Cumulative patchset 10.1.2.3 on Windows?

Looking at the individual patches for 10.1.2.3 on Metalink, it seems they all apply only to UNIX platforms. Is that correct, or can they be applied on a Windows installation as well?

Thanks Arnaud.
I did speak with oracle support. Their response was to make a SR or a TAR. The problem is that our CSI is not on a high enough level to make SR/TAR. We want to upgrade our CSI to get better support, but before we can do that we need to make the pitch to the client and get the contract. But in order to successfully pull of the pitch we need to demo the Audit/Eventhandling functionality of Content Services (provided by the patch) on a Windows platform.
So its a bit of a catch twenty situation.

Similar Messages

  • Indian Localization cumulative patchset

    Need indian localization cumulative patchset (patch number) for 12.1.3?

    Please see (What Patches Are Required For Indian Localization In Release 12 [ID 736825.1]).
    Also, see the docs referenced in these threads.
    india product localization
    Re: india product localization
    localization patch
    localization patch
    Indian localisation patch
    Re: Indian localisation patch
    Thanks,
    Hussein

  • RAC database patchset 10.2.0.5 on windows

    HI,
    I have 2 RAC environment having 13 Production database with version 10.2.0.4 of database, clusterware and ASM on Windows server 2008 64 bit.
    Now I need to apply patchset 10.2.0.5 on ONLY one database due to BUG. Instead of apply patchset on all RAC database and upgrade planning for only one affected database. I need to below clarification -
    1. I am planning to apply patchset 10.2.0.5 on clusterware and ASM only.
    2. Planning to install 10.2.0.5 on new oracle home.
    3. Planning to upgrade one affected database from 10.2.0.4 to 10.2.0.5.
    QUESTION HERE -
    1. Will above plan work for one database only.
    2. Will clusterware and ASM (10.2.0.5)will support both ORACLE_HOME (10.2.0.4 and 10.2.0.5) databases
    3. How we can setup clusterware for this new ORACLE_HOME (10.2.0.5) DATABASEs.
    Anyone have any plan or suggestion please share.

    Hi,
    Yes it is possible to have multiple ORACLE_HOMES inside a Oracle GRID infrastructure. To check the supported and compatibility My Oracle Support for this.
    1. check compatibility of the components and make the design for your listener
    2. Upgrade ASM en clusterware. to 10.2.0.5
    3. Install new oracle software tree 10.2.0.5
    4. upgrade one database to 10.2.0.5
    keep in mind the Oracle Cluster Registry for this database has to change
    Cheers,
    Jos van den Oord
    Blog : http://joordsblog.vandenoord.eu/
    Company : http://www.transfer-solutions.com/
    "Don't believe it, test it!"

  • Applying patches after cumulative patchset

    Hai all,
    We have 10g installed on windows 2003 .
    I will install the latest patch set 10.2.0.4
    do I have to follow this metalink id :
    0.2.0.x Oracle Database and Networking Patches for Microsoft Platforms
    Doc ID: 342443.1
    There are so many patches for 10.2.0.4 . like
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 14 (10.2.0.4.14P) 32-Bit Patch 7677780 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7677781
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 13 (10.2.0.4.13P) 32-Bit Patch 7584866 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7584867
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 12 (10.2.0.4.12P) 32-Bit Patch 7522473 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7522474
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 11 (10.2.0.4.11P) 32-Bit Patch 7494876 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7494877
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 10 (10.2.0.4.10P) 32-Bit Patch 7480785 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7480786
    10.2.0.4.0 Patch 9 (10.2.0.4.9P) 32-Bit Patch 7386320 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7386321
    like this we have till patch 1..
    Do I have to apply all this patch sets or apply the patch 10.2.0.4.0 Patch 14 (10.2.0.4.14P) 32-Bit Patch 7677780 64-Bit (x64) Patch 7677781 alone ?
    Please advise
    kai

    Patch 14 for 10.2.0.4 is a PSE or Patch Set Exception and includes all one off fixes since the last patch set. You only need to install them if you have a problem fixed by one of the patch set exceptions contained within the patch bundle. Read Note 161549.1 "Oracle Database Server and Networking Patches for Microsoft Platforms" for complete information.
    Enrique

  • KB2925418: Cumulative Security Update for IE _ for Windows 7....Installs crapware and is not Just a security update!!!!

    This is about KB/Update KB2925418. IT IS NOT JUST A SECURITY UPDATE. And it will change things you may not want changed for example, no where does it tell exactly what it is, nor what it will do. NOT COOL. What it does amongst other things is disable Java,
    NOT COOL, that breaks IE and stops our Angel Learning environment from working, NOT COOL.
    Worse and far more evil than that it put the USELESS crap ware, "Bing Suggested Sites" link back in the favorites bar, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY EVIL. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY and DOSE NOT BELONG IN A SECURITY UPDATE. HOW EVIL.
    And how do I know it is evil, because just like a virus and the many browser hijackers etc out there it keeps coming back when I have intentionally removed it. ONLY EVIL things have to do that to stay on the desktop. Non evil things go away and STAY AWAY,
    when the are told to!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Ralph

    Hi,
    Did you tell us what happened exactly after you install this update?
    The detailed description about this update, please refer to this article:
    MS14-012: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer: March 11, 2014 
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2925418 
    Karen Hu
    TechNet Community Support

  • Cumulatif PeopleTools 8.52.20 patch for Windows

    Hi,
    I'm looking for that.
    I went there :
    https://edelivery.oracle.com/EPD/Search/handle_go
    But can not find it.
    Thanks for help.

    Peopletools patches are not available to public. You must have a valid CSI (Customer Support Identifier) to access to the support website so-called My Oracle Support, and access is not given for free.
    Nicolas.

  • Windows Services blocking application of patchset for 11.1.0.7

    I'm trying to apply the patchset to bring Oracle database from 11.1.0.6 to 11.1.0.7. Things are running smoothly as-is, but I want to be current. When I try to apply the patchset, it complains that 37(!) windows services are holding files that oracle needs to update. Some of the services I can stop (and I do), but some I can't, either because windows immediately restarts the service or there simply isn't a Stop capability available (e.g. DCOM Server Process Launcher).
    I've tried rebooting (several times) - no luck. (BtW, This is on XP Pro, SP3).
    Any suggestions on how to get around this? Even to discover what files are being held might help. The log files just list the services causing the problems.
    Thanks for any help!

    That's a known problem on XP,although I didn't yet see that almost all services are involved. Normally the installer complains about some locked DLLs only. Nevertheless try the following workaround (and make sure - as already said - no Oracle service is running):
    1) Rename $ORACLE_HOME\bin to something else
    2) Reboot the machine
    3) Rename back to $ORACLE_HOME\bin and try again
    Werner

  • Cumulative Security Update for Windows XP Service Pack 2 Warning!

    Not sure how many of you guys remember the problems associated with the Windows XP Service Pack 2 when it was first released, but the latest Cumulative Security patch completely disabled my Plextor 708A DVD drive and locked up Windows Explorer. 
    Here is the problem patch:
     o Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (KB883939)
    It caused my Plextor 708A to give off two blinking Amber lights, which according to Plextor indicates the drive is defective.  Plextor actually tells you to get a RMA ticket and to return the drive.  Luckily I found it odd that my DVD drive became defective after I installed the latest windows update and tried uninstalling the 'fixes' before going that route.  Fortunately, removal of one of the 'fixes' solved my problem.
    If you find that your DVD or CD Player no longer works after doing a windows update, then do the following:
     o Go to Control Panel
     o Select Add Remove Programs
     o Scroll to the bottom and select Security Update for Windows XP (KB883939)
     o Click 'Remove'
     o Restart your computer
    I might not have the latest security fix right now, but at least my computer is running. 
    Stu:  Can you report this to MSI and have them get in touch with M$?

    i will, if this is a problem affecting a lot of users.
    has anyone else experienced this problem?

  • How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

    Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
    1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
    2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
    "i know what im doing" option
    3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
    4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
    so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
    if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
    now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
    i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
    I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
    i remove those.
    also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
    theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
    lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
    WHY!?!?
    There must be more things like those that could go
    perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
    macosx

    Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
    Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
    System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
    The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
    to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
    can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
    backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
    Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.    
    When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
    Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
    files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
    disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
    Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
    update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
    does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
    to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
    does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
    primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
    system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
    Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
    the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
    store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
    less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
    to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
    (and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
    The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
    takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
    minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
    I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
    relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
    if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
    stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
    older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
    again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
    called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
    Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
    mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
    being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
    Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
    in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
    through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
    Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
    1.
    Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
    2.
    Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
    3.
    Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
    4.
    "Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
    5.
    Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
    6.
    Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
    7.
    Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
    8.
    Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
    9.
    Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
    10.
    Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
    11.
    Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
    12.
    Computer really slow after latest updates
    13.
    Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
    14.
    Why can't windows 7 install updates?
    15.
    Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
    16.
    How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
    17.
    Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
    18.
    Updates causes endless reboots
    19.
    Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
    20.
    Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
    A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
    I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
    So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
    for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

  • 32-bit Oracle client on Windows 7 64-bit?

    Hi,
    I have a Windows 7 64-bit OS and need to install an Oracle client on this machine. Instead of installing a 64-bit client, I would like to install a 32-bit client and was wondering if this is possible and compatible on a 64-bit machine? The reason I would prefer to install a 32-bit client is because i have a 32-bit version of TOAD and apparently this doesnt work with a 64-bit client.
    I have downloaded the following files:
    Oracle Database 10g Client Release 2 (10.2.0.3) -> 10203_vista_w2k8_x86_production_client.zip
    patchset 10.2.0.5 (for Windows 7 compatibility) -> p8202632_10205_WINNT.zip
    Are these the correct files I have downloaded? Thanks.

    Hi,
    What about trying these samples..
    test =
    (DESCRIPTION =
    (ADDRESS_LIST =(ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = your machine name )(PORT = 1521)) )
    (CONNECT_DATA = (SERVICE_NAME = your database sid) )
    test1 =
    (DESCRIPTION = (ADDRESS_LIST = (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = your machine name )(PORT = 1521))
    (CONNECT_DATA = (SID = your database sid) (SERVER = DEDICATED)
    test2 =
    (DESCRIPTION = (ADDRESS_LIST = (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = your machine name )(PORT = 1521))
    (CONNECT_DATA = (SID = your database sid) (SERVER = DEDICATED)
    Test all of them using tnsping before you use them..

  • How to install clusterware on windows 2008 R2 64bit

    Hello all,
    As you know at otn there is only 10.2.0.4 clusterware setup for windows2008.
    I want to install oracle clusterware on 2008R2. I know that there is a patchset 10.2.0.5 for windows 2008R2.
    But before using it I must have alredy binary setup for oracle. (I assume)
    So when I trying to setup clusterware on 2008R2 I got error
    OUI-35073: Exception occured while starting service in the remote nodes. Could not start the service 'OracleClusterVolumeService' in the remote cluster
    So I want to know , Is there any way to apply patch to setup files ? So I can install clusterware.
    Or how can I install clusterware on 2008R2

    Hi,
    Do not install Oracle Database/Clusterware 10g Release 2 on Windows Server 2008, Server 2008 R2, 7 or Vista using the 10.2.0.1 version. You must use the 10.2.0.4 (64-bit) x64 version specifically created for these operating systems. After installation, for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, patchset 10.2.0.5 or higher must be applied.
    Regards,
    Levi Pereira

  • Windows listener service will not start automatically

    I just installed 11.2.0.3 Standard Edition One and when I reboot the server, the listener service is not started. The service is set to start Automatically. I have to login, open services and then push start.
    The oraceServiceSId does start automatically,
    The listerner service does not start automatically,
    The dbconsole service does not start automatically,
    The processManger1 service (from middleware) does not start automatically
    This is Windows 7 64 bit.
    Any ideas?
    Edited by: brian.mcginity on Dec 10, 2011 11:25 AM

    I found where the services logs are recorded in the event viewer. Funny thing just happened, I was just about to do another reboot so I could check the logs when I noticed there were window updates in q.
    So after running the updates, the os requested to reboot . For the first time, the services started automatically.
    These are the updates which fixes the probem:
    Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2639417)
    Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 9 for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2618444)
    Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2620712)
    Cumulative Security Update for ActiveX Killbits for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2618451)
    Edited by: brian.mcginity on Dec 13, 2011 9:52 PM
    Edited by: brian.mcginity on Dec 13, 2011 9:53 PM

  • How to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2?

    Hello,
    Is there any way to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2
    simular to 
    DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded
    Many thanks

    Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
    Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
    System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
    The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
    to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
    can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
    backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
    Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.    
    When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
    Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
    files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
    disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
    Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
    update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
    does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
    to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
    does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
    primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
    system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
    Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
    the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
    store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
    less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
    to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
    (and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
    The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
    takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
    minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
    I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
    relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
    if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
    stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
    older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
    again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
    called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
    Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
    mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
    being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
    Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
    in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
    through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
    Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
    1.
    Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
    2.
    Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
    3.
    Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
    4.
    "Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
    5.
    Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
    6.
    Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
    7.
    Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
    8.
    Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
    9.
    Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
    10.
    Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
    11.
    Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
    12.
    Computer really slow after latest updates
    13.
    Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
    14.
    Why can't windows 7 install updates?
    15.
    Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
    16.
    How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
    17.
    Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
    18.
    Updates causes endless reboots
    19.
    Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
    20.
    Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
    A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
    I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
    Microsoft understated the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements at install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increases to alarming levels as you install more service packs and
    post SP-updates. You can find out the real size of the WinSxS folder using a tool like cttruesize (ctts.exe) (download it from
    http://www.heise.de/software/download/cttruesize/50272 and run ctts -la -a -l C:\Windows to find the correct size minus the hard links which MS says causes Explorer to misreport the WinSxS
    folder size but the fact remains that even with the correctly calculated size of WinSxS, the disk space requirements of Windows 7 to keep it updated are unacceptable, especially for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

  • Current Patches for Windows (32bit) 9.2.0.8

    We have recently upgraded to Windows 32-bit Oracle 9.2.0.8.  Note 539921  lists the patchset for Windows 32-bit as follows:
    NT_I386 32-bit
    /Oracle/Oracle 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0. 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0.8. 32-bit/
    NT_I386/Patchset_9208_WINNT.zip
    The patch set is installed with the runInstaller - see README.html
    For more information about installing patch sets, see Note 578683.
    *In addition, use opatch to install patch 12 for 9.2.0.8.
    /Oracle/Oracle 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0. 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0.8. 32-bit/
    NT_I386/9208_Patch12_WINNT.zip*
    So, after an upgrade to Windows 32-bit 9.2.0.8 you should then immediately apply patch 12?  The problem is reading note 1107601 - CPU Patches October 2007 (Oracle Critical Update Program)
    states the following:
    *The CPU patches are not a patch set, but rather a collection of patches. If
    there is a critical problem, you may have to install a separate fix, which
    conflicts with the CPU patch. In this case, you must uninstall the CPU
    patch.*
    But there is nothing specific for 9.2.0.8 (it implies there are no conflicts for 9.2.0.8):
    For Oracle 9.2.0.7, note the following:
    Unfortunately, the CPU patches for Oracle 9.2.0.7 conflict with patches
    that have already been installed and that are important for an SAP system.
    Therefore, there will be no further release of the patches for Oracle
    9.2.0.7. *We therefore recommend that you upgrade the database to Oracle
    9.2.0.8 and use the CPU patches for Oracle 9.2.0.8 instead.*
    So I'm assuming that after installing patchset 9.2.0.8 for Windows 32-bit I should apply patch 12 (which is CPU October 2007).  There are some patches listed under "Oracle Other" that seem to be generic patches listed under the download section for oracle 9.2.0.8.  Do these patches cause a conflict with patch 12?  I haven't seen a note that says to install them.
    I haven't found a note that says to install anything other than patchset 9.2.0.8 and then patch 12.  Is this right?  I need to find out pretty quick so any help  is appreciated!

    Hi,
    do following as of note 539921
    first apply patch set 9.2.0.8
    /Oracle/Oracle 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0. 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0.8. 32-bit/
                                            NT_I386/Patchset_9208_WINNT.zip
    than apply cpupatch CPUOct2007 patch 12 for  9.2.0.8  if you found critical problem with CPU it's optional
    use opatch to install patch 12 for 9.2.0.8.
         /Oracle/Oracle 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0. 32-Bit/Oracle 9.2.0.8. 32-bit/
                                              NT_I386/9208_Patch12_WINNT.zip
    regards,
    kaushal

  • Installation error while installing KB2956166 march cumulative updates for sharpeoint server 2013

    I am getting error while installing KB2956166 march cumulative updates for sharpeoint server 2013 on windows server 2012 R2.
    i have already installed KB2956159 CU.
    can you guide me what is best way to install it?
    Thanks,
    Deepak

    Hi,
    KB 2956159 - SharePoint Foundation 2013 March 2015 CU
    KB 2956166 - SharePoint Server 2013 March 2015 CU
    http://blogs.technet.com/b/stefan_gossner/archive/2015/03/10/march-2015-cu-for-sharepoint-2013-has-been-released.aspx
    If you are using SharePoint server 2013, you need to install updates package for Server, i.e. KB 2956166.
    Here is a similar issue:
    http://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/104495/undo-wrong-installation-of-sharepoint-2013-service-pack
    If it doesn't help, you might refer to this article:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/george_bethanis/archive/2014/08/28/sharepoint-server-2013-can-you-uninstall-patches.aspx
    Regards,
    Rebecca Tu
    TechNet Community Support
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact
    [email protected]

Maybe you are looking for

  • Can't launch Adobe Muse "Application Manager is Needed" but i can't isntall it, just purchased a license for a year in adobe muse :(

    Hello, always that i close and then try to open adobe muse, i got an error that says that i need the "Application Manager" to launch it, so i went to download it. After i entered in the page that it provides ( www.adobe.com/go/applicationmanager_es )

  • Crop marks non-functional in CS5

    I was given an 8.6"x11.1" PS doc to be printed with a full bleed, down to 8.5x11. When I set the crop marks, they appear correctly on-screen in the print preview, and their locations clearly change based on the dimensions I input in setup, but, when

  • Annotation while presenting in Keynote on iPad

    With full disclosure that I'm a total newbie on Keynote (have been building sophisticated PPTs for YEARS), I want to be able to present from my iPad (connected to projector) and annotate with a stylus.  I've seen some notes here about secondary apps

  • Cannot Sync with Outlook

    I am getting the following error when trying to sync my calendar: "iTunes could not sync calendars to the iPhone (xxx) because the iPhone disconnected. I have added the COM addin - and it is syncing everything else (contacts, pics, tunes etc...) Any

  • ODS and ODSSM schemas not created in oracle 11.1.0.2 on Win 2008 R2 server

    Hi, I'm trying to install webcenter suite installation on windows 2008 R2 server. As a starting point installed oracle db 11.2.0.1 As a second step, tried to run rcu script and found that the ODS and ODSSM schemas are not created as a part of the ins