still present. These files are the same as the normal VS2012 runtime files, but they are used only for Windows Apps. I therefore highly recommend turning off live updates in the metro screen (so stuff doesn't keep automatically downloading). I wonder how much crap and clutter people could build if they actually really used the apps as Microsoft 'intends', the apps don't seem to be space of file efficient at all, I could see a larger SSD as being necessary in some cases. I took ownership of the WindowsApps folder and deleted it entirely. The Start Screen is still working properly, as are the functions that I would actually use on there if I did use it (the new start menu layout, search etc). I run SFC after doing this, and no complaints about it! which is surprising, but also good I believe the three services you want to stop (if started)1 are: system events broker time broker windows all-user install agent windows store service These shouldn't be started anyway if you turn off live apps and delete the apps folder 1you can't disable them, but I believe they won't load unless requested, which they won't be if you're not using Windows Apps!