Windows 10 10240 to 10586 upgrade change reports

[mikedigitize]

 

I have been trying thru WU download kb3116900 without succes.

 

What's the error code the Settings App is putting up?

 

I actually used one of those recently to look up a failure to install a prior update and it turned up an article on how to fix it.

 

[rant]

 

Big font, dumbed-down madness and we STILL have hex error codes, instead of a nice text message.  Re-fricking-diculous.

 

[/rant]

 

-Noel

 

No error codes, It say downloaded but just sitts there ...for days! I been trying to repere wu and all thats go along with that. No succes. I don't seems to get .29 on the mobile either....

 

Edited December 12, 2015 by mikedigitize

[mikedigitize]

AMD64 means 64bit. It gets this name because AMD won the 64bit war against Intel's evil Itanium platform aka IA-64.

Thanks for clear that up

[mikedigitize]

 

I have been trying thru WU download kb3116900 without succes.

 

What's the error code the Settings App is putting up?

 

I actually used one of those recently to look up a failure to install a prior update and it turned up an article on how to fix it.

 

[rant]

 

Big font, dumbed-down madness and we STILL have hex error codes, instead of a nice text message.  Re-fricking-diculous.

 

[/rant]

 

-Noel

 

Well... I ran the installer one more time and got this error code: 0x80240009

[NoelC]

Though I haven't seen it personally, there is some evidence online that error code 0x80240009 can come from there being another, conflicting operation in progress.

 

Have you tried installing it *right* after rebooting?

 

Also, does your system pass an SFC /SCANNOW check/repair?

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

AMD64 means 64bit. It gets this name because AMD won the 64bit war against Intel's evil Itanium platform aka IA-64.

 

Innocent question: what was evil about Itanium? Pretty much all I know about it is the name.

 

Just wondering, thanks!

 

--JorgeA

[Bakuchris]

It was one of the first 64bit processors in the year 1999, though there were others before it in the early 1990s. I read they were powerful but they were very expensive to purchase until AMD fixed that.

[NoelC]

I don't have any idea about what might be considered evil about it, but I can relate this one piece of wisdom:

 

For graphics type operations, where things aren't approaching the 4 gigabyte address space limitations of 32 bit software, the EM64T instruction set (Intel's name for AMD64) gets things done in x64 software about 10% to 15% more quickly than 32 bit software.

 

I wonder if anyone's compared the performance of Itanium instructions with x64, given the same source code.

 

-Noel

Edited December 12, 2015 by NoelC

[BudwS]

On older PCs, the 64 bit capable AMD or Intel CPUs may not be enough to run some 64 bit operating systems.  The supporting chipset on the motherboard may limit the success.  In updating to 64 bit Win 7, some PCs make it  and some don't.  Some that don't have run 64 bit Linux Mint.  Most all of the 64 bit capable CPUs will run 32 bit software with no problem.  I always try 64 bit operating systems first for the added computing potential.  However, malware, virus or just bad code can bring down the best of systems.

[mikedigitize]

Though I haven't seen it personally, there is some evidence online that error code 0x80240009 can come from there being another, conflicting operation in progress.

 

Have you tried installing it *right* after rebooting?

 

Also, does your system pass an SFC /SCANNOW check/repair?

 

-Noel

Yes, first thing every morning...

and yes tryed that. I just did another one:

[mikedigitize]

and this...

[NoelC]

Hm, so your system thinks it's on 10586.0 still - implying you haven't succeeded at even one of the cumulative updates.  Seems to me that's starting to look like Microsoft's fault; a failure of the "cumulative" part of the cumulative update strategy.  Perhaps they're not testing with a system that hasn't been kept up to date with every intermediate revision (seems like they do less and less testing any more).  I suppose there's the possibility the next cumulative update might just work.

 

For what it's worth, the current version is still 10586.29 (as of last night), which of course is what KB3116900 is supposed to bring to you.

 

Unfortunately I don't know what else to suggest to help you get through getting it updated, save for radical things like trying a complete Refresh (reinstallation of the OS as an in-place upgrade over itself) and seeing if that helps.  That stands to cause you to lose a whole bunch of configuration changes of course, just like the initial installation.

 

[editorial]

 

Now you have me thanking my lucky stars that I have managed to keep my system up to date successfully.

 

Every time Microsoft chooses to make big changes and ignore the past, they essentially choose to throw out the work their predecessors have done to smooth over wrinkles and provide an actual working, recoverable OS environment.  That they insist on forging ahead anyway, changing ever more parts without first working any of these kinks out is the real problem.  It's like building a house on a crumbling foundation.  Sooner or later the walls simply can't be built any higher.

 

Clearly the idea of a cumulative update is that they can cover up their screw-ups (implying that screw-ups are then more tolerable, which they seem to want to take advantage of), but the update process itself has to work! 

 

Near as I can tell NOTHING in Windows 10 works flawlessly or robustly.  That's because good network-integrated software is actually difficult to write, and it has to be more robust and fault-tolerant than most programmers think.  Indeed an OS itself has to be more fault-tolerant and defensive than run-of-the-mill software.  It requires actual engineering, SERIOUS engineering, not just hacking.

 

[/editorial]

 

-Noel

Edited December 13, 2015 by NoelC

[jaclaz]

Well, it seems like the fence paradox by good ol' G.K.Chesterton has found (yet another) real life example. JFYI:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

jaclaz

Edited December 13, 2015 by jaclaz

[mikedigitize]

Hm, so your system thinks it's on 10586.0 still - implying you haven't succeeded at even one of the cumulative updates. 

 

 

-Noel

IRL it's : .17

 

[NoelC]

Sorry, I should have actually tried it beforehand.  On my system DISM reports 10.0.10586.0 as well.

 

 

I guess they forgot about the servicing database.  Not exactly mature, maintainable OS software, eh?

 

Microsoft:  Putting the Epic in Fail since 2015

 

-Noel

[Ridrok]

I still do not understand how you get this 10586.x version

 

I have all updates installed and it's still 10240. It's not that I want to update it absolutely, but it's a VM I use to know Win10 as much as possible.

 

See by yourself (Win 10 Pro x64):