Solved Update Number Sequence?

[rybosix]

Hi, as concerned ergo reluctant to do the recent updates, I thought maybe if I just do the oldest one first, however, they all appear to be issued on 2/12/23, so my question is, is the lower the number, the older the update i.e. does make sense to do them not only one at a time, but in sequence also.


The higher or lower numbers do not correspond to higher or lower listing in my udpated window, just to be clear, so again that is related to the same question.

Is it better to start with updated at top and work down, and not consider lower or higher number sequence of even vice versa, start at bottom and work my way up one at a time.

Here below is the order they appear to me in my window, tho now I see the sequence of KB numbering does not jive with the 3.5.1 > 4 sequence as this latter and how it appears in the window as top down makes sense. I'm thinking top down is probably best if not also some manner of correct. I dunno. Rybosix

KB2789645 .NET Framework 3.5.1

KB2789642 .NET framework 4

KB2778344

KB2790113

KB2790655

KB2799494

 

[Brink]

Hello Rybosix,

I find it best to install any Windows Updates that were selected by default first. Afterwards, only 1 or 2 (any) at a time. This will help avoid any of them conflicting with each other.

Hope this helps some,
Shawn

 

[NoelDP]

All updates released on the same date can be installed at the same time (usually) - there is logic in the WU system to define the order in which they are installed (and whether they are installed at any given time- i.e. if one requires a reboot before installation, then it won't attempt to install it before the reboot)

 

[rybosix]

Answered Thanks

KB2789645 .NET Framework 3.5.1
KB2789642 .NET framework 4
KB2778344
KB2790113
KB2790655
KB2799494

Thanks Brink and Noel, so based your guy's replies, that if there are released on the same date, that if I download and install one at time is irrelevant, to going from top to bottom or bottom to top first,

and irrelevant to the actuall KB numnbering system, because they will only install themselves when they are designed to be installed by MS/OS.

So sequence doesn't matter, yet in some updates last fall the some felt the sequence was relevant because one of the updates, so we were advised to downaload and install it last.


Maybe it wasnt' released on the same date, and this is why. I was still relatively new to PC's then and now. Again, since 3.5.1 framework comes before 4 in the above set, at least that part of the set appears obivous to me.

I see now that I was partially incorrect in my last post cause after Up-date 4, the numbers are in sequence from top to bottom, so it makes sense to go from top to bottom, untill and unless there is some kinda of buggy circumstances that might cause that normal top to bottom sequence to be avoided.

Thank you and I probably will do the at least the top one here before long.

Rsix

 

[NoelDP]

KB numbers are allocated at the start of a project, not when the project is complete, so you could find that a late-release patch has a very early KB reference.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that patches must go in in order of KB number - that is far from being the case

 

[TVeblen]

It would be greatly appreciated if the good folks at MS would release the updates with a simple date code prefix (20130228a), as well as the KB number (suffix).

Whenever installing a fresh version of Windows it is daunting to be faced with 126 updates and trying to find and install them in order by date. It is a miserable chore.

 

[NoelDP]

Generally speaking, it makes no difference which order they are downloaded in - the installation logic is supposed to prevent problems with updates caused by order of download.

 

[rybosix]

Soved Update Concerns

Generally speaking, it makes no difference which order they are downloaded in - the installation logic is supposed to prevent problems with updates caused by order of download.

I would think that makes most sense and would help to explain why when I went in order from top down, the one failed to install, because "installation logic" would not have done them from top to bottom.

I know my wife, and apparrently many many users use automatic updates and mosty have no problems ergo the installation logic and those updates are for the most part not a problem.

The main thing I'm glad of is I did not have to go through days of Madigascar diagnosis, CBS report, typing in commands to terminal etc.....

Rsix