bbear2
Premium Member
join:2003-10-06
dot.earth |
bbear2
Premium Member
2016-Jan-18 7:33 pm
[WIN7] MS updates taking too longI was checking for updates and after 45 aborted and tried again. Ran the update diagnostics, says it repaired a few things; rinse & repeat. Did this a few times. then once I forgot about it and 1.5 hrs later it finally completed in that it showed me about 60 updates, etc. Checked the download speed and all is good.
Anyone else experiencing very long update checks?
EDIT: now I'm doing a few updates and it's stuck at 0% complete for a long while, so I'm guess this will take as long if not longer than the check. |
|
 plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242
1 recommendation |
Is this on a fresh install? There have been several threads and discussions on this. Here is a recent one » Windows 7 updates stop working almost all my machinesAll I can suggest is let it run. For whatever reason, that process takes quite a lot longer then it used to. As you pointed out, it did finish after running for 1.5 hours. In the thread that I linked to, I uploaded a log file showing a 6 HOUR delay. In regards to that, I rebuilt another Windows 7 system this weekend from scratch (installed Win 7 enterprise x64 with SP1). The first "check for updates" took just over 6 hours to complete before I was shown a list of over 200 updates. --Brian |
|
|
 trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
2 edits
5 recommendations |
trparky
Premium Member
2016-Jan-18 8:47 pm
What I think is happening to Windows 7 is similar to the same issue that happened on Windows XP, namely that the amount of updates that Windows has received since it has been released has become so large that it takes more time than usual for the Windows Update system to check if you either have it already installed or you have the prerequisite update installed. Basically the Windows Update system is choking under the load.
Basically what needs to happen is Microsoft to release a unified update pack that's made up of all of the prior updates so that all of the updates can be installed in one shot as versus incrementally. Oh, I know... that would be called a service pack. But Microsoft doesn't want to do that so Windows 7 users will have to continue to suffer under the avalanche of updates.
This is one of the reasons why I like Windows 10 so much. The whole Windows 10 Cumulative Update system that they have is far better than anything they've done in the past. All past updates are rolled into one big update so that no matter where you start off, be it Build 10586 or Build 10586.63, all you have to do is install the cumulative update of the month and you're done. Basically the equivalent of a service pack for every month. |
|
tlbepson
Premium Member
join:2002-02-09
dc metro
1 edit
3 recommendations |
to bbear2
I don't know if this will be helpful at all but, just in case... Take a look at the comments to an article in The Register on Win10 nagware and Win7 updating problems: » forums.theregister.co.uk ··· ntience/and using a page find for user "Adam Jarvis" (no quotes) and look for his SECOND post (starts with the following text: "Actually solved it a different way.") He outlines a procedure for a fresh install of Win7/SP1 which reduces the time it takes to get updates: "The latest Windows Update Agent 7.6.7600.320 is reliant of a previous update KB3102810. The problem is that Update doesn't exist on the original Windows 7 SP1 ISO. You need to manually install this update AFTER Windows Update Agent 7.6.7600.320 has installed but once the new update agent has restarted/running - don't leave it to endlessly run, just restart the machine, then on startup manually download and install KB3192810 from MS directly, then re-run Windows Update, i.e break the first run of Windows update after new Windows Update has installed. All Updates will then post in under 10 minutes. (Well if you have an SSD)It's worth reading (and perhaps copy/pasting/saving his text for future use. |
|
 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
1 recommendation |
to bbear2
I wonder whether it could be pulling in the installer for Win 10 ?
That alone is apparently about 3 GB.
Might take a while to DL. |
|
2 recommendations |
to bbear2
Try installing the appropriate file for your system:KB3102810: Installing and searching for updates is slow and high CPU usage occurs in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 » support.microsoft.com/en ··· /3102810 |
|
psloss
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24
1 recommendation |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:
I wonder whether it could be pulling in the installer for Win 10 ?
That alone is apparently about 3 GB.
Might take a while to DL. Doubtful -- this has happened on multiple Win7 systems whether they are online or offline, with high CPU usage. Yesterday, I tried installing some of the January security updates manually on a couple of otherwise up-to-date Win7 laptops using MSU files and those standalone updater packages took sometimes 10-15 minutes to initialize -- each. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the problem is as trparky suggested -- the local WU catalog is bloated by scores and scores of updates. I will try the hotfixes linked in this thread at some point, but we still have four years of updates to go...it's either going to be ugly or get ugly again. And as suggested, the "solution" does seem to be to let it run; just be prepared to wait for hours. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Actually, I too have noticed Win XP and Vista PCs taking longer than before to do an update check when manually cued by me during the past year, and AFAIK, Win 10 is not a factor there.
It could be what you and Tom said.
But given the repeated (mis)behaviour of MS regarding pushing Win 10 so shamelessly as of late, I do not put ANYTHING past them any more.
They have betrayed the public's trust too many times recently. |
|
psloss
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24 |
psloss
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 12:29 pm
said by Davesnothere:But given the repeated (mis)behaviour of MS regarding pushing Win 10 so shamelessly as of late, I do not put ANYTHING past them any more.
They have betrayed the public's trust too many times recently. That's fine -- they have their best interests, users have theirs. It's still straightforward to keep Win10 off of Win7/8 systems, but it does require reconfiguring Windows Update in response to Microsoft (no more recommended updates). Microsoft can get pushy-er, but users can also defend against that. |
|
 maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
1 recommendation |
to trparky
said by trparky:What I think is happening to Windows 7 is similar to the same issue that happened on Windows XP, namely that the amount of updates that Windows has received since it has been released has become so large that it takes more time than usual for the Windows Update system to check if you either have it already installed or you have the prerequisite update installed. Basically the Windows Update system is choking under the load. Basically this. Windows 7 was released in 2009, which means it is 7 years old, and it has 7 years of updates to go through. This is why they changed the update system in Windows 10 to the "cumulative updates", which basically means that there is ONE update available, and it just includes all previous updates as well. It makes things a lot easier to manage. |
|
bbear2
Premium Member
join:2003-10-06
dot.earth
4 recommendations |
bbear2
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 1:12 pm
Perhaps easier to manage in some cases but also easier to put unwanted "fixes" including new spyware, phone home, etc. too if them put them in the required batch. |
|
trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 recommendation |
trparky
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 1:37 pm
It always comes back to that lame old line. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
1 edit
3 recommendations |
to psloss
said by psloss:....It's still straightforward to keep Win10 off of Win7/8 systems.... Yes, straight forward for some of us HERE, but what about for John Q Public ? They have no IDEA what's happening, until it's too late.... And MS knows and exploits that equally as shamelessly. |
|
| Davesnothere |
to maartena
said by maartena:...."cumulative updates", which basically means that there is ONE update available, and it just includes all previous updates as well.... In XP, they called those things 'rollups', IIRC. They were smaller than a service pack, but had possibly dozens of recent previous smaller updates, 'rolled' into one. |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
9 recommendations |
to trparky
said by trparky:What I think is happening to Windows 7 is similar to the same issue that happened on Windows XP, namely that the amount of updates that Windows has received since it has been released has become so large that it takes more time than usual for the Windows Update system to check if you either have it already installed or you have the prerequisite update installed. Basically the Windows Update system is choking under the load. ... Except... except that Windows updates for me in August experienced no appreciable delays. In October, they slowed WAY down. In November, they ground almost to a halt. There were not that many more updates added in those months to have caused such a speed corner to be turned just due to a total list count. All this was coincident with the big push for Win10 upgrades, and I can only conclude either that Win10 has caused MS to radically revamp their server priorities away from older OS's or is part of a deliberate effort to make the older OS's a pain in the rear for users resisting Win10. Everyone is free to speculate as they wish, but coupled with the aggressive, arrogant, covert Microsoft pressing of Win10 upgrading upon old-version users in spite of what those users are seeking, I opt for the latter explanation. |
|
trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 2:56 pm
Wait... so the determination of what updates you need isn't done on the client side? That's pretty dumb.
I would've thought that Microsoft would simply send you a serialized data packet using XML (for example) and then let the client-side Windows Update system service parse it as required. |
|
| trparky |
trparky
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 3:01 pm
And another thing... Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? Granted, I like the X-Files and all but not everything is a conspiracy man. |
|
bbear2
Premium Member
join:2003-10-06
dot.earth |
bbear2
Premium Member
2016-Jan-19 3:13 pm
A conspiracy is nothing more than a plan which you don't like or don't understand. So yeah, where you find people with opinions, you'll find them.  |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
3 recommendations |
to trparky
said by trparky:Wait... so the determination of what updates you need isn't done on the client side? That's pretty dumb.
...
And another thing... Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? Granted, I like the X-Files and all but not everything is a conspiracy man. I honestly don't know how they perform their update interrogations. But I do know they've constantly fiddled with the updater throughout the period, entangling it with the Win10 upgrade process such that they've largely discredited themselves in users' eyes with regard to the entire business. Things don't have to be a conspiracy. But what else are users to think when witnessing what we've seen for the past year or so coming out of Microsoft? I used to be highly favorable to periodic Windows version upgrades (along with hardware replacements); no longer is that so, essentially because of (IMO) verifiable arrogance and aggressiveness on the part of Microsoft toward essentially formerly-loyal customers like me. I had no pony in the Win10 race until MS started putting my system stability at risk and threatening to co-opt my storage space with unwanted Win10 downloads. To me, Win10 was just another OS that I wished to pass by with my aging systems - until Microsoft started shoving it at me, one update after another. The quality and focus of Windows updating has come to represent a greater threat to my systems and their stability than the security issues and such they're supposed to prevent. That is not something I've done, it's something Microsoft has done. Users simply try to understand "why?" and conspiracy, as you term it, is a convenient explanation. The only other explanation is gross incompetence in marketing and quality control on the part of Microsoft, and many users find that harder to accept than 'conspiracy'. |
|
psloss
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24 |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:said by psloss:It's still straightforward to keep Win10 off of Win7/8 systems.... Yes, straight forward for some of us HERE, but what about for John Q Public ? How were those people protecting their PCs up until now? |
|
| psloss |
to trparky
said by trparky:Wait... so the determination of what updates you need isn't done on the client side? That's pretty dumb.
I would've thought that Microsoft would simply send you a serialized data packet using XML (for example) and then let the client-side Windows Update system service parse it as required. No, that's pretty much how it's done -- one can audit the process by running WSUS Offline Update, which still relies on the local WU engine. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:....But I do know they've constantly fiddled with the updater throughout the period, entangling it with the Win10 upgrade process such that they've largely discredited themselves in users' eyes with regard to the entire business.... Exactly my point too ! |
|
Davesnothere
3 recommendations |
to psloss
said by psloss:said by Davesnothere:said by psloss:....It's still straightforward to keep Win10 off of Win7/8 systems.... Yes, straight forward for some of us HERE, but what about for John Q Public ? .... How were those people protecting their PCs up until now? Same as they are doing now - nothing different than the default settings for Windows Update. Except that in the past, their trust was not being betrayed by Microsoft, like it is being now.And as I also said in my last post, those folks have no IDEA what's happening, until it's too late, and Win 10 has crept in - or at very least the incessant nags to take it. Many will take it just to stop being nagged. And as I said as well, MS knows and exploits that equally as shamelessly. |
|
 spewakR.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA |
to bbear2
I am getting update errors followed by the same updates reappearing. Tried to fix WUS to no avail. |
|
bbear2
Premium Member
join:2003-10-06
dot.earth |
bbear2
Premium Member
2016-Jan-20 11:22 am
I would also periodically get "unknown' update errors, but subsequent presses of "do it again" seemed to eventually find them going away on their own. I did try the update fixer, but even though it said it fixed something, it really didn't seem to. I also found that subsequent runs of the update fixer always seem to 'fix' something . You'd think you could get to the point where it would say, everythings good and nothing else to fix. - uggg. |
|
psloss
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24 |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:Same as they are doing now - nothing different than the default settings for Windows Update. No, how were those people protecting their PCs all these years from "potentially unwanted software?" Windows 10 is at the end of a long line of that. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
1 edit
2 recommendations |
said by psloss:said by Davesnothere:Same as they are doing now - nothing different than the default settings for Windows Update. No, how were those people protecting their PCs all these years from "potentially unwanted software?" Windows 10 is at the end of a long line of that. Oh, from PUS in general ! Dunno - It would vary - Maybe 3rd party apps. Some might even have been trusting Microsoft's Security Essentials or Windows Defender. That's the level of blind trust which many folks have been placing in Microsoft for all of these years. And now (with the Win 10 malarkey), MS bites them in the arse ! Clearly their trust in MS has been misplaced and betrayed, as is so frequently being lamented in news articles and forum threads such as this one. |
|
psloss
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24
1 recommendation |
to bbear2
FWIW, I tried the KB3102810 update using two copies of the same Windows 7 x64 SP1 VM that had been previously updated through last September's updates. This was done offline using WSUS Offline Update to rule out the downloading of the updates themselves. I didn't see a significant improvement in the update speed for the copy of the VM where the hotfix/update was installed versus the one without. There was still a long period of time at the beginning of the process where the catalog is searched to determine what updates are missing (haven't been installed). With the patch, it took 47 minutes to figure out which security/stability updates were missing and 12 minutes to install them (there were 24 updates in this test). Without the patch, it took 42 minutes to figure out the missing updates and 12 minutes to install them. Pretty much a wash -- no real difference. Looking at the KB article, the two issues that article says it addresses don't necessarily fit this problem: quote:
Issue 1
When you install updates by using System Center Configuration Manager, the installation takes a long time, and System Center Configuration Manager becomes overloaded.
Issue 2
The Svchost.exe process occupies 100 percent of CPU usage when you upgrade a Windows Update client to Windows 10.
The issue I'm seeing across multiple systems is the 100% CPU usage, but not in a Windows 10 upgrade -- for example, this happens anytime the standalone installer is executed. (And certainly no sign of SCCM on these systems, which are consumer desktops and laptops.) |
|
lmacmil
join:2001-01-26
South Bend, IN |
to bbear2
I'm seeing the same thing on Windows 10 today (1/22). It's been "checking for updates" for 30 minutes or more. I have the task manager open and there is very little download activity and nothing sustained, just occasional blips. I have not seen this type of behavior in the past so I'm wondering if it's a problem at the Microsoft end.
I just got the following error: "There were some problems installing updates, but we'll try again later. If you keep seeing this and want to search the web or contact support for information, this may help: (0x800705b4)" |
|
plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242
1 edit
1 recommendation |
to trparky
I tend to agree with you on this. In this thread » [WIN7] Win7 update stuck foreverI made a post that included the WindowsUpdate.log file, on a clean install of Windows 7 x64 with SP1. In my case, the process took over 4 HOURS from the install of the Windows Update agent 7.6.7600.320 and the display of the list of updates that were needed. For me, that list included at least 230 updates. In the logs, there is this line 2016-01-02 01:41:26:854 952 640 DtaStor WARNING: Attempted to add URL » download.windowsupdate.c ··· a5ca.cab for file PvQXqsRVKAsXys77DsXHhCbspco= when file has not been previously added to the datastore and then it lists a line similar to that 939 times with the last one being 2016-01-02 01:41:26:901 952 640 DtaStor WARNING: Attempted to add URL » download.windowsupdate.c ··· 90e0.msu for file Jvb5ZuVytsELf9vTykV3M7vbkOA= when file has not been previously added to the datastore Notice that the time stamp between the first and last one First Entry: 2016-01-02 01:41:26:854 Last Entry: 2016-01-02 01:41:26:901 So, that process was very very fast (less then one second). So, that is not where the delay is at. However, the next log entry is this 2016-01-02 06:18:01:213 952 640 Agent * Added update {4F9AF231-5723-4A52-9293-015D4E5D4CDF}.103 to search result Its timestamp is 2016-01-02 06:18:01:213 So, the time passed is 4 hours and 37 minutes. During that time, I did note that CPU usage was high (between 60 and 80%) and memory usage was around 3.5 GB (have 8 physical GB on the system). The process using the CPU was svchost.exe. While a lot of system processes use that as a launching point, it does show that the system was doing "something" on the client side for almost 4.5 hours. This is why I feel trparky  suggestion said by trparky:What I think is happening to Windows 7 is similar to the same issue that happened on Windows XP, namely that the amount of updates that Windows has received since it has been released has become so large that it takes more time than usual for the Windows Update system to check if you either have it already installed or you have the prerequisite update installed. Basically the Windows Update system is choking under the load. may have some merit. In my old job back in 2010, it was my task to report on every Microsoft patch, and make a note of every file that was going to be updated (this was easy because at the time, the KB articles listed them). It was not uncommon to see 15 or more files being updated per patch. If, on average, Microsoft released 70 patches per year, and each one has an average of 15 files being changed, that would be 1,050 files being changed per year. Windows 7 came out in 2010, and it is now 2016. That is 6 years of patches, and using my (probably way off) averages, that would be 6,300 files to look at. While computers are fast, and faster now then they were 7 years ago, it still takes time for anything to process 6,300 files. Should it take 4 hours? Maybe, maybe not. But, I do agree that that could be what it going on for a fresh install of Windows 7. I am going to make a note of KB3102810, and add steps to my install process to install that after Windows installs the updated Agent and before I allow it to "check for updates" to see if it improves the process. While I know I can download KB3102810 manually, is there a place to download for manual install the Windows Update agent? I believe the answer to my question is yes, as I do have a file called "WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe" stored on my data drive. Not sure if that is the one for version 7.6.7600.320 or not. Here is a screen shot showing the file info properties. 
I'm thinking that if I download version 7.6.7600.320 of the Windows Update agent, then manually install KB3102810, and then do my first "check for updates", according to what I have read in this thread so far, the process should take a lot faster then 4 hours. On my next build, I will do just that, and report my findings. EDIT I did a search for Windows Update agent, and I came across this page » support.microsoft.com/en ··· b/949104If I download the update agent for Windows 7 x64, and look at the file properties tab, it says its version 6.3.21.0, and was built (digital signature date) of Thursday, May 22 2014. Is this the same as Version 7.6.7600.320, or is there a newer one then that? --Brian |
|
·
