Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Security and Windows Vista A forum for discussion on security issues with Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek
as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it. The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and works fine. Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional state. Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future? |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
"Mike S." Mike wrote in message ... I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it. The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and works fine. Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional state. Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future? Hello Mike, You can " hide " whatever updates you don't want. Click the link below to show you how : - http://imagegrotto.com/view-hide_update10963.JPG |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
t-4-2;708393 Wrote: "Mike S." Mike S.@xxxxxx wrote in message news:A08EE892-1FB8-4A6E-9EBD-8815B4DD3BB0@xxxxxx I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it. The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and works fine. Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional state. Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future? Hello Mike, You can " hide " whatever updates you don't want. Click the link below to show you how : - 'ImageGrotto: Free Image and Screenshot Hosting' (http://imagegrotto.com/view-hide_update10963.JPG) Additional info : First change your update settings so that it won't Automatically installing updates. Then uninstall the update(s) you don't want. Then go to Check Updates, " hide " the one you don't want. When all done, change it back to auto update (recommended). -- t-4-2 |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
Mike S. wrote:
I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it. The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and works fine. Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional state. Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future? Simply don't allow Microsoft Update to install anything until you tell it to do so. I really don't like to see people use the Automatic Updates, unless they take precautions to ensure that no patches or drivers get installed without the user's express permission, given only after he/she has researched each individual patch to ensure that it applies and is necessary. Due to the nearly infinite number of possible combinations of hardware, device drivers, and applications on any given PC, it's impossible to guarantee that all patches will be 100% harmless. In a very small number of cases, patches and hotfixes can cause conflicts or other problems. So, as with all changes to an OS, caution is advised. In the overwhelming majority of cases, all "Critical" updates should be installed. These address serious issues that can affect a large number of computers. There will be only rare occasions when a Critical update will not apply. Of special importance are those that address security vulnerabilities. If people had installed the available critical updates to WinXP in July of 2003, the Blaster and Welchia worms would not have spread throughout the Internet the following month. In the unlikely event that problems do develop, you can always use the Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs applet or a System Restore Point to uninstall the troublesome hotfix. For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you needn't install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I ignored any updates to it. Again, in the unlikely event that problems do develop, you can always use the Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs applet or a System Restore Point to uninstall the troublesome hotfix. In general, though, I've found it best *not* to download the "Driver" updates from Windows Update, unless they're for a hardware device originally manufactured by Microsoft. Device drivers provided by each component's manufacturer's web site are likely to perform better and offer more features than will the watered-down, "generic" drivers that those manufacturers provide to Microsoft for distribution via Windows Update. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... [snipped] For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you needn't install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I ignored any updates to it. I would suggest to keep even unused programs updated. Some malware may be able to leverage software flaws in programs you seldom or never use. |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: "Bruce Chambers" bchambers@xxxxxx wrote in message news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@xxxxxx [snipped] For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you needn't install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I ignored any updates to it. I would suggest to keep even unused programs updated. Some malware may be able to leverage software flaws in programs you seldom or never use. Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non- essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". -- t-4-2 |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
"t-4-2" wrote in message ... FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: "Bruce Chambers" bchambers@xxxxxx wrote in message news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@xxxxxx [snipped] For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you needn't install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I ignored any updates to it. I would suggest to keep even unused programs updated. Some malware may be able to leverage software flaws in programs you seldom or never use. Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non- essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended" condition. Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular update. ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that related to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the mix. |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote: "t-4-2" wrote in message ... FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non- essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended" condition. Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular update. ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that related to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the mix. Hello, I understand what you had said. Please consider this : 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista. 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat. 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if one did not use it much, if at all. So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that. -- t-4-2 |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
t-4-2 wrote:
FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote: "t-4-2" wrote in message ... FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non- essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended" condition. Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular update. ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that related to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the mix. Hello, I understand what you had said. Please consider this : 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista. 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat. 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if one did not use it much, if at all. So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that. The downside of autoupdating is that Windows Update may very well install an update that will render your computer unusable. Additionally, your faith that "MS won't jam it down your throat" is naive. All of us in the tech industry have seen otherwise in practice. As far as I'm concerned, Bruce is 100% right and I'm with him all the way. He did an elegant job of explaining his position, too. All my Windows boxen - XP and Vista - are set to download updates and to let me know when they are ready. I don't allow automatic installation on my machines. I also set machines up this way for my clients, explaining the situation carefully. They can always call/email me if they need help. Bottom line: don't install anything automatically. Look before you leap. Malke -- MS-MVP Elephant Boy Computers www.elephantboycomputers.com Don't Panic! |
|
|||
Hot to control updates
"t-4-2" wrote in message ... FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote: "t-4-2" wrote in message ... FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non- essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended" condition. Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular update. ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that related to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the mix. Hello, I understand what you had said. Please consider this : 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista. 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat. 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if one did not use it much, if at all. So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that. On those occasions where an update causes problems on some systems, you have the option of implementing a workaround rather than the faulty update. Indeed, the recommendation is meant 'for most people' because they aren't expected to know how to implement workarounds - and the assumption is that updates won't be faulty. IIRC history has proven otherwise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|