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. 


Vistapocalypse

Member
  • Content Count

    90
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vistapocalypse

  • Rank
    this ship is sinking

Profile Information

  • OS
    Vista Home Premium x86
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @artomberus reported issues with the original KB4474419 in his June 4 post. Perhaps the June 11 version has fixed those issues?
  2. Just one more thing about May's updates: The security only KB4499180 file posted 5/11/2019 was replaced by a new file version posted 6/3/2019. The KB article still states "Microsoft is not currently aware of any issues with this update," so I can only speculate about any changes. Since this was the BlueKeep patch recommended for Vista, and since monthly rollup KB4499149 was not replaced, it seems likely that changes were made with Vista in mind. Edit: Upon closer inspection of the x86 version, the digital signature still says May 10 and the extracted text document still says File Version="1" It's hard to believe that another Patch Tuesday has arrived, however the new updates have not been released at this hour. I hope that another forum member will step forward to do the honors this month.
  3. Great news! Double posting should generally be avoided, but this is big news for both threads. I feel much more positive about the Windows 6.0 build-number change knowing that it does not preclude using the most popular third-party antivirus (albeit a legacy version). On a sadder note, there are probably Avast/AVG users running Vista out there who do not follow this thread, but heard about BlueKeep and took Microsoft's advice to install KB4499180, got BSODs, and wrongly concluded that installing Server 2008 updates on Vista is a very bad idea. Edit: AskWoody members might want to post here.
  4. Great news! @WinClient5270 will not have to edit the listings for AVG and Avast to add, "Works on build 6002 but causes BSODs on build 6003." (However there could be other build 6003 incompatibilities lurking out there.)
  5. Thanks again for investigating this artomberus, as I am not currently running build 6003 and cannot readily investigate myself. If I finally understand this issue correctly, any Server 2008 update that changed the build number to 6003 would have caused Win32k.sys BSODs on Vista systems with Avast/AVG installed - but not anymore! The micro-update is not actually present in the legacy installer (signed in November 2018), but is downloaded automatically - the user doesn't even have to be logged in (see this April article). Edit: I suppose the online installer might supply the micro-update immediately.
  6. Avast (including AVG) actually ended support for Vista beginning December 1, 2018 (see End of support for Windows XP/Vista), and only promised definition updates for version18.8 or older. However I have been following a thread at another forum that @Stevo might find very interesting, Windows Bluekeep patches causing Win32k.sys BSOD. The OP was running Server 2008 SP2 and using AVG 18, which attracted the attention of Avast representative Peter. On June 4, Peter posted: (KB4489887 was a preview released in March, and was the first update to change the build number to 6003.) It is difficult to believe that Avast would take any action that benefits legacy versions of their free products. On the other hand, this could explain why artomberus had no issues with AVG Free 18.8 in his June 4 post despite running build 6003: Perhaps he was among the first beneficiaries of the micro-update? Still, the only further information I can find relates to business products, e.g. BSOD/Failure to Boot after Installing AVG Business Edition on Windows Server 2008. There is some general information about micro-updates in an earlier article:
  7. However KB4474419 is a May update, whereas @Stevo reported that the issue began with April updates.
  8. The update that Jaguarek62 warned about on April 19 was actually KB4493458. Jaguarek62 is not using any antivirus software (unless his bank installed safety software), but reported issues with VMware services.
  9. Thanks again! It sounds like the Avast/AVG issue is solved by avoiding KB4474419 - not by installing KB4499184, which you had not yet installed. I am content to let Jaguarek62 figure out the VMware issue, which might not be so closely related after all, despite producing the same BSOD.
  10. KB4474419 adds SHA-2 code signing support for Server 2008, which needs the update to continue receiving automatic Windows updates after July according to 2019 SHA-2 Code Signing Support requirement for Windows and WSUS. Of course Windows Update will never deliver Server 2008 updates to Vista in any event, so the only possible benefit might be automatic updates for MS Office and Windows Defender. Edit: KB4474419 was "updated June 11, 2019 for Windows Server 2008 SP2 to correct an issue with the SHA-2 support for MSI files." One question: Have you also installed the preview KB4499184 that Jaguarek62 recommends above?
  11. See this post. Then it must be KB4474419 that breaks Avast/AVG and VMware! Thank you very much artomberus!
  12. @artomberus : Your winver screenshot shows you are running build 6003. Are you using an antivirus? I wonder what good antivirus remains since Avast/AVG is broken.
  13. Sorry to bother you again, but if you have skipped recent security updates in favor of the "non-security" Preview, it now occurs to me that you have not patched CVE-2019-0708 a.k.a. BlueKeep (see my post at the top of this page), among other things. And yes, avoiding all security updates since March would presumably allow Avast to be used; but installing security updates is really the whole point of this thread.
  14. A question about Win32k.sys BSOD on Server 2008 SP2 upon installation of May updates was posted at spiceworks yesterday. Edit: It was that thread that convinced Avast to issue micro-updates for compatibility with Windows build 6.0.6003.
×
×
  • Create New...