Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wupsy2016

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
  1. Thanks, Glenn9999, I think you've nailed it. So, as I said earlier, a good start to making the whole process simpler would be the creation of a list (a Word table, perhaps) that explains, in a reasonably comprehensible way, just which W7 updates do what, as well as any possible pitfalls, like whether update X causes problems for other updates. Information on the replacement sequence of superseded updates would also be handy i.e., KB123 was replaced by KB456, which was itself replaced by KB789. So, use KB789. Obviously, such an 'Index' would mainly be of use to those of us who want to get involved with manual updating. But I suspect there are a great many users who might be interested in the procedure if was properly documented and simpler to carry out.
  2. Thanks, but the matter of the exes has become somewhat moot, as I've found several standalone versions (no accompanying exes) of the files in question in other collections of downloaded updates. As to that, I never had any intention of actually using every update WU showed to be available. All I did was list them, then bulk-downloaded every collection I could find, figuring that I'd have everything on hand, once I'd determined which updates I actually wanted. Yes, I downloaded everything on that ULZ the week before I posted here. And I have WinTookit and WSUS Offline Updater. So far, NTLite seems the easiest to use, but I'm still researching apps. I agree entirely with your statement that not all Update files are worth having. However, I personally find it more convenient to simply grab every file while they're available (which might not be forever, for W7 - the only OS I'm interested in) then troll and discard anything I've proved to be unwanted, redundant or plain evil (like the Telemetry) All of the foregoing is pretty much what I've been doing for the last month. Most of my questions have been aimed at bringing myself up to speed with a subject I'd never bothered to study until now, when it's become obvious that W7 will soon cease to be the renewable resource of old. On that note, I think this whole business of integrating Windows Updates has become unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I mean, we're only talking about a few hundred Update files, the reason for whose existence is thoroughly documented by the manufacturer, and whose performance, benefits, and\or infamy have been thoroughly explored and documented by thousands of users. In my opinion, the key to simplifying the system would be the creation of a comprehensive Master Index of every available Windows Update, together with a readable explanation of each file's purpose, its real-life effect on the intended operating system, and its possible impact on other update files. The files themselves are readily available, as are various applications for creating integrations. So, armed with such an Index, it would only be necessary for computer users to download all the available files, then decide at their leisure which group of files were best suited to their needs and which method they should use to deploy the collection. Update-integrating the Windows operating system shouldn't be the trial and error process that it's become. Googling for 'slip-streaming Windows 7' gets more than 60,000 hits, which is hardly surprising, considering the numbers of individuals and groups who are involved in a continual reinvention of the this particular wheel, instead of cooperating and coordinating their efforts to produce an effective and simple system, that's workable by everyone with modest computer knowledge, instead of just geeks and gurus.
  3. Glenn999, thanks for your helpful explanation. I think I'm finally beginning to get a handle on the update process :-) I only found out about the Catalog site a week ago, and now I see from your notes and others, that there's at least one more update download site that I haven't utilized. In your last post you said, "FWIW, I'm not sure the question at issue anymore". I'll summarize where I'm up to and add one last question. First, I created a slipstreamed W7 Ultimate 64-bit ISO using W.U.D and NTLite I installed W7, then found 223 updates available via Windows Update. Downloaded all from Microsoft Catalog and added them to a new ISO. After the rebuilt W7 was installed, there were still 100 updates available via Windows Update. Downloaded all of those from Microsoft Catalog. Now I'm preparing a third NTLite integration to try and minimize the amount of online updating required post install. But I've run into a confusing hitch. Of the 100 updates noted above, 96 are standalone single files. All 96 were previously contained in folders of their own, which I've since discarded to make it easier for NTLite. There are 4 files remaining in the main download folder. They're in 3 sub-folders as one folder contains 2 files. But each of these 3 folders also contains an executable. Here are the properties and size of the executable in each KB-numbered folder: (KB3004375): Description - MP System State Check. Size - 23.2K (KB3033929): Description - MP System State Check. Size - 23.2K (KB3031432): Description - MP System State Check. Size - 23.2K (This last folder is the one with two .msu files - KB3031432-x64 and KB3004375-v3-x64.msu) I'm wondering if these exes are there simply to enable a standalone install of each .msu file\files, as might occur where someone wants to install only one or two updates. If that's the case, I'm thinking I should pull out the four files and merge them with the main group, then discard the sub-folders and exes. Comments?
  4. Since yesterday, I've been thinking about my previous post. To sum up, I downloaded a bunch of Updates from Microsoft Catalog, but five folders each contain an exe file plus one or more Update files. I'm thinking now that I should just pull out the .msu files and merge them with the main collection, then toss the exes along with the containing folders. Does this sound right? If so, just a 'Yes' would be enough for me to go on. Thanks.
  5. Not me, Kelsenellenelvian, possibly my son-in-law. He's doing the same exercise as me, but prefers to do his own research :-) Guys, I've been wading through my Updates, renaming them and tossing away the containing folders. I've come across several folders that contain one or more .msu files, plus an exe. Example-folder contents: As I said earlier, I'm renaming the files like this one from the above folder to: 'Windows6.1-KB3031432-x64.msu' I plan to merge the renamed files with an older collection of short-named updates I downloaded via W.U.D. But I'm not sure what to do with the accompanying exe.
  6. Much appreciated, Glenn9999, your explanations were most helpful. I think I'm just about ready to do a second NTLite integration. I find it somewhat ironic (more like 'frustrating') that we have access to the greatest repository of information that's ever been assembled on this planet, and yet it can take a totally disproportionate amount of time to get answers to what, for those 'in the know' are fairly simple questions. I've been trying for weeks to get the answers that you and submix8c have provided above. It's a bit like using a calculator - you need to have an idea of the answer you're expecting. But for the more esoteric information, like a lot of IT, you need to first find an assembly of experts in that field, and then, frame the question in exactly the right way to encourage someone to respond. Sure, there's more information around than ever before, but a great deal of this data site is stored in the cerebrums of people who are either unable or unwilling to share it. Thanks.
  7. Aha! That's what I was trying to understand. So W.U.D. would take this Catalog folder and file: 'Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB3093513)\AMD64-all-windows6.1-kb3093513-x64_2c1e5ff88f5acbd93bb3d80b09731db3fb85eb1e.msu' ...then discard the folder and rename the file to: 'Windows6.1-KB3093513-x64.msu'? Have I got that right?
  8. Thanks guys. submix86: The reason I asked my question was to avoid 'spinning my wheels', LOL. I'm aware that the ulz lists used by W.U.D are way out of date, and that's why I grabbed 100 updates from Catalog to use in my next integrated build. I was just curious about the naming difference. From what you've said, I understand now that the two files that I used as an example are actually one and the same (given identical KB numbers, of course). I've no idea where W.U.D. gets its files from, but it seems to me that the app is perhaps renaming the files to the shorter version. And, because the Catalog files are each contained in a separate folder, stripping that folder from the file. Is that correct? Glenn9999. Thanks, also. The other reason I asked for enlightenment was because of the 'AMD64' prefix of the Catalog-derived files. I've just found an explanation on Tom's site, so I'll post it below for the benefit of anyone else who's as dumb as I am :-) I also now understand that file-names (plus file-path) shouldn't be too long, for integration purposes. So it seems sensible that I remove the containing folder from each Catalog download, and perhaps also truncate the long file names to a shorter version.
  9. My recent W7 NTLite integration used Windows Updates Downloader (with ulz lists) to get the required updates. All of those files had names in this format - 'Windows6.1-KB2872339-x64.msu' But when I went to Microsoft Catalog to grab some missing updates, I noticed that all the files have a much longer filenames. For example: 'AMD64-all-windows6.1-kb2803821-v2-x64_d89c709a7908f771a78e27933081f269c2abfb9d.msu' Additionally, each file is in its own, separate folder. The above file was inside this folder: 'Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2803821.' Could someone explain why the naming difference? I intend to build another integration and will probably merge the the short-name files with the long-names, as long as it won't cause NTLite to hemorrhage.
  10. Richie614a, thanks. Yeah, a bit weird. Just took a closer look at the offered updates and SP1 is on the list. Say what! The W7 ISO I used as a base for the integrated installer has SP1, and that's a 2012 disc! Holy Gatesman. xman charl: This is DISM, right? And you reckon it's simple to use. You must be some sort of genius, man Or maybe I'm just too thick to be doing this sort of geeky mumbo-jumbo. Maybe I should just use my original 2012 W7 disc and put up with having to install 300 updates
  11. Hi all, I'm new here. I want to keep my W7 Ultimate 64-bit setup for as long as possible, so I recently slipstreamed my 2012 W7 (all versions) DVD with 200+ updates that were obtained via Windows Updates Downloader. This is the first time I've tried this. An online how-to showed me how to use NTLite for the job. It seemed to work OK and I installed the new integrated W7 onto a new computer I've just built. But now I'm confused. The ULZ list obtained via Windows Updates Downloader only showed updates to March 2015. But when I logged my new rig into Microsft Updates, I was offered another 96 'important' updates, plus 5 'optionals'. I don't understand why this disparity. I mean, I would have thought that ULZ lists would have included updates of a more recent vintage than March 2015, if, as seems to be the case from my Microsoft logon, they are actually available. I'm sure there's a logical reason, but I'd appreciate knowing what it is. Thanks for reading.
  • Create New...