datastore\datastore.edb

[Micky]

I'm using Vista but googling has shown the exact same problem is found
in win7. The relevant file exists in XP, but I don't know if the
problem does or not.

AFAIC, I've solved the problem, so this is just to share with you. The
solution was simply to turn off automatic Windows Update.

Vista is getting few or no updates these days. Not sure about 7, but
there is manual update.

Now that I'm using Windows Resource Monitor to watch my disk usage,
I've noticed that I was creating Previous Versions. I stopped that
and things seem faster now. So that's good.

This morning, I needed to write and send one short email and then
leave within an hour. Sounds like plenty of time, except the
harddrive light was on constantly for at least an hour, and I could
barely type a single character in the email program. (I think this
has happened other mornings, but this time I was in a hurry.)

It was reading (and maybe writing)
C:\windows\SoftwareDistribution\datastore\datastore.edb It ranged
from 20 to 45MB/minute. I forgot to note CPU usage.

When I got back 3 hours later, at least by then, that stage was over.

I used, for the first time in Vista, the built-in WinVista search to
search for the file, and searched everythwere, and I'd heard that the
search was slow, but it did NOT even find the file!!!! (I tried
again giving the fully qualified name, and it still didnt' find it,
even though it's there and it's not a hidden or system file. How can
that be?)

So I used Search Everywhere and it quickly found it. 528K, updated 2
hours ago.

(I also dl'd RAMmap, from Sysinternals, because one webpage mentioned
it. It didn't really help me but it's free and interesting.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/rammap.aspx )

(I also used esentutl.exe /g
c:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\DataStore.edb
in administrative mode to check the files integrity. I don't know why
that was recommended but it passed. )

So what's the solution. Suggestions from other people:

http://superuser.com/questions/539411/pc-boots-then-writes-giant-datastore-edb-file-slowing-the-computer-down
PC Boots then writes giant datastore.edb file slowing the computer
down. " If you stop the Windows Update service, within a minute the
system will stop reading and writing from the file and everything runs
smoothly. " But if you read further, apparently that's not enough
for him. I hope it's enough for me. The service is called wuauserv
but I didn't stop it directly.

Another one says:
"So I had to completely disable Windows Update Service autorun. This
greatly lowered waste of RAM, CPU and disk IO. The system is much more
responsive now."

AFAICT windows update for Vista has stopped updating. In the last two
weeks I've only gotten one new "Check for selected Malware file". I
don't know if that means there is no point to disabling it, or if it's
still wasting cycles and there is no reason not to disable it."

********************
However, I turned off Windows Updates and I havent' had the problem
this post is about since then. I can always check for updates
manually when it won't interfere with my compute use.
**********************

Another guy said "On my computer, during start up, the anti virus
program (windows essentials) seemed to be taking a lot of time on the
datastore.edb file. .....The solution basically involves telling the
virus scanner (windows essentials) to exclude checking this file. I
did the other exclusions on the windows files as well. (but i'm fine
with the scanners checking my photos, even though they should be
safe)" I didn't think AVG scanned files on startup, and it listed
under "Image" svchost (netsvcs), not AVG , but I'll wait until this
happens again and see if AVG is using appreciable CPU. (I think I've
fixed it so it won't happen again.)

Another guy said "Microsoft released a new WindowsUpdate Client Update
to fix the slow Update searching/Installation." but it's only for 7
and Server 2008.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2tktlc/extremely_slow_boot_caused_by_datastoreedb_help/
"Every day it ramps up my disk usage to 100% which pretty much kills
anything I want to do. It lasts from 5 min to an hour or two depending
on how long my machine has been off for previously (The longer its
been off, the longer the disk disruption and usage lasts) although it
will happen every day even if the machine is never shut down.
Finally the original poster said there was something wrong with the
original implementation: "This applies to Zeiss OCT machines" but the
problem is more widespread." I don't even know what Zeiss OCT is!

Another guy complains more about it using RAM and the webpage guy
says:
Can you please zip/attach your c:\windows\windowsupdate.log file? If
it's too big to attach, please upload to SendSpace and just provide me
the link. Finally told him to do a repair install! (I don't think
so!)
https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/14342-windows-7-huge-datastore-edb-hogging-ram.html

[VanguardLH]

Post by Micky
I'm using Vista but googling has shown the exact same problem is found
in win7. The relevant file exists in XP, but I don't know if the
problem does or not.
AFAIC, I've solved the problem, so this is just to share with you. The
solution was simply to turn off automatic Windows Update.
Vista is getting few or no updates these days. Not sure about 7, but
there is manual update.
Now that I'm using Windows Resource Monitor to watch my disk usage,
I've noticed that I was creating Previous Versions. I stopped that
and things seem faster now. So that's good.
This morning, I needed to write and send one short email and then
leave within an hour. Sounds like plenty of time, except the
harddrive light was on constantly for at least an hour, and I could
barely type a single character in the email program. (I think this
has happened other mornings, but this time I was in a hurry.)
It was reading (and maybe writing)
C:\windows\SoftwareDistribution\datastore\datastore.edb It ranged
from 20 to 45MB/minute. I forgot to note CPU usage.
When I got back 3 hours later, at least by then, that stage was over.
I used, for the first time in Vista, the built-in WinVista search to
search for the file, and searched everythwere, and I'd heard that the
search was slow, but it did NOT even find the file!!!! (I tried
again giving the fully qualified name, and it still didnt' find it,
even though it's there and it's not a hidden or system file. How can
that be?)
So I used Search Everywhere and it quickly found it. 528K, updated 2
hours ago.
(I also dl'd RAMmap, from Sysinternals, because one webpage mentioned
it. It didn't really help me but it's free and interesting.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/rammap.aspx )
(I also used esentutl.exe /g
c:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\DataStore.edb
in administrative mode to check the files integrity. I don't know why
that was recommended but it passed. )
http://superuser.com/questions/539411/pc-boots-then-writes-giant-datastore-edb-file-slowing-the-computer-down
PC Boots then writes giant datastore.edb file slowing the computer
down. " If you stop the Windows Update service, within a minute the
system will stop reading and writing from the file and everything runs
smoothly. " But if you read further, apparently that's not enough
for him. I hope it's enough for me. The service is called wuauserv
but I didn't stop it directly.
"So I had to completely disable Windows Update Service autorun. This
greatly lowered waste of RAM, CPU and disk IO. The system is much more
responsive now."
AFAICT windows update for Vista has stopped updating. In the last two
weeks I've only gotten one new "Check for selected Malware file". I
don't know if that means there is no point to disabling it, or if it's
still wasting cycles and there is no reason not to disable it."
********************
However, I turned off Windows Updates and I havent' had the problem
this post is about since then. I can always check for updates
manually when it won't interfere with my compute use.
**********************
Another guy said "On my computer, during start up, the anti virus
program (windows essentials) seemed to be taking a lot of time on the
datastore.edb file. .....The solution basically involves telling the
virus scanner (windows essentials) to exclude checking this file. I
did the other exclusions on the windows files as well. (but i'm fine
with the scanners checking my photos, even though they should be
safe)" I didn't think AVG scanned files on startup, and it listed
under "Image" svchost (netsvcs), not AVG , but I'll wait until this
happens again and see if AVG is using appreciable CPU. (I think I've
fixed it so it won't happen again.)
Another guy said "Microsoft released a new WindowsUpdate Client Update
to fix the slow Update searching/Installation." but it's only for 7
and Server 2008.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2tktlc/extremely_slow_boot_caused_by_datastoreedb_help/
"Every day it ramps up my disk usage to 100% which pretty much kills
anything I want to do. It lasts from 5 min to an hour or two depending
on how long my machine has been off for previously (The longer its
been off, the longer the disk disruption and usage lasts) although it
will happen every day even if the machine is never shut down.
Finally the original poster said there was something wrong with the
original implementation: "This applies to Zeiss OCT machines" but the
problem is more widespread." I don't even know what Zeiss OCT is!
Another guy complains more about it using RAM and the webpage guy
Can you please zip/attach your c:\windows\windowsupdate.log file? If
it's too big to attach, please upload to SendSpace and just provide me
the link. Finally told him to do a repair install! (I don't think
so!)
https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/14342-windows-7-huge-datastore-edb-hogging-ram.html

I enable the BITS and WU services only after I have prepared to do
Windows updating: gotten some time reserved, made a full backup image,
poll for the available update and wait ... and wait ... and wait, review
*EACH* update before allowing it (hiding the unwanted or nonapplicable
ones), reboot even if not told to do so, and disable the BITS and WU
services. When those services are disabled, there is no Windows
updating going on, not even to poll for new ones.

I use the following batch files:

___( WU-disable.bat )___
echo off
cls

echo Stop BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) ...
sc.exe stop BITS
echo Disable BITS ...
sc.exe config BITS start= disabled
echo.

echo Stop Windows Update service ...
sc.exe stop wuauserv
echo Disable Windows Update service ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= disabled
echo.

exit
___( EOF )___

___( WU-enable.bat )___
@echo off
cls

echo Enable BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) to Manual
startup mode ...
sc.exe config BITS start= demand
echo.

echo Enable Windows Update service to Manual startup mode ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= demand
echo Start Windows Update service ...
sc.exe start wuauserv
echo.

exit
___( EOF )___

I have a folder containing shortcuts to WU-enable, Windows Updates, and
WU-disable. When I am prepared to do some Windows updating, I just
click on WU-enable, Windows Updates (review each one and allow some),
and end with WU-disable. Then when I am not in update mode, there is no
background checking going on.

I'm also assuming that you configured Automatic Update to "notify only".
During my Windows Updates step, I still only want to get notified of new
updates, not have them crammed down my throat.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 16:16:05 -0500, in

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Micky
I'm using Vista but googling has shown the exact same problem is found
in win7. The relevant file exists in XP, but I don't know if the
problem does or not.
AFAIC, I've solved the problem, so this is just to share with you. The
solution was simply to turn off automatic Windows Update.
Vista is getting few or no updates these days. Not sure about 7, but
there is manual update.
Now that I'm using Windows Resource Monitor to watch my disk usage,...
This morning, I needed to write and send one short email and then
leave within an hour. Sounds like plenty of time, except the
harddrive light was on constantly for at least an hour, and I could
barely type a single character in the email program. ...
It was reading (and maybe writing)
C:\windows\SoftwareDistribution\datastore\datastore.edb It ranged
from 20 to 45MB/minute. ....
http://superuser.com/questions/539411/pc-boots-then-writes-giant-datastore-edb-file-slowing-the-computer-down
PC Boots then writes giant datastore.edb file slowing the computer
down. " If you stop the Windows Update service, within a minute the
system will stop reading and writing from the file and everything runs
smoothly. " .....
....
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2tktlc/extremely_slow_boot_caused_by_datastoreedb_help/
"Every day it ramps up my disk usage to 100% which pretty much kills
anything I want to do. It lasts from 5 min to an hour or two depending
on how long my machine has been off for previously (The longer its
been off, the longer the disk disruption and usage lasts) although it
will happen every day even if the machine is never shut down. ....

I enable the BITS and WU services only after I have prepared to do

I never even heard of BITS before! I see it started with win2000.

Post by VanguardLH
Windows updating: gotten some time reserved, made a full backup image,
poll for the available update and wait ... and wait ... and wait, review
*EACH* update before allowing it (hiding the unwanted or nonapplicable

I have been doing that.

Post by VanguardLH
ones), reboot even if not told to do so,

I havent' been doing that.

Post by VanguardLH
and disable the BITS and WU
services.

I haven't been doing that.

Post by VanguardLH
When those services are disabled, there is no Windows
updating going on, not even to poll for new ones.

I've read online that it's the checking for updates that takes so much
ram and cpu. (He didnt' mention
Thank you for these. I've saved them.

Post by VanguardLH
___( WU-disable.bat )___
echo off
cls
echo Stop BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) ...
sc.exe stop BITS
echo Disable BITS ...
sc.exe config BITS start= disabled
echo.
echo Stop Windows Update service ...
sc.exe stop wuauserv
echo Disable Windows Update service ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= disabled
echo.
exit
___( EOF )___
___( WU-enable.bat )___
@echo off
cls
echo Enable BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) to Manual
startup mode ...
sc.exe config BITS start= demand
echo.
echo Enable Windows Update service to Manual startup mode ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= demand
echo Start Windows Update service ...
sc.exe start wuauserv
echo.
exit
___( EOF )___
I have a folder containing shortcuts to WU-enable, Windows Updates, and
WU-disable. When I am prepared to do some Windows updating, I just
click on WU-enable, Windows Updates (review each one and allow some),
and end with WU-disable. Then when I am not in update mode, there is no
background checking going on.

I guess that can take a lot of disk reading too. In fact maybe that
is what took an hour the other morning. I went out but I don't think
it dl'ed anything. If it did, it was just that one optional update,
the "MalwareChecker on restart for specific malware" file. or maybe a
MS Security Essentials file. Why does it take an hour to check and
download that?

Post by VanguardLH
I'm also assuming that you configured Automatic Update to "notify only".

Yes, I've had that for a long time.

Post by VanguardLH
During my Windows Updates step, I still only want to get notified of new
updates, not have them crammed down my throat.

Indeed.

Thanks a lot for the advice and bat files.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:10:07 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Micky

Post by Micky
Thank you for these. I've saved them.

And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....

wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.

Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

Tomorrow I'll plug in my XP archives and find out.

Post by Micky

Post by VanguardLH
___( WU-disable.bat )___
echo off
cls
echo Stop BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) ...
sc.exe stop BITS
echo Disable BITS ...
sc.exe config BITS start= disabled
echo.
echo Stop Windows Update service ...
sc.exe stop wuauserv
echo Disable Windows Update service ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= disabled
echo.
exit
___( EOF )___
___( WU-enable.bat )___
@echo off
cls
echo Enable BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) to Manual
startup mode ...
sc.exe config BITS start= demand
echo.
echo Enable Windows Update service to Manual startup mode ...
sc.exe config wuauserv start= demand
echo Start Windows Update service ...
sc.exe start wuauserv
echo.
exit
___( EOF )___

[VanguardLH]

Post by Micky
And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....
wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.

They are batch files. They run in a console windows (aka command
shell). Unless you first open a console windows (cmd.exe) to run them
there, the console window will close as soon as the batch file
completes. You don't know how to run console (DOS mode) commands?

Besides, there is really not much to show. It may show whether the
command succeeded or failed but you can see that by looking in
services.msc (or make sure to refresh its display if you have it open at
the time you change service state).

Post by Micky
Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

That would require opening the console window (cmd.exe), telling it to
run the batch file but not close the console window afterward.
Basically you are independently opening the console window so what you
run inside doesn't close that window. DOS-mode commands may open a
console window but may not. If you rely on the console command to show
a window, it will get unloaded as soon as it is no longer needed, like
when the console command finishes.

You could:
- Run cmd.exe to load a console window. That console window is owned by
the cmd.exe process, not by any programs started within that console.
- Run wu-enable.bat or wu-disable.bat.
- Since the console window remains open - until you exit cmd.exe - you
can see any stdout produced by any non-GUI (DOS-mode) programs you run
inside that console.
- To exit the console (close the window) means you have to enter the
'exit' command (tells cmd.exe to unload) or you use the titlebar icons
or control menu to close the window (which will kill the cmd.exe
process).

Or you could just double-click on the shortcut to the wu-enable.bat or
wu-disable.bat files, let the console window flicker by (opened for the
shell to run the batch file and then immediately closed when the batch
file ends) and run services.msc to see what happened to the state of the
BITS and WU services. I prefer this method to verify what happened
rather than relying on the stdout from the console commands (sc.exe)
which will only report a failure not what is the resultant state of the
services.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 00:22:45 -0500, in

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Micky
And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....
wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.

They are batch files. They run in a console windows (aka command
shell). Unless you first open a console windows (cmd.exe) to run them
there, the console window will close as soon as the batch file
completes. You don't know how to run console (DOS mode) commands?
Besides, there is really not much to show. It may show whether the
command succeeded or failed but you can see that by looking in
services.msc (or make sure to refresh its display if you have it open at
the time you change service state).

Post by Micky
Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

I dug out some old bat files and looked at them and
Return /b
is what I had in mind. I know it kept the CMD window open with bat
files I used last summer. I wanted the window to stay open because I
wasn't done yet.

However yesterday, when I opened a window and ran WU-disable, the
window closed, but today it stayed open, even without return /b. I
don't know what changed.

It's working now and I don't want to spend more time on this problem.
Thanks.

More below.

Post by VanguardLH
That would require opening the console window (cmd.exe), telling it to
run the batch file but not close the console window afterward.
Basically you are independently opening the console window so what you
run inside doesn't close that window. DOS-mode commands may open a
console window but may not. If you rely on the console command to show
a window, it will get unloaded as soon as it is no longer needed, like
when the console command finishes.
- Run cmd.exe to load a console window. That console window is owned by
the cmd.exe process, not by any programs started within that console.
- Run wu-enable.bat or wu-disable.bat.
- Since the console window remains open - until you exit cmd.exe - you
can see any stdout produced by any non-GUI (DOS-mode) programs you run
inside that console.
- To exit the console (close the window) means you have to enter the
'exit' command (tells cmd.exe to unload) or you use the titlebar icons
or control menu to close the window (which will kill the cmd.exe
process).
Or you could just double-click on the shortcut to the wu-enable.bat or
wu-disable.bat files, let the console window flicker by (opened for the
shell to run the batch file and then immediately closed when the batch

I might be ready to do that after I'm used to running the bat file,
but I wanted to watch line by line at least the first couple times.
For example there were messages that BITS could not be stopped because
it wasn't running. I had to think abou that a bit and I learned
something.

Post by VanguardLH
file ends) and run services.msc to see what happened to the state of the
BITS and WU services. I prefer this method to verify what happened
rather than relying on the stdout from the console commands (sc.exe)
which will only report a failure not what is the resultant state of the
services.

[VanguardLH]

Post by Micky
I dug out some old bat files and looked at them and
Return /b
is what I had in mind. I know it kept the CMD window open with bat
files I used last summer. I wanted the window to stay open because I
wasn't done yet.

I have never heard of "return" and that's going back to Win3.1x days.
It is probably some software you installed. It is not an internal
command within cmd.exe nor is it a program supplied with Windows.

Just put pause at the end of the .bat file as Rodney already suggested.
pause just outputs "Press any key to continue ..." If you want
something more descriptive, use echo following by pause (with the output
of pause hidden), as in:

echo whateverPromptYouWantToSee
pause > nul

I added the exit command at the end because I suggested to reference the
.bat files via shortcut, and leaving the console window open could be a
nuisance. If you open a console (cmd.exe) which opens a console window
and want that window to stay open after running the .bat files inside of
it, remove the exit command.

Because the .bat files call the sc.exe (service controller) program to
alter the state of NT services, you need to either configure the
shortcuts (that run the .bat files) to run under admin mode (or allow
the .bat file to commit its actions when the UAC prompt appears) or load
a console (cmd.exe) that runs in admin mode. If you run the .bat files
inside a console without admin privileges, you see a bunch of errors.
By using shortcuts to the .bat files, I get the UAC prompt and allow the
batch file to run.

What did you expect to see from the output of the batch files? That
output will not verify that services have actually stopped and were
disabled. All you get is succeed and fail statuses. For example, if
you run wu-disable.bat twice, the 2nd is guaranteed to show errors but
that's because you're trying to disable services that have already been
disabled. That the command succeeded doesn't mean the service actually
changed state as planned. The sc.exe command issues requests. Those
requests succeed or fail. There is no waiting around to find out if the
services actually did change states. The command is asynchronous. You
would have to wait for awhile to wait for the services to actually stop
before you later test for success.

Unless I add "sc.exe query BITS" and "sc.exe query wuausrv" to the end
of the batch file, you won't find the stdout from the .bat file to be
very useful. Besides, that would only show the services are stopped,
not that they are disabled. I would have to add:

after stopping and disabling BITS, or after enabling BITS:
<sleep>
sc.exe query BITS
sc.exe qc BITS
after stopping and disabling wuausrv, or after enabling wuausrv:
<sleep>
sc.exe query wuausrv
sc.exe qc wuausrv

where <sleep> uses the timeout command (internal to cmd.exe) or the
old "ping -w <timeout> localhost" trick.

Then you could see both the current state of the services and that they
were disabled - but they may have not changed yet even after the sleep
period. Services can change state very fast or very slow. So you can
either sleep a very long time and then check service state or use a
for-loop to keep polling for change (and parse the output to detect
state) with a shorter sleep where the for-loop exits immediately when
the state changes to the specified state (or eventually errors after a
max loop count figuring the service is not responding). I wasn't going
to that extravagance of scripting for simple stop and disable/enable
directives. That would also make the user sit around watching the
stdout in the console to determine (if they understood the output)
whether the sc.exe command worked or not.

That is a lot of output to look at just to verify that the .bat files
did indeed disable/enable the services. I have yet for these simple
batch files to fail doing what they're told to do -- unless you make the
mistake of not running them under admin privileges. With shortcuts to
the .bat files, I get a UAC prompt that ensures they run with admin
privileges. If I run them inside a console (cmd.exe) with its window
left open, it becomes apparent from the errors that I did not load
cmd.exe with admin privileges; however, the output is no value to me so
I never run them that way.

Yes, during testing, you could run cmd.exe -- with admin privileges --
to see the output of the sc.exe command. However, since your batch
script skills are weak (didn't know to remove 'exit' to watch without
closing the shell, didn't know why the console window disappeared when
using Start -> Run, didn't know about adding a pause, didn't know sc.exe
issues asynchronous requests), I doubt you would understand the output
of sc.exe, anyway, or want to get into scripting that employs a fixed
sleep or a for-loop and variable parsing to wait until the service
states actually changed. By the time you click on the shortcut to
wu-disable.bat and then click on the shortcut to run Windows Update, the
services should've already been enabled and ready. If not, the WU
client will tell you it can't run. After WU is done, you don't care how
long it takes for the services to stop and get disabled.

I could add more logic into the script to ensure a service was actually
stopped before I disabled it, or to ensure a service got enabled before
starting it or changing its startup state but, so far, haven't need that
extra logic to accomodate that sc.exe issue asynchronous requests (sc
asks for a change, sc exits, change happens later whether fast or slow).

[Rodney Pont]

Post by Micky
And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....
wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.
Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

You can use pause to make it wait until you press return and you can
even add a comment ie;

pause Press Return to continue

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Rodney Pont

Post by Micky
And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....
wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.
Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

You can use pause to make it wait until you press return and you can
even add a comment ie;
pause Press Return to continue

Or, you can run them from a command window you've opened, rather than
running them directly.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:11:26 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Rodney Pont

Post by Micky
And I made them bat files and I tried them and.....
wu-disable went by so fast I couldn't read all of it.
Instead of ending in exit, I thought there was a command that would
end a bat file without closing the cmd box. I thought it was Return,
but that didn't work.

You can use pause to make it wait until you press return and you can
even add a comment ie;
pause Press Return to continue

Good idea, and I did that, but of course after I pressed a key to get
past the Pause, the window, which I started separately, unrelated to
entering the wu-enable or wu-disable, closed. I wanted it to sya

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Or, you can run them from a command window you've opened, rather than
running them directly.

I did that. I always do that. But the next day the window didn't
close. Oh well.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 22:16:05 +0100, VanguardLH <***@nguard.lh> wrote:

[]

Post by VanguardLH
I enable the BITS and WU services only after I have prepared to do
Windows updating: gotten some time reserved, made a full backup image,
poll for the available update and wait ... and wait ... and wait, review
*EACH* update before allowing it (hiding the unwanted or nonapplicable
ones), reboot even if not told to do so, and disable the BITS and WU
services. When those services are disabled, there is no Windows
updating going on, not even to poll for new ones.

[]

[This is for XP]

Here's my wupdate.bat (I have the services off most of the time)


@echo off
sc config msiserver start= demand
sc config wuauserv start= auto
sc config BITS start= auto


ping -n 1 -w 10 127.0.0.1 >nul

net start msiserver
net start BITS
net start wuauserv

echo Select Custom, scrap .net and malicious sw
"C:\program files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
pause

net stop wuauserv
net stop BITS
net stop msiserver

sc config msiserver start= disabled
sc config wuauserv start= disabled
sc config BITS start= disabled

[VanguardLH]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by VanguardLH
I enable the BITS and WU services only after I have prepared to do
Windows updating: gotten some time reserved, made a full backup image,
poll for the available update and wait ... and wait ... and wait, review
*EACH* update before allowing it (hiding the unwanted or nonapplicable
ones), reboot even if not told to do so, and disable the BITS and WU
services. When those services are disabled, there is no Windows
updating going on, not even to poll for new ones.

[This is for XP]
Here's my wupdate.bat (I have the services off most of the time)
@echo off
sc config msiserver start= demand
...
<visit WU site>
...
net stop msiserver
sc config msiserver start= disabled
...

MSI (Microsoft Installer) is used by most programs that install into
Windows. I only addressed disabling the *Windows updates* services
until I was prepared (time, backup, research, select, install). I would
NOT suggest disabling the Windows Installer service because that means
you cannot install most programs.

Windows Installer service:
"Adds, modifies, and removes applications provided as a Windows
Installer (*.msi) package. If this service is disabled, any services
that explicitly depend on it will fail to start."

Windows Installer
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/cc185688%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Just because I want to install new software or an update to it does NOT
mean that I want to enable Windows Updates (BITS and WU) to do that
software install. Just because I am blocking Windows updates does NOT
mean that I want to block software installs.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by VanguardLH
I enable the BITS and WU services only after I have prepared to do
Windows updating: gotten some time reserved, made a full backup image,
poll for the available update and wait ... and wait ... and wait, review
*EACH* update before allowing it (hiding the unwanted or nonapplicable
ones), reboot even if not told to do so, and disable the BITS and WU
services. When those services are disabled, there is no Windows
updating going on, not even to poll for new ones.

[This is for XP]
Here's my wupdate.bat (I have the services off most of the time)
@echo off
sc config msiserver start= demand
...
<visit WU site>
...
net stop msiserver
sc config msiserver start= disabled
...

MSI (Microsoft Installer) is used by most programs that install into
Windows. I only addressed disabling the *Windows updates* services
until I was prepared (time, backup, research, select, install). I would
NOT suggest disabling the Windows Installer service because that means
you cannot install most programs.
"Adds, modifies, and removes applications provided as a Windows
Installer (*.msi) package. If this service is disabled, any services
that explicitly depend on it will fail to start."
Windows Installer
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/cc185688%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
Just because I want to install new software or an update to it does NOT
mean that I want to enable Windows Updates (BITS and WU) to do that
software install. Just because I am blocking Windows updates does NOT
mean that I want to block software installs.

MSIexec also checks for updates when run. If I want to install something I
disable the internet then enable MSIserver , do the install then disable
afterwards. As I said I have services off if I don't need/want them.

[VanguardLH]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
MSIexec also checks for updates when run. If I want to install something I
disable the internet then enable MSIserver , do the install then disable
afterwards. As I said I have services off if I don't need/want them.

I know about the /p switch to *apply* an update package (for example,
"msiexec.exe /p <pkg>.msi"), not to retrieve an update package (the .msi
file). I have never heard that MSIexec can connect to and use WSUS
(Windows Server Update Services). Applying an update is not the same as
retrieving it. Do you have supportive evidence that it can retrieve
(download) an update package?

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759262%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/user-guide/msiexec.html

Yes, an installer can go check for updates. That is not MSIexec
connecting to a server to figure out where to find a file and determine
versioning. That is code the programmer added to the installer program.
It would check for updates to the software you CHOSE to install.
Nothing to do with Windows updating.

http://www.advancedinstaller.com/updater-screen-shot.html
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/user-guide/update-page.html

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
MSIexec also checks for updates when run. If I want to install something I
disable the internet then enable MSIserver , do the install then disable
afterwards. As I said I have services off if I don't need/want them.

I know about the /p switch to *apply* an update package (for example,
"msiexec.exe /p <pkg>.msi"), not to retrieve an update package (the .msi
file). I have never heard that MSIexec can connect to and use WSUS
(Windows Server Update Services). Applying an update is not the same as
retrieving it. Do you have supportive evidence that it can retrieve
(download) an update package?

I recall a message to the effect that a newer version was available; back
when 3.0 superceded 2.0.
I'm posting from the XP NG.

Post by VanguardLH
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759262%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/user-guide/msiexec.html
Yes, an installer can go check for updates. That is not MSIexec
connecting to a server to figure out where to find a file and determine
versioning. That is code the programmer added to the installer program.
It would check for updates to the software you CHOSE to install.
Nothing to do with Windows updating.
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/updater-screen-shot.html
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/user-guide/update-page.html

[VanguardLH]

Post by Kerr Mudd-John

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Kerr Mudd-John
MSIexec also checks for updates when run. If I want to install
something I disable the internet then enable MSIserver , do the
install then disable afterwards. As I said I have services off if I
don't need/want them.

I know about the /p switch to *apply* an update package (for example,
"msiexec.exe /p <pkg>.msi"), not to retrieve an update package (the
.msi file). I have never heard that MSIexec can connect to and use
WSUS (Windows Server Update Services). Applying an update is not
the same as retrieving it. Do you have supportive evidence that it
can retrieve (download) an update package?

I recall a message to the effect that a newer version was available;
back when 3.0 superceded 2.0. I'm posting from the XP NG.

I remember that, too. When you performed a Windows Update check, it
found there was a newer version of msiexec.exe and offered as an update,
just like it would offer you updates on other Windows components. You
chose to download and install it but it was still part of the WU check.

Even the WU client will check if there is a later version of itself. At
one point in the past, your choice was to update the WU client or you
could not proceed with further updating. To get the other updates meant
downloading and installing the offered WU client update. You could
still say No but then you couldn't get past the WU client notifying you
there was a later version of itself in subsequent update checks.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Micky
<***@bigfoot.com> writes:
[]

Post by Micky
(I also dl'd RAMmap, from Sysinternals, because one webpage mentioned
it. It didn't really help me but it's free and interesting.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/rammap.aspx )

[]
Yes, it does look interesting. Sadly, it says it only runs on Vista and
above - and that is indeed the case.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:15:59 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Micky
(I also dl'd RAMmap, from Sysinternals, because one webpage mentioned
it. It didn't really help me but it's free and interesting.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/rammap.aspx )

[]
Yes, it does look interesting. Sadly, it says it only runs on Vista and
above - and that is indeed the case.

Yes, that was only a sidebar to the main post. But I know the file in
the subject line is used in XP too. I don't know if it caused me
problems in XP like it did in Vista, but I was quite a bit more stoic
then and just waited for problems to go away. So it might have been
the source of major problems in XP too. Now I'm on a campaign to rid
myself of problems. First I got rid of making Previous Versions and I
will rely on my own backups; then I got rid of this;

And the last planned stage is to improve how FFox saves tabs. Right
now, if theres' a crash or even if I close Windows normally, when I
restart, the Restore Session tab will likely be hours old (older than
the time Windows closed) not including tabs created later and
including ones already deleted. Even though the interval time
between saving sessionstore is set at 5 minutes or less.

The suggestions seem to be add-ons, either Session Manager or Tab Mix
Plus. Do you know if either can make the problem worse? They both
have millions of downloads, and the first has a 4.6 star rating over
456 reviews, and the second 4+ stars over 2600 reviews.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Micky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by Micky
And the last planned stage is to improve how FFox saves tabs. Right
now, if theres' a crash or even if I close Windows normally, when I
restart, the Restore Session tab will likely be hours old (older than
the time Windows closed) not including tabs created later and
including ones already deleted. Even though the interval time
between saving sessionstore is set at 5 minutes or less.
The suggestions seem to be add-ons, either Session Manager or Tab Mix
Plus. Do you know if either can make the problem worse? They both
have millions of downloads, and the first has a 4.6 star rating over
456 reviews, and the second 4+ stars over 2600 reviews.

I have TMP, and can't say I've noticed Firefox's tab set being out as
you describe - though (a) I don't change the set of tabs I have open
_much_, and (b) I use FF 26, so the problem may not be relevant.

[Micky]

[Default] On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:49:39 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Micky
And the last planned stage is to improve how FFox saves tabs. Right
now, if theres' a crash or even if I close Windows normally, when I
restart, the Restore Session tab will likely be hours old (older than
the time Windows closed) not including tabs created later and
including ones already deleted. Even though the interval time
between saving sessionstore is set at 5 minutes or less.
The suggestions seem to be add-ons, either Session Manager or Tab Mix
Plus. Do you know if either can make the problem worse? They both
have millions of downloads, and the first has a 4.6 star rating over
456 reviews, and the second 4+ stars over 2600 reviews.

I have TMP, and can't say I've noticed Firefox's tab set being out as
you describe - though (a) I don't change the set of tabs I have open

I change mine all the time.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
_much_, and (b) I use FF 26, so the problem may not be relevant.

I think it still would be. Except you have TMP.

I thought this was a problem that needed solving eventually, but
yesterday I enlarged a HDD partition, and it required rebooting to
take effect. I used Search Everywhere to find sessionstore.* (I
think that's part of the name of where the tabs are stored.) There
was more than one but the newest one was 28 hours hold. Huh ????, it's
supposed to be no more than 5 minutes old or since the most recent tab
change, whichever is older.

And I'm tired of losing my tabs, so I decided I had to install
something right then. It seems both Session Manager and TMP do some
of the same things, but SM emphasized saving tabs and windows, and for
TMP it was 3rd or 4th, after creating duplicate tabs (with both Backs
and Forwards) and one or two other things.

So I installed Session Manager and restarted windows, and it seems to
have saved everything, and nothing extra. To the best of my memory.

Also both SM and TMP said they were compatible, and SM said the
session saving part of TMP had to be disabled if used together, and
one of them said this happened automatically if SM was there when TMP
was installed. So I can add TMP later if I want.

One thing very good about SM is that it allows me to delete items from
the Recently Closed Window list. FF puts a limit on that, and the
default is 3!!!, but it can be raised to at least 25, but 6 years ago
it only counted "real" windows as windows, but I guess that left out
some windows people wanted to restore, so now it counts *everything*,
evan an enlarged item for sale in amazon or Ebay. And that eats up
the quota of 25 pretty quickly, especially if I'm not paying
attention. And no one on the FF list answered when I asked how to
delete items.

SM made it very easy, with right-click/delete.

It also makes the max limit a lot more obvious. IIRC it's in the
Options window, but FF requires one to know about about:config and to
know there is a setting, and more or less the setting name. (They all
have sessionstore in them, so if you know that you can find it.)