Automatic Updates takes long time

[g_goyal2000]

Hi.
I'm running Windows XP SP2 with latest updates installed.

I have latest ActiveX controls installed for both Microsoft Update & Automatic Updates from Microsoft's Windows Update site.

I keep Automatic Updates service & option disabled until needed & run it manually from System Properties.

The problem is, lately Automatic Updates takes a long time to run.
When I run Automatic Updates manually or automatically (sometimes), a file svchost.exe takes the entire processor & about 100 MB memory.
Therefore, it makes my PC crawl & non of the applications respond until it has finished scanning & displayed the results.

The problem is, it takes about 10 minutes to finish scanning & display results.
What could be the reason?
I never faced this problem before.

I suspect the updated ActiveX controls for either Microsoft Update and/or Automatic Updates might have got corrupt.

Is there any way to repair or reinstall them?
Or is there any other solution?

I do not want to reinstall Windows.
I have scanned my PC for any viruses, spywares, adwares, hooks, worms, etc but found none.

 

[Choto Cheeta]

Well There are 2 patches for the issue. as while Searching for update some time the update scanner under SVCHOST.EXE utilizes full 100% Resources, which some time makes the IE crash.

Here are those 2 Patchs.

*support.microsoft.com/kb/916089/en-us
*support.microsoft.com/kb/914810

u have to get in touch with Microsoft support to download them as those are not made public yet.! Sad

second and not recomended option is trying 3rd party update sites with supports FireFox like,

*windowsupdate.62nds.com/
*www.windizupdate.com/

 

[Choto Cheeta]

U are not alone... People having no Office installed also face the issue... !!

search this forum... atleast 100 issue will come infront.. not mentioning other 100 forum which i visit

 

[eddie]

second and not recomended option is trying 3rd party update sites with supports FireFox like,

*windowsupdate.62nds.com/
*www.windizupdate.com/

Can you please tell me why these sites are not recommended? I have been mentioning windizupdate to a friend or two and your post makes me sceptical about doing it.

 

[rakeshishere]

Can you please tell me why these sites are not recommended? I have been mentioning windizupdate to a friend or two and your post makes me sceptical about doing it.

[FONT=Arial,Sans-serif] WindizUpdate.com is not a recommended solution

Many readers in the past few weeks have asked me about WindizUpdate.com. This Web site, launched in 2005, scans your computer for needed Windows patches and then displays links to the relevant download locations at Microsoft.com.

Unfortunately, as promising as this approach may seem, after investigation I can't recommend this site. Here are a few reasons why:

1. The site installs an unsigned control, which performs the scanning and reporting function. Without a digital signature, you can't verify that the control is really from the same people who manage the site itself.

2. The scan process asks several times to read the Registry. If you know that WindizUpdate is perfectly legitimate, which I have no reason to doubt, this might be fine. But it's bothersome, while at the same time it's too risky to click "Always allow this site," which would permit too many unknown future actions.

3. The site is a part-time hobby with no visible means of support. There are many fine pieces of software and Web services that are free of charge. But WindizUpdate is performing a serious security task and doesn't have a team of programmers that's adequate to develop it, much less provide technical support if the user base grows.

I called the prime mover behind WindizUpdate, Phil Young, who is based in Auckland, New Zealand. He's a director of 62nds Solutions Ltd., a consulting firm with two employees and a few part-time staff on the island.

When asked why WindizUpdate didn't use a digital signature to provide a verifiable identity for its control, Young replied, "I haven't got the $400 to spend on the security signing certificate. Because it's a free site, it's not high on our list of priorities."

I inquired whether the site might become supported by advertising or voluntary contributions by users. "I have considered putting some ads on," Young said, "but I dislike sites that have more advertising than content."

Besides having no digitally signed code, WindizUpdate also lacks the ability to scan for and deploy Microsoft nonsecurity updates, Office updates, or security updates for products other than Microsoft's, such as RealPlayer.

All of the above nonfeatures cause me to advise readers to hold off on WindizUpdate. As attractive as the idea of a non-Microsoft patch-management system may be, other companies do a much better job.

One final strike against WindizUpdate is that it has no apparent uninstall procedure. If you've ever installed a WindizUpdate control, I recommend removing its components using the manual procedure described on the site's page entitled Uninstalling.

Source
[/FONT]

 

[Choto Cheeta]

Can you please tell me why these sites are not recommended? I have been mentioning windizupdate to a friend or two and your post makes me sceptical about doing it.

Few reason are already given at the post before me here are few more...

because they are non Microsoft services... Microsoft will not be responsible for any kind problem, if happens to your system....

When you are using a product, you are expected to follow what the product manufacturer is recommending you...

Even their own web site (*windowsupdate.62nds.com/ *www.windizupdate.com/) recommends you to have a strong virus or spyware protection while using their service...

But once again, you are free to do what ever with your system.... For you information, yes i never heard any one got system corruption after using those services....

 

[eddie]

If those are the only issues then I would keep recommending windizupdate comfortably. Thanks for your time though...

 

[Choto Cheeta]

If those are the only issues then I would keep recommending windizupdate comfortably. Thanks for your time though...

I said Not Recomended from Microsoft Point a View

but one can use such service if they have a AVS thats it.. !! if my self didnt like it, i wouldnt have mentioned them...

 

[eddie]

Oh I somehow missed your post. Actually you do not need any AntiVirus installed to use windizupdate service. Lots of people have ran packet analyzers and traceroute runs while windizupdate downloads the updates and the traffic has been found to be from Microsoft servers. Now, until and unless Microsoft serves viruses from their own servers...there is no risk

 

[boosters]

use autopatcher xp for monthly updates

 

[khattam_]

use autopatcher xp for monthly updates

I agree... Turn off Windows Update and download Autopatcher every month....

You even get autopatcher regularly with Digit

 

[g_goyal2000]

All right guys, it seems the problem is with Microsoft Update's ActiveX control.
Apparently, when I uninstalled Microsoft Update, the problem was gone.
So, I'm back to using Windows Update.

@Choto Cheeta
The updates u mentioned didn't seem to effect my problem. My previous post appreciating it was wrong & hence deleted.

 

[Choto Cheeta]

Some one contacted MS regarding it, and they (Microsoft) gave this solution.. Didint work at my system though, but still you may try...

Rename the Software distribution folder, which contains the log files for Windows Updates. If the files in this folder are corrupted, it may prevent the updates from getting installed.

Follow these steps to rename the folder.

1. Click Start and then click Run.
2. Type "Net stop Wuauserv" (without quotes) in the open box and then click on OK.
3. Click Start and then click Run.
4. Type "%windir%" (without quotes) and click on OK.
5. In the opened folder, rename the folder SoftwareDistribution to OLD.
6. Click Start, Run.
7. Type "Net Start Wuauserv" (without quotes) and then click on OK.
8. Restart the computer
9. Disable any other third party firewall and update windows now !

@Choto Cheeta
The updates u mentioned didn't seem to effect my problem. My previous post appreciating it was wrong & hence deleted.

do you have those Patches installed ??

*support.microsoft.com/kb/916089/en-us
*support.microsoft.com/kb/914810

??

 

[g_goyal2000]

Some one contacted MS regarding it, and they (Microsoft) gave this solution.. Didint work at my system though, but still you may try...

Well, I will certainly try it.

do you have those Patches installed ??

*support.microsoft.com/kb/916089/en-us
*support.microsoft.com/kb/914810

??

I did install update KB914810. But not KB916089, couldn't find the update.

 

[g_goyal2000]

@Choto Cheeta
Yesterday, I tried the solution you provided, many times. It did not work.
But mysteriously, today the Microsoft Updates is working properly.
I think, but not sure, it worked cos I installed the Microsoft Updates ActiveX control thru Firefox by using a plugin called IE Tab (which allows IE specific pages like Windowsupdate.com to open in Firefox) instead of instaling thru IE itself.
I'm not sure this is the reason.
And I'm not willing to try again & experiment. Don't wanna mess up something that's working fine now after a long time.
Anyone else is more than welcome to try my solution. But no guarantees.
In case it works, do post the result.

 

[g_goyal2000]

Probably very late to post a reply.
Ok, the problem was with an update released by Microsoft (don't know which update).
Microsoft also acknowledged it.