Microsoft Updates - Automatic or Manual?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Deepest Dark Afrika
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microsoft Updates - Automatic or Manual?
Note Well: It is not my intention to start a “Slag Microsoft” thread (although no doubt that would produce many responses with which I would wholeheartedly agree); Nor do I need advice to “Get Real – install linux” (I need to run several applications that do not run under linux). That having been said ….
I currently use three computers running Windows XP (two Professional and one Home) (specifically a Dell 745 Optiplex desktop (running Office 2003 Professional), an IBM X41 laptop (running Office 2007 Student), and an Asus 904HD/XP Netbook (running Open Office)).
Microsoft having done their usual First Tuesday thing, I was a trifle irritated to note that the Dell needs to download about 110Mb of “critical” patches. I therefore decided to see how much commonality there was between updates for the three systems, with a view to downloading the patches manually (I pay for my own bandwidth – which has something to do with this decision).
The results were interesting: Auto-update for the Dell indicates that 109Mb of critical patches are required; for the IBM X-41, auto-update indicates 55Mb are required (of which 29.3Mb are common with the Dell). And (surprise surprise!) the Asus Netbook only requires 16.1Mb (for IE 8).
As an aside, that indicates to me that there is a “hidden” saving in deploying a Netbook (even if it’s running Windows XP but running Open Office instead of MS Office) in that a lot fewer updates are going to be required.
There are a number of anomalies between the auto-update download and the manual update: for example – the size auto-update for MS Office compatibility Service Pack 2 is 35.5Mb, whereas the manual update shows 14.8Mb. Auto-update for the June 2009 malicious software removal tool KB890830) indicates 1.014Mb, whereas the manual update indicates 8.4Mb.
I also fail to see why I should download 8.8Mb of Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer 7 for XP, when the very next item in the download list is for Internet Explorer 8 (which presumably replaces IE 7). I do concede that it makes sense if I choose to stick with IE 7 – but would not be well pleased to download both … And I note the discussion IE 8? started by Keygrip.
I then took a look at Microsoft’s description of what the various patches actually do: mostly “A security vulnerability exists in … that could allow arbitrary code to run when a maliciously modified file is opened. This update resolves the vulnerability so that … are handled appropriately”. The Microsoft site more than a little opaque but I suppose someone in Redmond enjoys gainful employment filling the site with boilerplate -- but their site sure leaves somewhat to be desired for those actually trying to find out about anything …
Somewhere I seem to recall a (non-Microsoft) web site that explained (in small words) what each and every patch was really about. Does anyone know where I might find such a site? I would (for example) really like to know just how important Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 is to me in the greater scheme of things?
Does anyone have any comments as to how they handle MS Updates? Manual or Automatic? Is there an easier way?
I currently use three computers running Windows XP (two Professional and one Home) (specifically a Dell 745 Optiplex desktop (running Office 2003 Professional), an IBM X41 laptop (running Office 2007 Student), and an Asus 904HD/XP Netbook (running Open Office)).
Microsoft having done their usual First Tuesday thing, I was a trifle irritated to note that the Dell needs to download about 110Mb of “critical” patches. I therefore decided to see how much commonality there was between updates for the three systems, with a view to downloading the patches manually (I pay for my own bandwidth – which has something to do with this decision).
The results were interesting: Auto-update for the Dell indicates that 109Mb of critical patches are required; for the IBM X-41, auto-update indicates 55Mb are required (of which 29.3Mb are common with the Dell). And (surprise surprise!) the Asus Netbook only requires 16.1Mb (for IE 8).
As an aside, that indicates to me that there is a “hidden” saving in deploying a Netbook (even if it’s running Windows XP but running Open Office instead of MS Office) in that a lot fewer updates are going to be required.
There are a number of anomalies between the auto-update download and the manual update: for example – the size auto-update for MS Office compatibility Service Pack 2 is 35.5Mb, whereas the manual update shows 14.8Mb. Auto-update for the June 2009 malicious software removal tool KB890830) indicates 1.014Mb, whereas the manual update indicates 8.4Mb.
I also fail to see why I should download 8.8Mb of Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer 7 for XP, when the very next item in the download list is for Internet Explorer 8 (which presumably replaces IE 7). I do concede that it makes sense if I choose to stick with IE 7 – but would not be well pleased to download both … And I note the discussion IE 8? started by Keygrip.
I then took a look at Microsoft’s description of what the various patches actually do: mostly “A security vulnerability exists in … that could allow arbitrary code to run when a maliciously modified file is opened. This update resolves the vulnerability so that … are handled appropriately”. The Microsoft site more than a little opaque but I suppose someone in Redmond enjoys gainful employment filling the site with boilerplate -- but their site sure leaves somewhat to be desired for those actually trying to find out about anything …
Somewhere I seem to recall a (non-Microsoft) web site that explained (in small words) what each and every patch was really about. Does anyone know where I might find such a site? I would (for example) really like to know just how important Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 is to me in the greater scheme of things?
Does anyone have any comments as to how they handle MS Updates? Manual or Automatic? Is there an easier way?
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just let auto update take it's course on XP. Windows 7 is different in as much you can select which updates to install by ticking the relevant boxes, so I do it manually. Then again I don't have to pay for bandwidth other than the monthly flat fee.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Manual, always.
In a multi-PC environment (e.g. corporate), use WSUS (Windows Update Services), allows you to download once, test and deploy locally.
If the description on the MS update, or in the MS KB article doesn't give enough information, try googling the KB number.
SD
In a multi-PC environment (e.g. corporate), use WSUS (Windows Update Services), allows you to download once, test and deploy locally.
If the description on the MS update, or in the MS KB article doesn't give enough information, try googling the KB number.
SD
Recidivist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luddite here.
Dell came with XP SP2, that's how it's stayed and will remain.
(Initially that was because I was on dial-up, now it's because of all the horror stories)
Dell came with XP SP2, that's how it's stayed and will remain.
(Initially that was because I was on dial-up, now it's because of all the horror stories)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Deepest Dark Afrika
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the comments - I shall certainly take a look at WSUS.
Would still be interested if anyone has news of a web site that gives a concise description of what the various patches are all about - for example: Do I really need .NET framework?
Would still be interested if anyone has news of a web site that gives a concise description of what the various patches are all about - for example: Do I really need .NET framework?
