MS Update scan results appear bunky

MS Update scan results are NOT user friendly and worse, appear
incorrect/inappropriate.

At the top of my scan results list, I'm led to believe that I should be
installing 1/9/07's IE7, but near the bottom of the list of 'needed' updates,
it lists my 'need' to install the 12/12/2006 Cumulative Security Update
KB925454.

Also the list of additional 'needed' updates are not presented in any
chronological order. Updates which replace other ones must be installed in
the right order, no?

Does not MS have a responsibility to present 'needed' updates in the order
which they need to be installed, plus since they're the one's writing the
stuff, why aren't their scans detecting our configurations as well as what
we're running and accordingly recommend what we actually "need" to install?

How can anyone trust MS's scan results when basic issues such as this are
long outstanding and so inadequately addressed/presented to the user?

--
My best to all and happ-e-trails,

Steven

Updates are notoriously difficult to manage, mainly because the scanner sees
'what is' not 'what will be'.
Thus if you are currently running Internet Explorer 6, you will see updates
for Internet Explorer 7 (to move to new version) as well as security patches
for IE6 (to make existing version secure).
The choice is very much up to you - else we would accuse Microsoft of being
a 'Big Brother' (sic).
Most patches are cumulative, which means that installing the latest update
negates the need for an earlier update (which will then disappear from the
list).
Also note that installing an upgrade, e.g. of Media Player or DirectX, may
cause new updates and patches to appear in the windowsupdate list.

My advice is to install updates one-by-one, selecting the ones which you
think are really required. Then go back to windowsupdate and see how the list
has changed.

Keep doing this until windowupdate shows no more critial updates.



"Steven" wrote:

> MS Update scan results are NOT user friendly and worse, appear
> incorrect/inappropriate.
>
> At the top of my scan results list, I'm led to believe that I should be
> installing 1/9/07's IE7, but near the bottom of the list of 'needed' updates,
> it lists my 'need' to install the 12/12/2006 Cumulative Security Update
> KB925454.
>
> Also the list of additional 'needed' updates are not presented in any
> chronological order. Updates which replace other ones must be installed in
> the right order, no?
>
> Does not MS have a responsibility to present 'needed' updates in the order
> which they need to be installed, plus since they're the one's writing the
> stuff, why aren't their scans detecting our configurations as well as what
> we're running and accordingly recommend what we actually "need" to install?
>
> How can anyone trust MS's scan results when basic issues such as this are
> long outstanding and so inadequately addressed/presented to the user?
>
> --
> My best to all and happ-e-trails,
>
> Steven

IE7 is a "high priority" update (and I do NOT recommend installing it via
Windows Update; see below).

925454 is a critical update: Install it.

Windows Update will not offer you an update that's superseded by another
offered update. I'd recommend that you install all critical updates
ASAP...and don't go so long without installing critical updates which are
released on the second Tuesday of every month. They're much easier to
understand if you keep your machine fully patched at all times.

Description of the Automatic Updates feature in Windows:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294871

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525

How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327838

Required reading IMHO before installing IE7:

Sandi's Installation Tips <= FOLLOW THESE TIPS TO THE LETTER!
http://www.ie-vista.com/known_issues.html#pre-install

[And I strongly recommend using
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx as the installation source,
not Automatic/Windows Update.]

IEBlog : IE7 Installation and Anti-Malware Applications
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...lications.aspx

What's New in Internet Explorer 7
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/e...asp?frame=true

Release Notes
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/ie/Aa740486
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)


Steven wrote:
> MS Update scan results are NOT user friendly and worse, appear
> incorrect/inappropriate.
>
> At the top of my scan results list, I'm led to believe that I should be
> installing 1/9/07's IE7, but near the bottom of the list of 'needed'
> updates, it lists my 'need' to install the 12/12/2006 Cumulative Security
> Update KB925454.
>
> Also the list of additional 'needed' updates are not presented in any
> chronological order. Updates which replace other ones must be installed
> in
> the right order, no?
>
> Does not MS have a responsibility to present 'needed' updates in the order
> which they need to be installed, plus since they're the one's writing the
> stuff, why aren't their scans detecting our configurations as well as what
> we're running and accordingly recommend what we actually "need" to
> install?
>
> How can anyone trust MS's scan results when basic issues such as this are
> long outstanding and so inadequately addressed/presented to the user?

Thanks for the comments. I too conclude repeatedly scanning is necessary.

I've also resolved to keeping nothing critical on my OS , ignoring pretty
much all updates, backing up on external HD's, and reinstalling if/when
needed.

Note, I must disagree with one aspect of your kind reply, especially as
update scan results do NOT (comprehensively) see what is and the scan results
DO assume what might be installed later as too many (90%) of the updates do
not apply to my OS's configuration.

Hence the justifiable outrage when issues engulf MS's log standing issues
envolving update scan results that grossly shows too little effort afforded
not only writing the initial stuff, but much the same effort in writing and
presenting the updates.

My scan results even question if I SP2 installed, but I appreciate all kind
replies.

So will MS ever act on these issues? Seems unlikely. So where are we to go
simply to determine what updates are needed? We're left to phoning in for
update support provided by shadowy unidentifiable 3rd world prompt readers,
ref. 1-866-PCSAFETY free support for security updates.

--
My best to all and happ-e-trails,

Steven