Patch Tuesday: No Vista hotfixes via Windows Update

Patch Tuesday: No Vista hotfixes via Windows Update

Summary: Although everyone and his brother predicted that Microsoft would make the performance and reliability hotfix packs for Windows Vista available via Windows Update on this Patch Tuesday, that didn't turn out to be the case.

TOPICS: Windows, Microsoft

Although everyone and his brother predicted that Microsoft would make the mega-hotfix packs for Windows Vista available via Windows Update on this Patch Tuesday, that didn't turn out to be the case.

Microsoft made the two hotfixes -- the reliability pack (KB 938194) and the performance pack (KB 938979) -- available for download on August 7. At that time, company officials said to expect Microsoft to make those collections of fixes available via Windows Update at "a later date."

To be fair, Microsoft never corroborated stories or blog postings that claimed the company's intention was to push the two Vista hotfix packs on August 14, Patch Tuesday.

I'm expecting we'll see those Vista fix packs on Windows Update real soon now. But they're not there yet.

Topics: Windows, Microsoft


Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Isn't Patch Tuesday reserved for security patches?

    These two don't fall into the security patch category.
    • Yes but no,

      Patch tuesday is for high or critical level issues, but windows update itself is intended for pretty much ALL MS updates. Even the updates for Visual Studio 2005 came out through MS Update. I'm guessing they want to wait while braver users install the hotfixes and provide feedback before rolling it out to the unwashed masses (not on a forced basis most likely but users are far more likely to install a patch that shows up under MS update).
  • VCSY can do what VMWare does. VMWare can not do what VCSY does.

    Now that VMWare is showing the world (including Microsoft who can't produce their own hypervisor framework until... what is it now?... October? November? 2008?) how valuable virtualization is and what can be done, perhaps Microsoft will realize how important patent 7076521 is to them... before MSFT becomes irrelevant.

    Of course, VCSY is suing MSFT for infringement on 6826744 so I don't think MSFT will get to use 7076521 unless they settle with VCSY on 744.

    But, you don't believe any of this because you simply look at VCSY's shareprice at 2 cents and think it will never fly.

    That's the biggest mistake anyone can make. The patents aren't granted based on the size of the inventor's shareprice. They're granted on the strength of the concepts embodied in the patent.

    And Microsoft (to name only one) doesn't have the goods or they would have flown their virtualization schemes long ago.

    All we have to do with VCSY is wait long enough for MSFT to present their products for sale and the obviousness of what and how they are doing will show the entire world what 744 and 521 do.

    Then, there will be no need to have me here to explain the simple things of life you folks like you.

    So, where am I frustrated? I'm excited we VCSY longs have found a company that holds keys to the internet that the big boys don't have (in spite of their efforts to take the property).

    So, again, thanks for your question as it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate just how important to the future of web-interconnected systems without barging in uninvited.
    conspiracy theory
    • VCSY can do what VMWare does. VMWare can not do what VCSY does

      So I wonder what this troll has to do with the article and Vista updates???
      • Sounds like he's just hawking 2? stocks to me

        A penny stock troll...
        • I was speaking to a patent lawyer, recently.

          He was talking about a technique used by larger companies against smaller. The technique is called "deep pocketing", where the larger company says to the court that it will win, but worries about the ability of the smaller company to pay costs and penalties. So they ask the court to impose a $1/2 million dollar surety pending the outcome. Most small companies cannot afford this so go to out of court settlements.

          I think you can find this bullying used quite often in the current corporate climate.

          The above mentioned company may have valid claims, but I can't see them coming up against Microsoft.
          I am Gorby
  • EVERYTHING should be managed thorugh Windows Update

    If they don't, what's the point?

    Not to mention Ultimate Updates is still a barren wasteland. The only thing it's netted me is $100 less cash in my pocket.
    • RE: EVERYTHING should be managed thorugh Windows Update

      I do not agree with your comment.


      If I used Automatic Updates, WU would have installed the HP software update long ago. Since I neither have ANY HP devices in my computer (an Apple Intel iMac), nor want this piece of software (it ALWAYS screws up my computer so badly I have to wipe my Windows partition and reinstall Vista (or XP, or whatever.) And WU is SNEAKY about it. My computer will go for days, even weeks or months, and suddenly WU will force this download and installation on me, without telling me it is OPTIONAL, even tnough I have WU set to download, but NOT install automatically. Each time this happens, I am S.O.L. It usually happens when I have a LONG, LONG list (last time, around 80 or so) of updates (as when installing XP clean). And it NEVER is labeled as an update for some HP product. So I use Windows Downloads for optional updates. Much safer.

      Donald McDaniel
  • Patch problems

    Interesting that they did not include the patches as part of the Windows Update list but that might be because there are still some flaws with one or the other (I haven't had time to delve into the details...). Unfortunately, on a Windows Vista Ultimate test machine I installed both patches on, the Mozilla Firefox browser has been generating a critical failure on the Windows side.

    Reverting back to a previous version of Firefox doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does removing add-ons. The browser is able to start up but generates the error at the end of the home page load. If you escape page load prior to it completing the browser is able to stay up and modifications to the properties is fully functional and available.

    Unfortunately, I don't have the system with me at the moment to provide more details or to run through uninstalling the patches and testing each of the possible configurations.
    • Works here

      Although I am using IE to post this, Firefox works fine with the patches installed on Vista ultimate here. Worked with the leaked version as well as the released one. It sounds like maybe either a bad install of the hotfixes (well, one of them at least) or a driver issue that doesn't exist on my system. This is of course one of the problems with hotfixes, they haven't been through the full run of testing and may have issues with some configurations.

      I have also had hotfixes that caused issues which I was able to fix by rolling back to before the hotfix and reinstalling. Much as we would like otherwise, sometimes install routines don't get it completely right the first time (I have had this happen with both windows and linux updates and installs, I will admit it's happened more with windows stuff, but then I use windows more heavily (which may or may not matter at all)).