KB3083710 and KB3102810 (needed for windows update?)

[Nomen]

I've just performed a win-7sp1 install from an image prepared by one of those driver and update integration programs.  I selected about 210 updates to be rolled into the image, making sure that none of them matched the 2 or 3 dozen KB numbers that are associated with various "do-not-install" lists for win-7 (including telemetry and crap related to win-10).  Install worked fine, and the updates were all there.

I set auto-update to check-but-let-me-choose, and the first thing it downloaded was an update to the updater.  Ok fine, restart, and then check again.  But it just sits there, trying to connect or do something.

One article I found says that KB3083710 and KB3102810 are required (or should be manually downloaded and installed) so that the update check happens at all (or happens without some huge time delay).  Trouble is, both of those kb's are in my list of stuff-to-not-install.

So I'm basically asking (1) are both or either of the above 2 KB's required for an on-line windows-update check/scan to work, and if so then (2) to what extent am I exposing the system to unwanted win-10 nags (or worse) by installing it / them?

[dencorso]

KB3083710 - Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: October 2015

KB3102810 - Installing and searching for updates is slow and high CPU usage occurs in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2

So, the answer to:

Quote

(2) to what extent am I exposing the system to unwanted win-10 nags (or worse) by installing it / them?

Is: no one really knows this, AFAIK.

[bphlpt]

So KB3083710 is OK?  Because I also have if blocked per your list.

I also have Windows Update seemingly not able to complete a scan.  I haven't been too worried about it since things are otherwise working well, but I would like to be able to complete a scan if I manually run one.

Cheers and Regards

[dencorso]

Some people seem to need  KB3102810 to be able to complete scans. My 7 SP1 x64 does not. What I posted above (but my post was truncated somehow) is:
Do make a full backup. Add KB3102810. Do the scans complete now? If so, consider keeping it and report on the main thread. If not, redeploy the backup.
No one knows whether it's really safe. But there's no report it carries any nag inside, and other types of payload are difficult to detect. So testing with care is required.

Nota Bene: Those KBs in the list that have indication of nags and or telemetry are a definite no-no. Those that have almost no documentation (as is the case of those two mentioned by the OP) and refer to the WU/MU system may be tested with due care, but should be avoided unless slowness or malfuction appears.

[NoelC]

For what it's worth - and this is just a data point - I did some experimentation with Windows Update today in a Win 7 Ultimate VM...

I seem to have a well-functioning Windows 7 system, having hidden only these:

• KB3139929

• KB2952664

• KB3021917

• KB3035583

• KB3035583 (yes, it's listed twice)

• KB3068708

• KB3080149

• KB3123862

• KB971033

• All the Windows 7 Language Packs

-Noel

[sdt]

yes in my experience ive needed 3102810 at minimum or sometimes a combination of 3138612 947821 and 3102810

[Nomen]

Well, it turns out my system was downloading updates, but I was experiencing another issue I didn't know existed - that once you select downloads and start the download process, the progress indicator does not move (stays at 0%) but something is actually being downloaded.  I only realized that when I shut down the system and that kicked it into saying "applying update n of x" during a few minutes before it shut down.  I let it apply the updates, let the shutdown happen, then turned back on and tried that sequence a few times.   It worked once or twice more, but then it got stuck on the same 50-odd updates (from a list originally at 66 that I selected).   I'll try this more again today and see if I can get more of them.  I still haven't downloaded/installed the 2 kb's I've mentioned (3083710 and 3102810).  
 

[submix8c]

Per dencorso's post above, it seems that the x64 OS are unaffected by the need for KB3102810 (not needed) but the x86 ones are (needed). IOW, x86 goes haywire if you don't install it but the x64 could care less and are unaffected. I will consider thsis a 32-bit "bug" that MS was kind enough to introduce into their new Windows Update (WSUS) Servers.

I have tested this "theory" recently. YAY MS!

Edit - Install "clean" plus WUA v7.6.7600.320.

Edited March 19, 2016 by submix8c
Clean Install plus Other WUA

[bphlpt]

20 minutes ago, submix8c said:

Per dencorso's post above, it seems that the x64 OS are unaffected by the need for KB3102810 (not needed) but the x86 ones are (needed). IOW, x86 goes haywire if you don't install it but the x64 could care less and are unaffected. I will consider thsis a 32-bit "bug" that MS was kind enough to introduce into their new Windows Update (WSUS) Servers.

It seems to be something more/else.  My system is x64 and I still seem to get "stuck" when I search for updtes.  I only let it look for updates for 30 minutes or so last time I tried, then I killed the process.  And it doesn't seem to be doing stuff in the background because it can shut down/restart without any "applying ..." type of message.  I haven't been concerned since things are running well otherwise and I figured that being unable to apply updates might not really be a "problem".   But I'll try again and let it run for a few hours and see if it ever either finds any updates or says I'm up to date.  I'll report back later.

Cheers and Regards

[submix8c]

@bphlpt - See edited post above. Installed "clean" (SP1 already integrated) plus v320 of WUA. No problem - then again, I haven't installed any updates via WUA yet nor have I applied any post-SP1 manually. Auto-Update is "Off". So far, I've just been playing with the "base install" before I go full-on "keeper".
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2887535
It appears that the "newer" one (KB3083710) is tagged "7601" and contains several other files to "fix" your WUA. Two CAB files inside it, one "bumps" WUA, the other (apparently) "patches" WSUSSCAN. Maybe a subsequent update (that I haven't yet installed) "breaks" it?

[dencorso]

It is possible some update breaks WU/MU, then causing the fix to be required.
I did not originally wish to imply that the x86 requires the fix, while the x64 does not.
The information we have at the moment is still too scanty to draw any conclusions.
Processor manufacturer, number of cores and or ammount of RAM present may all be factors, too...

 

[submix8c]

Well, heck! I may as well blow up this install and let 'er rip! We'll see what happens. Yay for blocking the ones I don't want!

Then again, this isn't Win7/8 - it's Win7-ish. (nunya...) Fat chance of GWX getting inserted...

Um... on second thought maybe a Win7x64 TestBed install (as specified above)? Too much time figuring this beast out.

Side note - applying updates is a hoot! Time is not on your side. I'll be drunk by the time it finishes (about midnight).

[dencorso]

Hope the beer is good and plentiful!

[NoelC]

See also: 

http://www.askwoody.com/2016/the-windows-update-takes-forever-problem/

-Noel

[bphlpt]

It finally loaded the list of updates available. (I hadn't installed any updates since January)  So it does "work" but just very, very, very slowly.  [Interesting post at Woody's Noel. I'm glad (?) to see some documentation of the problem. Which occurs even on your stupid fast system.]

So I'll go ahead and update in a bit, staying with my approach of hiding all the updates in dencorso's list, then rerun the update search and see if it's any faster.  I'm in no hurry, but I'll do it later today, or tomorrow. Hey, when the only downside is that I haven't added something that MS says I should install, then that doesn't make me feel a sense of urgency.

Cheers and Regards