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. 


NoelC

Windows 8.1 - Patch Performance Findings, Not Surpisingly The Latest Patches are Costly!

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2018 at 11:32 AM, shae said:

How do you keep track of the updates to download?

All the offline updaters are either not updated anymore, or are incomplete (WSUS Offline).

For keeping track of Office updates, this Microsoft blog has been useful. But I've found nothing as organized for Windows (nothing too useful here).

 

 

This web page is very useful (to me): Master Patch List

As for software, I like BatchPatcher Downloader and WindowsPatchLoader. I especially like BatchPatcher Downloader because it allows me to save detailed info about the updates to a text file.

Phil

 

Edited by pcalvert
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2018 at 6:20 AM, NoelC said:

I wish I could be more confident in a way to move forward that's reasonable.

This. And the fact that the update infrastructure is a fragile mess doesn't help.

For example, why does WU offer both October 2018 and November 2018 Quality Rollup updates for .NET Frameworks. Why not just the latest?

Take a look at KB3191564; Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1. The known issue:

Quote

If update 4025333 is already installed, it will be in a partially installed state after you install this update, 3191564. However, you can successfully reinstall 4025333 after you install 3191564.

What I wonder, is this partially installed problem really applicable only if you've installed security-only KB4025333 update? What if you've updated with regular quality rollup updates, which contain security and other updates? Given they're newer than KB4025333, they'll definitely contain newer version of components that KB4025333 also contains.

So if you're on December 2017 patch level, you've installed December 2017 quality rollup update plus the other updates offered by WU and you then choose to also install Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1, will that NOT overwrite some newer components with an older versions?

Because apparently, it's possible to install an update that has an older version of some DLL file, and even if the newer version of DLL is already in the component store and hardlinked to the correct location where it's usually loaded from, eg. System32 folder, installing update that contains older DLL will install it alongside the newer DLL in component store AND hardlink it to System32 or whatever folder, so you'll have both DLLs on the system, but the older version will be the one that's actually used.

At least that's what I've observed when I did some experimenting a while back. Unfortunately, I didn't note down the results so can't tell which updates I've been messing with. I know for a fact that it's easy to break something when messing with updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, UCyborg said:

This. And the fact that the update infrastructure is a fragile mess doesn't help.

For example, why does WU offer both October 2018 and November 2018 Quality Rollup updates for .NET Frameworks. Why not just the latest?

Take a look at KB3191564; Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1. The known issue:

What I wonder, is this partially installed problem really applicable only if you've installed security-only KB4025333 update? What if you've updated with regular quality rollup updates, which contain security and other updates? Given they're newer than KB4025333, they'll definitely contain newer version of components that KB4025333 also contains.

So if you're on December 2017 patch level, you've installed December 2017 quality rollup update plus the other updates offered by WU and you then choose to also install Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1, will that NOT overwrite some newer components with an older versions?

Because apparently, it's possible to install an update that has an older version of some DLL file, and even if the newer version of DLL is already in the component store and hardlinked to the correct location where it's usually loaded from, eg. System32 folder, installing update that contains older DLL will install it alongside the newer DLL in component store AND hardlink it to System32 or whatever folder, so you'll have both DLLs on the system, but the older version will be the one that's actually used.

At least that's what I've observed when I did some experimenting a while back. Unfortunately, I didn't note down the results so can't tell which updates I've been messing with. I know for a fact that it's easy to break something when messing with updates.

I installed security only updates, starting with November 2017, and went backwards.  All superseeded updates wouldn't install, saying that they weren't required.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

I installed security only updates, starting with November 2017, and went backwards.  All superseeded updates wouldn't install, saying that they weren't required.

I like that approach. :thumbup  But after installing the security-only updates, I'd probably use MBSA, Belarc Advisor, and BatchPatcher Downloader to guide me toward the needed updates. And finally I'd use Windows Update to see if I missed anything.

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2018 at 10:28 AM, UCyborg said:

This. And the fact that the update infrastructure is a fragile mess doesn't help.

For example, why does WU offer both October 2018 and November 2018 Quality Rollup updates for .NET Frameworks. Why not just the latest?

Take a look at KB3191564; Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1. The known issue: 

What I wonder, is this partially installed problem really applicable only if you've installed security-only KB4025333 update? What if you've updated with regular quality rollup updates, which contain security and other updates? Given they're newer than KB4025333, they'll definitely contain newer version of components that KB4025333 also contains.

So if you're on December 2017 patch level, you've installed December 2017 quality rollup update plus the other updates offered by WU and you then choose to also install Update for Windows Management Framework 5.1, will that NOT overwrite some newer components with an older versions? 

Because apparently, it's possible to install an update that has an older version of some DLL file, and even if the newer version of DLL is already in the component store and hardlinked to the correct location where it's usually loaded from, eg. System32 folder, installing update that contains older DLL will install it alongside the newer DLL in component store AND hardlink it to System32 or whatever folder, so you'll have both DLLs on the system, but the older version will be the one that's actually used.

At least that's what I've observed when I did some experimenting a while back. Unfortunately, I didn't note down the results so can't tell which updates I've been messing with. I know for a fact that it's easy to break something when messing with updates.

It gets worse: the WMF 5.1 update corrupts the component store on non EN-US installs of Windows 8.1 because they named one of the language resource files incorrectly... And Microsoft as yet to even acknowledge this as a known issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, greenhillmaniac said:

It gets worse: the WMF 5.1 update corrupts the component store on non EN-US installs of Windows 8.1 because they named one of the language resource files incorrectly... And Microsoft as yet to even acknowledge this as a known issue!

Exactly the kind of thing that worries me. That's why I prefer more conservative approach to updating. If you don't run into serious issues, it works just fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UCyborg , there was a time that I would have been the complete opposite of you, but now two things have changed my stance:  not only has there been evidence of performance degradation with recent Windows 8x updates; now there has been very problematic updates for not only Windows 10, but Microsoft Office as well.

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/11/20/office-too-microsoft-pulls-office-patches/

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/11/16/look-windows-10-version-1809-has-even-more-issues/

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jody Thornton MS's quality control is just a steaming mess of uselessness nowadays, it seems. Consequently, it also seems like a very bad idea to use average users (via the Windows Insider program) to test new updates! It's probably a stingy business decision designed to maximize profit margins, as it would appear that there was no other reason to cut the QA team at all, was there?

Anyway, I decided to upgrade to 8.1 after upgrading my PC to Skylake (it had been based on Westmere previously), but mostly because I had to give up my beloved 7 and XP installs (the XP install simply won't work, and the 7 install could, except it's yelling at me, saying my license is counterfeit when it isn't). I plan to somehow repair the 7 install eventually, but I'm going to try to bite the bullet and use 8.1 for awhile to see how I like it. That is, when I'm not using macOS Sierra (my PC is also a Hackintosh ;))

That being said, I'll probably be hanging out in this forum somewhat more now, so I can follow up on the latest updates and tweaks.

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason on 8.1 I never install anything except IE11 update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me again :)

So, why I haven't been here? Well, awhile back, I managed to get my Windows 7 install fixed (I used a different license), but somehow in the process, I managed to break the 8.1 install (probably because I tried to enable the Classic theme, and something went wrong), so I got rid of it. I was using the Mac side almost exclusively, so it wasn't really a big deal, but I did boot into 7 occasionally to keep it updated and stuff (and to let it know that it wasn't forgotten :lol: )

Fast forward to now, however, and I have built myself another PC, this time a Core2 Quad-based one because it was cheap (only cost me ~$30!), and I had most of the parts already (save for RAM and CPU, else it would've cost me $0), many of which were bought in 2008-2009, when Core2 was current-- my, how time flies! This was because my Skylake machine had to go to storage while we prepare for a big move, and I wanted a relatively expendable desktop (in case it gets destroyed or lost) I could use in the meantime.

Anyway, it's only now that I've finally begun to appreciate the scope and severity of the performance penalties this Spectre/Meltdown patch incurs, particularly on older platforms.

I say this because I have installed 8.1 on it, and, while it was no speed demon (XP was better), its performance was OK. After updating to the latest patch level, however, it became seriously slow. I figured that was just the way it is; I've seen the same thing happen to XP over the years - in the RTM and SP1 days, it was fast and lean, and felt very much like 2000 with a new coat of paint and some much needed performance enhancements, but when SP2 came along, it started to feel slower and more bloated, particularly on older PIII and Athlon stuff - so I didn't give it much thought (this *is* a PC based on 12-year old technology, after all! I never expected it to be particularly fast.)

That being said, here are the basic specs:

  • Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz
  • 8 GB DDR2 800 RAM
  • 1 TB SATA3 hard drive

On paper, this machine's no slouch! It is among the best that 2008 had to offer. In practice, however, something's not adding up!

So, as I was browsing round, looking for new threads and posts of interest, I came across this one again, and it reminded me that this could be one of the reasons for the slowness, because it occurred to me that this machine flew on XP (which never received a Specre/Meltdown patch), so I speculated that perhaps this patch was the cause of the extreme slowness I was experiencing.

I subsequently downloaded InSpecre and disabled the Meltdown protection, and.... Aha!! It was the patch! This machine feels at least twice as fast now!

Tasks that were a struggle yesterday, before disabling the patch (Firefox would take ages to load anything; Pro tools, which wasn't expected to be the sprightliest anyway, was downright miserable), today are an absolute breeze, relatively speaking!

So, I'll add this anecdote to the discussion, as the "up to 50%" penalty this patch incurs is bad enough for modern Intel systems (as NoelC and others have seen), but it *really hurts badly* on Core2-era machines! Even the fast ones!

However, there's still that 8% performance drop even with the patches disabled (but not removed), but after experiencing what a 50% drop feels like, 8% is not so bad!

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cruelest part of Microsoft's pursuit of a CPU patch is that it has been clear for months now that Spectre cannot be effectively mitigated in software alone. That makes it a really hard sell to endure a performance hit for a patch that can potentially be circumvented anyway. It's a lot like getting a flu shot that's only about 40% effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 11:17 AM, BYTE-ME said:

The cruelest part of Microsoft's pursuit of a CPU patch is that it has been clear for months now that Spectre cannot be effectively mitigated in software alone. That makes it a really hard sell to endure a performance hit for a patch that can potentially be circumvented anyway. It's a lot like getting a flu shot that's only about 40% effective.

on the other hand, that's better than not getting a flu shot at all, BYTE-ME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 10:48 AM, cc333 said:

However, there's still that 8% performance drop even with the patches disabled (but not removed), but after experiencing what a 50% drop feels like, 8% is not so bad!

c

well I'm getting the "opposite" effect with any of the recent monthly rollups for Win7 & 8.1 on some the PCs I have, cc333.

instead of "performance drops" on my family's Dell Inspiron 620 desktop PC (using an Intel Sandy Bridge i5-2500 3.3Ghz CPU [3.7Ghz max turbo frequency], I'm getting slight performance gains (or boosts) with recent security monthly updates installed for Win7/8.1 [I also made sure I have the KB3064209 Intel microcode update installed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...