@McRip Ok, no problem, I'll send you a pm with a list after everything is ''final'' - I'm waiting for abbodi / others to confirm / infirm my findings. I'm also investigating right now some ''superseded'' updates, to see exactly what update supersedes them (to be sure). Also, for the hotfixes that are superseded but contain some reg entries, hopefully I'll have the time to only offer that tweak instead of the entire superseded hotfix
You are most welcome i actually had fun doing the checking btw, i only checked x86, you have to double check for x64 both 2492386, 2791765 are superseded by 2820331 (for win7 sp1) and 2791765 supersede 2492386 for win7 rtm
@abbodi1406 Can you please help me with the following? Please confirm / change the ''???'' with a hotfix number. Thanks! 2483564-v2 - superseded by ??? 2647753-v4 - superseded by 2775511 + 2839894 2705742 - superseded by ??? 2803752 - superseded by??? (especially System.security.dll) 2824408 - superseded by ??? 2832414 - superseded by ??? 2736233 - superseded by 2820197 2524732-v2 - superseded by 2868623 (at least, that's also superseded) 2619234-v2 - superseded by 2876644 2761217 (moved to his SatisfyWU folder by komm) - superseded by ??? Invalidatefntcache.exe especially 2798162 (moved to his SatisfyWU folder by komm) - superseded by ??? 2780130 - ~ confirmed by abbodi to be superseded by 2780102 - they have the same LDR version of Rdpdr.sys, however 2780102 also has the newer GDR version, so it's preferable Also, for IIS, 2723776 is superseded by 2873013, right?
hey I have searched and have read somewhere where it was explained what the difference was between steven4554 list ,kuc and McRip updates. but cant find it :/
The Update lists I make only contains updates that come directly from MS Servers which you can find on the Download Center or Update Catalog sites. The difference is I don't include hotfixes or updates that haven't gone through testing, that can only be obtained from MS Support by requesting for them.
2483564-v2 superseded by 2813430 + 2799925-v2 2524732-v2 superseded by 2871565 2619234-v2 superseded by 2876644, right 2647753-v4 superseded by 2775511-v2 + 2839894, right 2723776 superseded by 2873013, right 2736233 superseded by 2820197, right 2798162 superseded by 2868116 + 2824491-v2 2803752 superseded by 2862067-v2 + 2804579 (System.security.dll) 2824408 superseded by 2732673-v4 2832414 superseded by 2856676 2705742 well, after a deeper look in (Windows\winsxs\Manifests), it turns out that it's not superseded completely. its' partially superseded by 2875501 (latest kernel update) 2761217 superseded by 2779272 regarding Invalidatefntcache.exe, although its manifest has higher number (microsoft-windows-g..validatefntcache-06) but the actual file version number (6.1.7601.22118) is lower than 2779272 (6.1.7601.22154) i'm having second thoughts about 2780130 and 2780102 because 2780130 is LDR-only, the highest ldr version will installed regardless of the installing method whilst 2780102 is GDR+LDR, installing ldr version will require the special installing method (e.g. burf's script) also, 2780130 manifests is newer by one day so i think 2780130 supersede 2780102 not the opposite
That's true for x86 but what about x64, that's my problem! 2791765x64 contains windows-a..tigations.resources (not superseded) 2492386x64 contains windows-a..ence-mitigations-c2 (not superseded)
2705742 is superseded since windows-r..gistry-trustedtypes is for W7 RTM (I hope so, and do not have it on my PC) 2761217 correct 2780130 2780102 I think I have posted about those two. Yes, normally 2780130 should supersede 2780102. But 2780102 came out in December 2012, 2780130 in February 2013. Since all users had the "old" update installed for 2 months, I decided to keep 2780102. Why uninstall one update and install another update and change nothing? But I can change that if you want?????
@komm @abbodi1406 Thanks again for all the help, looking forward to seeing the conclusion of what's really superseeded and what's not.
thats what i always thought so, but i saw the component in the manifest folder (lower version than 2705742, definitely from another update) so i installed 2705742, and windows-r..gistry-trustedtypes got installed (don't know if it's effective or not) and there are plenty of other original Win7 sp1 components that still have version 6.1.7600, so i guess not all updated compnents with that version is ment for Win7 rtm maybe we need further research or test on this matter -- i guess i missed or forgot such post yes, i see 2780130 has the Priority edit: if it's not much trouble for you, you can add an exception for it i mean, if 2780102 is installed, do not offer 2780130 if it's not installed, then 2780130 offered
Code: C. Updates that don't belong in the main folder / some sub-folders from komm servers: 2798787 - present in RSAT sub-folder - it's actually a Group Policy update, needs to be moved to that sub-folder 2574819 - has only a ADTLS related tweak , otherwise it's superseded, needs to be moved to ADTLS-ilke subfolder from the main folder 2719985 - not superseded for x86, moved back to main folder from OLD FOR BAD D. KUC errors / komm server errors: 2736782-v3 - don't get downloaded by KUC, although it should 2835361 - don't get downloaded by KUC, although it should 533552 - not integratable, but downloaded by KUC in the main folder E. Updates below are offered by KUC for an offline SP1 image by default (superseded by IE10 + platform update) - it's not the best practice the present state of KUC. Maybe a clear choice (a pop-up / supplementary screen in KUC), to either download IE10 + platform update or not would be preferable, a better alternative. If not, if for example the user decides to run KUC again for a second time to also add the IE10 updates and its platform update, will force him to also integrate the updates below: 2695426-v2 2707082 2598845 2591500-v3 2584449 2592525 2647169 2704372-v7 2743155-v2 2741355 2510531 1. Did you know that there is a column in the KUC output file that's called KUC-StateRemarks? Just a tip try reading it. 2. Did you ever install a system with KUC? 3. If you did are there superseded updates installed, after KUC says 0,0? 4. If yes: no problem, I make mistakes myself: just tell me the superseding updates, and I will correct it. 5. If you think an update is not superseded, no problem, install the update and run KUC. In the column SupersedingUpdates, there are the KB# of the superseding updates. Check this updates, and if I'm wrong just tell me: "update x is not superseded by update y since component z has a higher version". But don't tell me update x is not supersede, that wastes my time. 6. If you assume an update, for example 2798787, does not belong to the RSAT folder, check what components are in the update, and the check the version# and presents of those components in you installation. And then, maybe, you will find out, that all the GroupPolicy components are superseded. And then you may see: the only thing not superseded in this update is an server or RSAT only component. And then you may find out, that "Server or RSAT" could be a good place for this update. 7. If an update has pre-requests, that must be installed before wouldn't it be the best not to offer this update until the pre-requests are fulfilled? 8. If you think that only the existents of IE10 supersedes IE8 then you must install Win8.1 at once - it exists. But if IE10 is not present in an installation, but IE8 is, wouldn't it be the best to offer IE8 updates, then? But especially in this point I must say you are right. It annoy me, like you do, that the IE8 updates are still downloaded, even if you have checked to install IE10. But that's not really a big problem, they will be removed when IE10 is installed. What's the reason of that? In the very past KUC does not install any additions itself. So it just make a snapshot of the existing system and decides what updates are missing or superseded(the result). Then the user can select additional options for this snapshot. Normally this also should change the former result, but there are some places in the program that should be reworked, especially the IE installations. So please next time do your homework and if I have time for the IE issue, I will do mine.
My last post for the next period of time. Office 2013 x86/x64 27.09.1013 Updated/added: msointl-*-*.msp 15.0.4535.1003 mso-x-none.msp 15.0.4535.1003 outlookintl-*-*.msp 15.0.4535.1006 outlook-x-none.msp 15.0.4535.1006
@ Mr. Professor komm My findings are based on running your app for an offline image. I never intend to use your app (or any other app or script) to install updates online. Do my homework??? I only compared the two servers, and I think this will help alot of users of both your solution and also McRip's. Also, I brought to your attention some aspects that seem problematic to me. Your arrogant response (as always) forces me to address to you in a more respectful manner from now on - you'll no longer be just komm, but Mr. Professor komm (teacher seems a too vulgar word for your posture). I hope you'll get that it's all a joke. A few years back, I would have responded in a not-so-elegant way, but now I have the experience of people's behaviour on the internet: the smaller the ego in real life, the bigger on the internet. So yeah, I'm sorry for bringing up to your attention that your app doesn't download two updates, or that it downloads an unwanted hotfix (that isn't integratable) for an offline image, I'm sorry I mentioned the IE8 related updates, I'm sorry for all the KUC users that have to become professors to use your app / I'm sorry that KUC isn't more intuitive, but I'm not sorry for making fun of your arrogance, and I'll continue to do it, Mr. Professor komm. In the end, again, my only goal was to discover ways to improve the ''gap'' between the two solutions, that are meant in the end to offer ~ the same result. But no, because of internet egoes, there can't be any normal communication, I have to do my homework / watch my language, not to offend the great titans of hotfix downloading. The result before yesterday was tens of hotfixes extra / missing in both solutions, hopefully soon this won't happen. A logical human beeing would get past the small talk and focus on the results, but I can't predict the behaviour of a titan such as yourself, dear Mr. Professor komm - please enlighten me further!
@ Ms. Crybaby RicaNeaga I see you love bolt letters and jokes, so never mind this: Of course you may call me "Mr. Professor Komm". But you should not be sad, if I call you "Ms. Crybaby RicaNega". You made some statements like: "2798787 - present in RSAT sub-folder - it's actually a Group Policy update, needs to be moved to that sub-folder" That’s not a question! If you want to ask something you have to use this “?” symbol. That meant for me, there is someone -like "abbodi1406"- who looked inside the updates and found I made a mistake. No problem. So I use some of my precious time, I normally need to teach people who are not as educated as I am, to inspect the problem. For that, I have to go in my dark cellar room, nobody is there, just me and my computer. And what must I find out? My lovely sunshine, "Ms. Crybaby RicaNega", did nothing else as posting an un-checked statement. Ok, is said to myself - You know, in the dark cellar I'm alone, so I have to talk to memyselfi. - "Ms. Crybaby" was a little bit un-concentrated. She has got a lot, to learn. Let's have a look at an other statement, maybe she does things better this time. "2719985 - not superseded for x86, moved back to main folder from OLD FOR BAD". I run KUC and the info says is superseded by 2836405 and 2799406. So let's have a look inside these three updates. "Three", I again said to myself, "isn't this number to high for a student in the first class." Let’s have a deeper look: 2719985 contains "windows-msxml30" and "windows-msxml60" both version 6.1.7601.22012. OMG indeed this numbers must be too high. But let us not loose hope. Next I look in 2836405, this updates contains "windows-msxml30" version 6.1.7601.22329. Now we count: 22329 - 22012, that is even to heavy for me, just compare the digits, and we get a result > 0 (O, sorry, just for explanation ">" is the character for bigger, greater, higher), So, 2836405 supersedes the msxml30 part of 2719985. I hope you can still follow and I'm not to quick. OK let's take a résumé: -that's French and means "summery", if you did not know that before- Update 2719985 contains two components. one is superseded. But we are not finish, we have to go the rocky road up to the end. We must also look inside update 2799406. And again we have luck. This update only contains one package for --- you may guess --- come on guess --- --- Yes, it’s for "windows-msxml60" with version number 6.1.7601.22208. OMG another really big number. That must have given her deathblow. But we will go slowly this time. Code: 22208 for 2799406 - 22012 for 2719985 ------------------------- = 19 for 79421 Both number > 0 (are greater zero) so we are at the end. Conclusion: 2719985 x86 is superseded by 2836405 and 2799406. But not to quick. There could be another update that has a higher version number. But I will talk about that at the next lesson. See you tomorrow. Your sincerely and faithfully Professor Dr. Komm
Buy the way, new KUC for Win7 is out. And leisure time is over. Sorry had no time to remove the IE issue. Had to check a lot of updates somebody posts in the forum, that should be superseded or missing, supposedly. And yes I checked all updates that KUC marked to add, and did not find a mistake on my side. Some updates could be superseded. But if one component of an update has no follower, I need at least one proof it's not needed. And yes it also takes a lot of time to do all this. 2574819-v2 is not really clear. I do not have installed the GDR part and it does not come up in WU for me. maybe the windows-t..-always-installable means, it can be uninstalled if RDP-WinIP8 is installed. On the other hand, I had a lot of problems to remove 2574819-v1 form the DVD images and integrate 2574819-v2. Last I give up. My x64 DVDs now contain GDR version of 2574819-v1 and LDR version of 2574819-v2. After OS installation the GDR part can safely be removed. Or 2492386x64-component "windows-a..ence-mitigations-c2" has no follower. Was this a one time mistake of MS? So, what to do with all those unclear updates. Declare them as superseded, by decree. What, if this part of the update would have told you, that the app you want to use is not compatible with your x64 system. And you spend hours to find that out. Questions, Questions, Questions. For me the decision is easy. Keep it, if you do not know if it is needed. We have round about 700 non superseded Updates, and round about 1200 superseded ones. But we have only a hand full doubtful updates. That's (let me calculate: a hand = 5 so 5/700*100=5/7%) round about 1% we may have too much installed. Better lose a friend than a supposedly needed update. (O, I forgot I have no)
Just try to relax man- these are hotfixes you're talking about; not atomic bombs or kitten's lives.. It's not the end of the world if somebody doesn't agree with you.
I tend to concur with the idea of being open-minded to viable suggestions. For example, - suggested improvements to offline integration of IE10 (KUC) to no avail - suggested mirrors for McRip's servers ... [My region was off limit to McRip's servers for DDOS attacks ???] ["co-payment" of file hoster can be considered] Sigh