pennsylvaniaron

rhahgleuhargh thanks for the feedback. As you know I have been a member of this blog for a long time and have been making the iso for over 2 years. every month when my vm is completed and i go to do WUD there have always been naturally a few different updates each month but ALWAYS MRT and defender definition (kb). All of a sudden this month the defender kb update fails. This has never happened before. I realize that there are a few different methods and many variations for creating the iso, classic, convenience and thiersee uses his own method. I thought it was a $M server issue but all my home computers are getting the defender updates, no problem. While minor it seems to be a bug (all of a sudden) in my install. My concern is that I believe if an update keeps failing and you dont hide it I think it prevents new updates from being recognized. Lastly how do you DISABLE windows defender in your VM? regards

thiersee I understand that. But if no one else is getting an error on the simple WUD install of the monthly windows defender definitions then it has to be in my installation. I used last months (october) iso on my VM and that also got failed to update defender definitions. I did remove the IE11 meet the browser tweak because it doesn't seem to be needed anymore. other than that its a typical new iso creation. I am using the lastest NFW 4.7.2.3221.1, FP, reader, ccleaner and telemetry. Guess I'll keep experimenting. regards...

anyone? regards...

gentlemen, while I do not think this is big issue, its confusing. The november iso disk I created went perfectly. However WUD will not install defender updates. I check my own computer and the latest defender update was successful. I then re-installed the nov. iso on the VM a second time and now the latest defender update 1.281.239.0 will not update. The initial 4 out of 5 updates including MRT were installed with no problems. I can't see how our project here can be doing this, just asking if anyone else has this "bug"? regards...

Rhahgleuhargh many thanks once again! Was anyone else getting defender kb915597 failing on initial manual WUD? its definition 1.281.19.0.? keeps failing...server issue? error is 8050800c. regards...

I just tried making the _64 iso using the CLASSIC method which I have never done. I got the same exact results. same 3 updates. I thought there possibly might be a difference. The only difference I saw was it took WTK approx 30 minutes longer! So why do we have 2 different methods to get same result when 1 method is much quicker? regards..

4041083 and 4049016 are not in the UL's, therefore not in my DL folder. Nowhere do I see them. regards...

Thiersee my error on 4099950. starting my VM I looked in WU recent update list after I installed the updates and 4099950 was obviously there from the iso integration. So I did the entire install on VM over just now just to confirm and I have 3 updates (also mrt and defender total 5). Using convenience method. 4041083 (18.9mb) 4049016 (18.9mb) 3185319 (52.1mb) Why am I getting this on a _64 install? (I am using NFW 4.72.3190.1.) (kb4099950 in silent as #1.) when loading updates in WTK (3177467 comes up with 2603229 and 3046269.) I do not check them. they go under known issues in WTK. after that they get installed as the last 3 entries in the update list. A subsequent WU check comes up with NO new updates. Deep clean uninstalls 2534111, 2685811, 2685813 regards...

rhahgleuhargh, thanks for the edit. Before the edit it was unclear. thx for straightening that out. thx also to thiersee (messaging) my win 7_64 HP iso results: WU asks for 4041083, 4049016, 3185319 4099950 (this update was in silent list at top and i watched it get installed on VM so dont know why it was asked for. regards

Very much appreciated for your time and effort. Just want to confirm if kb3004375 is still NOT needed when making a win 7 home premium _64 (I think its needed for pro).. regards

hey rhahgleuhargh, get some rest, don't rush. But as usual, anxiously awaiting and GREATLY appreciated... regards...

If using the convenience method is this "hidden" kb list correct as of septembers UL's for the telemetry file in the silent list? hideupdates(0) = "KB2952664" hideupdates(1) = "KB3021917" hideupdates(2) = "KB3068708" hideupdates(3) = "KB3080149" hideupdates(4) = "KB976932" regards...

I can only ASSume that from the no response that no one is running an AMD Ryzen or Intel Kaby Lake processor with windows 7? thanks anyway. I might have to experiment with cheap setup. Regards...

Anyone? regards...

hello. I am considering building a new rig using an AMD Ryzen 7, summit ridge processor. I have read differing opinions if windows 7 will work with this processor and corresponding motherboards (b350 chipset). Some have said that it will work but Microsoft somehow blocks updates with this setup. Also read there is an unofficial patch to unblock the updates. ANY information greatly appreciated! Regards...

test just completed...win 7_64 HP with new NFW 4.7.2.3180.2 WU asks for 4041083, 4049016, 3185319 (plus MRT) thank you, regards...

THEIRSEE: hey MUCH appreciated. Yes its also the same link I have in my favorites list. I'll do a test on VM this weekend. regards

Hey thiersee thanks for reply. I am using the link you gave me for NFW 4.7.2 (3151.7) to download that file. kb4457918 is not in the Convenience UL's. Would this be a separate step to get kb4457918 and integrate on my own? I'm trying to keep this as automated as possible. regards...

installed win 64 HP. WU asks for: 3185319, 4457918, 4041083, 4049016 regards...

yes I can see that, but in your example why don't users just use office (x32). while I use win 7_64 I have both versions of office 2010 (x32, x64) but choose to run x32 only because I read that it is more compatible. I don't know what add-ons you refer to but I'm sure there is some incomptability problems with software. Can't think of anything else. regards...

Thanks much for the updates for September. MUCH appreciated. I do have a curious question at least curious to me. Why does anyone still use the x86 version of windows 7. I haven't run into many (if any) computers with less than 4gb ram (which in the past was the reason for using x86) and if so I just add the 1 or 2 gb. Is the reason some old software doesn't run well on the x64 version? regards...

rhahgleuhargh HOPE you had nice time! thanks for update(s) regards....

Only once here on 4 different computers! regards...

hello: Is anyone doing the august UL's. Maybe on vacation? regards...