3212646 vs 3212646, why still prompted for 46 if 42 was installed?

[MW7User]

Waited a few weeks to 'install' the latest January update (checking for issues first). Today, I get to install either one, reviewed both, decided to download/install the security only KB3212642. The security only update fixed an issue and file size was super small at 6.2MB. The 'quality' update was over 142MB. All this being said, must include the fact last month I installed that monthly quality rollup (whatever it is called) with the full patches AND security updates. Today as I was checking both KB's, the references said the monthly rollup included no new OS updates/fixes, and the new (only) security update found in KB3212642. My confusion is why now is my system still trying to get/update that monthly quality rollup for January if the only 'new' fix is the security update in KB3212642? Doesn't MS update screen for the individual security updates as installed? In other words, if the 142MB file has the prior 'fixes' including the security fixes (that I installed last month, December), why would my machine prompt for the entire 142MB file (if) it already has the January security fix I just today installed? I did restart, and shut down, so it should have been available for the update I prompted minutes ago.

 

[MW7User]

No one has input (out of the 120 reads)? Was I not clear (besides same number in the title, forgot to change the last 6 to a 2 on the second KB in the title)? Win update still comes up with KB3212646. Yes, I can 'hide' it, I'm trying to understand why it is coming up if the only new update is the 'security' fix. This is the reference ( Microsoft rolls out Windows 7 KB3212642 and Monthly Rollup KB3212646 ) & ( https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/3212646 ) where they say there are no other fixes in the 142MB KB3212646 update. Am I reading this wrong (again, I HAVE Decembers monthly rollup KB3207752 installed 29 Dec 16)?

 

[torchwood]

Hi MW7,
When WU does its ROLL-UP checks, it looks for the preceeding equivalent, OS or Security.
they are independent OF each other in the check.
So it will offer them if not installed.

As for the size yes they will get bigger as time progresses.
However another part of the process, within CBS, prunes out the allready installed KB's.
(as its always done)
In your case it takes in the 142mb, but only installs the new or missing elements.
It will however install the KB even if there are no changes, to keep it in a consistant state.

Roy

 

[MW7User]

Hi MW7,
When WU does its ROLL-UP checks, it looks for the preceeding equivalent, OS or Security.
they are independent OF each other in the check.
So it will offer them if not installed.

As for the size yes they will get bigger as time progresses.
However another part of the process, within CBS, prunes out the allready installed KB's.
(as its always done)
In your case it takes in the 142mb, but only installs the new or missing elements.
It will however install the KB even if there are no changes, to keep it in a consistant state.

Roy

Hi Roy, thanks for the reply but isn't that usually a given when people prompt for an update? In THIS case, the security only patch is the only update for the OS (inclusive). Shame the update does not look 100% accurately for APPROPRIATE installs (version/installed KB's/necessary KB's to update) when prompted for an OS update. If the new update (rollup) does not have 'patches' for the prior 'full' update (rollup), and the 'security only' update is the only necessary 'patch' (which is INCLUDED) in the rollup update, AND that security only update IS installed, (then) shouldn't the 'update' be able to be known (by MS's highly paid programmers) that the rollup isn't necessary IF the security patch is the only needed update? Sure, it depends on MS folks knowing what is in each of the two 'scheduled monthly Tuesday' patches, but it just seems the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. In other words, SOSDD (if you need a description of that saying, I'll elaborate further) Good thing I usually wait two to three weeks to update, so the 'system' irons out the 'bugs' in those patches, it seems. I can see (every day) the results of bad patches posted for folks who blindly 'trust' the process. I should consider myself extremely lucky (I guess) that these bugs are corrected (mostly) before my updates are allowed to be installed.

Upon further review (of my post and simple WAG analysis), I wonder if they (MS) just post a generic 'all-you-can-apply' update, to minimize differences in OS and user specific settings. This does make sense but also suggests lazy operational control in an organization of such size (and) not reflective of the quality of the service received for the amount of monies they get based on the 'use' of the OS (old school, you owned the disk/software, not any more). Am now more inclined to continue to wait for installing monthly updates (making sure the problems are identified and 'fixed'?), but to also source exactly what is being installed (which is a little more task intensive in research).