KB3083324 Any Info please

[Hept0p]

DON'T INSTALL until MS releases ACTUAL information ... that simple.

Important/optional/Critital is all a mather of perception.. which can be manipulated/interpreted to one's own benefit ... My adivce.. get informed, then YOU decide wether this is critical or not.
Don't let MS play boo with yoo

 

[UsernameIssues]

DON'T INSTALL until MS releases ACTUAL information ... that simple.

What if MS never releases any ACTUAL information?

I see no reason for users to live without the benefits of this update just because of some people wear tin foil hats. Some industry articles about this particular KB are just plain stupid.

If you look at the WU settings screen. you will see where MS can install this update without you selecting it.

 

[Layback Bear]

I would suggest their would be less tin foil hats if Microsoft gave complete description of all Updates.

 

[lucids]

well KB3083324 is now back again and now this time it's moved from optional to Important.

Also a whole other series of updates needed to checked.

 

[UsernameIssues]

I would suggest their would be less tin foil hats if Microsoft gave complete description of all Updates.

You are correct; however, I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee less and less documentation on the horizon... or maybe it is just cataracts.

 

[Hept0p]

DON'T INSTALL until MS releases ACTUAL information ... that simple.

What if MS never releases any ACTUAL information?

I see no reason for users to live without the benefits of this update just because of some people wear tin foil hats. Some industry articles about this particular KB are just plain stupid.

You're right man, go ahead and apply this update..

Thin-foil-approved​

 

[Hept0p]

If you look at the WU settings screen. you will see where MS can install this update without you selecting it.

Yea, part why I don't use Windows as a main OS.
AFAIR we can, at least.. uninstall any windows update that was installed on this machine..

 

[Hept0p]

I would suggest their would be less tin foil hats if Microsoft gave complete description of all Updates.

You are correct; however, I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee less and less documentation on the horizon... or maybe it is just cataracts.

You cristal ball see right. Just not you..

 

[Hept0p]

I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

That's some impressively poor optimal solution resolving problem I've seen this... day..
Well.. I guess you're right . Please teach me

 

[UsernameIssues]

You're right man, go ahead and apply this update..

I installed it on 03 Sept. on two out of dozens of computers that I oversee at work. No problems yet. The company that I work for wants to provide MS with telemetry. I need not wear that particular tin foil hat.

AFAIR we can, at least.. uninstall any windows update that was installed on this machine..

There are several updates for which there is no uninstall process. For this update, you can uninstall it - unless it turns your computer into a brick.

You cristal ball see right. Just not you..

Free optometry

I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

That's some impressively poor optimal solution resolving problem I've seen this... day..
Well.. I guess you're right . Please teach me

As you wish.

Those at MS that create documentation are generally considered as overhead. They only spend money. They do not make money for MS. Do we agree on that point? Or do you see documentation as a source of revenue for MS?

My preference for where MS should spend their money is just that - my preference. Are you requesting teaching on that too?

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You're right man, go ahead and apply this update..

I installed it on 03 Sept. on two out of dozens of computers that I oversee at work. No problems yet. The company that I work for wants to provide MS with telemetry. I need not wear that particular tin foil hat.

AFAIR we can, at least.. uninstall any windows update that was installed on this machine..

There are several updates for which there is no uninstall process. For this update, you can uninstall it - unless it turns your computer into a brick.



Free optometry

I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

That's some impressively poor optimal solution resolving problem I've seen this... day..
Well.. I guess you're right . Please teach me

As you wish.

Those at MS that create documentation are generally considered as overhead. They only spend money. They do not make money for MS. Do we agree on that point? Or do you see documentation as a source of revenue for MS?

My preference for where MS should spend their money is just that - my preference. Are you requesting teaching on that too?

Whoa, whoa, whoa here, let's back up a little. Sure MSpy doesn't make money on providing documentation but we, as consumers and Win 7 users, also have a right to know what we are getting, especially considering that, in the past from day one, we have been provided with documentation for updates. One of the many reasons I will not upgrade to Win 10 is MSpy's refusal to document updates. I do not like to buy anything without knowing what it is I am buying. I feel the same way about updates; I do not want to download and install updates unless I know what they are for, especially with MSpy's recent history of trying to sneak spyware and adware for Win 7 past us or flat trying to ram it down my throat.

Ballsmore (sic) had issues that were hurting MS but Nutella (sic) is downright dangerous. I can't decide if he has his head in the clouds or where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[Hept0p]

Ballsmore (sic) had issues that were hurting MS but Nutella (sic) is downright dangerous. I can't decide if he has his head in the clouds or where the sun doesn't shine.

Got everything except that one.. above. Language barrier I guess. I'd love to know what you meant thought

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Ballsmore (sic) had issues that were hurting MS but Nutella (sic) is downright dangerous. I can't decide if he has his head in the clouds or where the sun doesn't shine.

Got everything except that one.. above. Language barrier I guess. I'd love to know what you meant thought

PM being sent.

 

[UsernameIssues]

~~~
Whoa, whoa, whoa here, let's back up a little. Sure MSpy doesn't make money on providing documentation but we, as consumers and Win 7 users, also have a right...

A user's rights are spelled out in the various agreements (terms and conditions, EULA...). In some cases, local laws override parts of those agreements. Do you see something in those agreements/laws that specify a level of documentation on updates? I've not looked into it, so I'll rely on those that care about such issues to research them.

What will you do if MS changes the agreements to state that a license is only valid if certain telemetry is received? Of course, that poses a problem for computers that do not go online. Perhaps those licenses would cost more.

The more that MS writes about each update, the more you pay for their software. Or maybe they should charge for the documentation.

 

[Painter]

The expectation that we have as W7 licensees is a brief description of an update, no more. Right now updates have just that and we are asking MS to stay the course.

MS coders and lab techs write reams of documentation as part of their job - they actually get paid to do this - their salary is not increased if they write more or decreased if they write less. During the testing of an update even more documentation gets created - it is meant to detail outcomes. I have worked as a OS systems programmer, so I know this first hand. I tested new OS's and subsystems for over 15 years. When an OS is updated or maintenance is applied, the documentation is always consulted and updated with the latest change- ergo, change logs. It takes just a minute to add a brief description of a change for the non-labtech engineers. It is a courtesy, but more importantly it helps those who manage risk, e.g. IT staff (large and medium scale) and the average user (small scale).

Employee cost is not the issue here. The cost of losing customers is more the issue.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

~~~
Whoa, whoa, whoa here, let's back up a little. Sure MSpy doesn't make money on providing documentation but we, as consumers and Win 7 users, also have a right...

A user's rights are spelled out in the various agreements (terms and conditions, EULA...). In some cases, local laws override parts of those agreements. Do you see something in those agreements/laws that specify a level of documentation on updates? I've not looked into it, so I'll rely on those that care about such issues to research them.

What will you do if MS changes the agreements to state that a license is only valid if certain telemetry is received? Of course, that poses a problem for computers that do not go online. Perhaps those licenses would cost more.

The more that MS writes about each update, the more you pay for their software. Or maybe they should charge for the documentation.

Painter's response sums my feelings up pretty well. Also, based on past cases, most courts would consider MSpy's practice of providing descriptions for updates can be considered an implied contract and it would not be unreasonable to expect MSpy to continue to do so. I have no doubt that plenty of class actions suits would crop up if MS were to quit providing descriptions to Win 7 updates or force spyware on us. I would happily join one and even let the lawyers keep all the proceeds from such a case just to get MSpy to stay on the course they have lead us to expect since Win 7 first came out.

The nonsense MSpy has been pulling lately has ensured that, unless MSpy changes its present course back to the direction it had been on when Win 7 and Office 2010 came out, Win 7 and Office 2010 will be the last MS products I will ever use. I doubt I am alone in my feelings and that will most likely cost MSpy in the long run.

 

[ThrashZone]

Looks like M$ is attempting to fix some of the issues that do not participate in ceip
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080149

Included in this update

• Fixes a previous issue in the Diagnostics Tracking Service where when an advanced user applied the System File Checker Tool (sfc.exe), the .json files were unintentionally flagged as corrupt. This unintentional marking didn’t affect or indicate actual corruption on a device, and after you apply this update the files should no longer be marked as corrupt.
• Reduces the network connections on a Windows system that doesn’t participate in the Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP).
• Fixes an occasional event decoding issue in the Trace Data Helper (TDH) TdhGetEventInformation function that caused Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) events created by using the .NET Framework 4.6 or ILoggingChannel Interface to decode incorrectly.

 

[UsernameIssues]

The expectation that we have as W7 licensees is a brief description of an update, no more. Right now updates have just that and we are asking MS to stay the course.

MS coders and lab techs write reams of documentation as part of their job - they actually get paid to do this - their salary is not increased if they write more or decreased if they write less. During the testing of an update even more documentation gets created - it is meant to detail outcomes. I have worked as a OS systems programmer, so I know this first hand. I tested new OS's and subsystems for over 15 years. When an OS is updated or maintenance is applied, the documentation is always consulted and updated with the latest change- ergo, change logs. It takes just a minute to add a brief description of a change for the non-labtech engineers. It is a courtesy, but more importantly it helps those who manage risk, e.g. IT staff (large and medium scale) and the average user (small scale).

Employee cost is not the issue here. The cost of losing customers is more the issue.

I'll defer to your knowledge that those writing the documentation can write more without costing MS more. The subject of this thread is a KB that has very little documentation. Does your "stay the course" comment apply to past levels of documentation? You want more info on this update - correct?

Since some people fear the telemetry that might come with this update. Perhaps it would be a courtesy for MS to state what each update does not do too.

I don't see the potential for losing a significant number customers over documentation level - given that the vast majority of customers don't read the documentation. IT staff may indeed be frustrated with the lack of info in this KB. Where I work, IT does not pick the OS for the company. For what I do, MS is the only option. They have no completion.

To use your terminology: I am a member of the "crash test dummies" group. In my decades of doing this for my employer, I've only found one update that caused a problem with our industry specific apps. If updates pass our real world testing, they make it to our WSUS servers.

 

[UsernameIssues]

The nonsense MSpy has been pulling lately has ensured that, unless MSpy changes its present course back to the direction it had been on when Win 7 and Office 2010 came out, Win 7 and Office 2010 will be the last MS products I will ever use. I doubt I am alone in my feelings and that will most likely cost MSpy in the long run.

I concur that you are not alone in your feelings. I could be wrong in my estimate that the number of people that will (or can) stop using MS software is insignificant. The good news is: my estimate means nothing. It is just an opinion.

 

[Layback Bear]

I would suggest their would be less tin foil hats if Microsoft gave complete description of all Updates.

You are correct; however, I doubt that documenting/explaining the updates creates revenue. Given the choice between spending money on better documentation and spending it on better testing before releasing it to the public, I'll pick the later every time

Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee less and less documentation on the horizon... or maybe it is just cataracts.

I see no reason M/S can't spend money on both documentation of KB's and testing.
Because of M/S new methods of doing Updates we need information. We/I can no longer trust M/S on such matters.