Hot to control updates

M

Mike S.

Guest
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?

 
T

t-4-2

Guest
"Mike S." <Mike S.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:A08EE892-1FB8-4A6E-9EBD-8815B4DD3BB0@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>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?</span>

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

 
T

t-4-2

Guest
t-4-2;708393 Wrote: <span style="color:blue">

> "Mike S." <Mike S.@xxxxxx> wrote in message

> news:A08EE892-1FB8-4A6E-9EBD-8815B4DD3BB0@xxxxxx> > > <span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

> > >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</span>

> > for<span style="color:darkred">

> > > it.

> > > The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red</span>

> > 'X'<span style="color:darkred">

> > > bu

> > > the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio</span>

> > device is<span style="color:darkred">

> > > installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes</span>

> > back<span style="color:darkred">

> > > and

> > > works fine.

> > > Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in</span>

> > the<span style="color:darkred">

> > > last

> > > week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a</span>

> > functional<span style="color:darkred">

> > > state.

> > > Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future? > > </span></span>

>

> 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)</span>

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

 
B

Bruce Chambers

Guest
Mike S. wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> 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?</span>

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

 
F

FromTheRafters

Guest
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[snipped]

<span style="color:blue">

> 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.</span>

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.

 
T

t-4-2

Guest
FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote: <span style="color:blue">

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@xxxxxx> wrote in message

> news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@xxxxxx

> [snipped]<span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

> > > >

> > > For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided

> > > to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they</span>

> > don't<span style="color:darkred">

> > > apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you</span>

> > needn't<span style="color:darkred">

> > > install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I

> > > ignored any updates to it. > > </span></span>

>

> 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.</span>

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

 
F

FromTheRafters

Guest
"t-4-2" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message

news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@nntp-gateway.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@xxxxxx> wrote in message

>> news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@xxxxxx

>> [snipped]<span style="color:darkred">

>> > > >

>> > > 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. > ></span>

>>

>> 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.</span>

> 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".</span>

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.

 
T

t-4-2

Guest
FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote: <span style="color:blue">

> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message

> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > > <span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

> > >

> > > 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</span>

> > updating<span style="color:darkred">

> > > option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non-

> > > essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". > > </span></span>

>

> 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.</span>

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

 
M

Malke

Guest
t-4-2 wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>

> FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message

>> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > ><span style="color:darkred">

>> > >

>> > > 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". > ></span>

>>

>> 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.</span>

> 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.</span>

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!

 
F

FromTheRafters

Guest
"t-4-2" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message

news:4b46036aebd15e078181fa00ac5d912e@nntp-gateway.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message

>> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > ><span style="color:darkred">

>> > >

>> > > 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". > ></span>

>>

>> 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.</span>

> 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.</span>

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.

 
Top Bottom