Hot to control updates

I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek
as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it.
The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu
the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is
installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and
works fine.
Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last
week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional
state.
Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future?

"Mike S." <Mike S.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A08EE892-1FB8-4A6E-9EBD-8815B4DD3BB0@microsoft.com...
>I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses
>Sountek
> as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for
> it.
> The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X'
> bu
> the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is
> installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back
> and
> works fine.
> Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the
> last
> week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional
> state.
> Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future?

Hello Mike,
You can " hide " whatever updates you don't want. Click the link below to
show you how : -

http://imagegrotto.com/view-hide_update10963.JPG

Mike S. wrote:
> I have Vista Ultimate installed on a laptop. The onboard audio uses Sountek
> as the driver but Vista keeps installing Realtek AC'97 as the driver for it.
> The realtek driver puts my audio into a situation where I get the red 'X' bu
> the speaker in the taskbak, along with something about 'No audio device is
> installed'. When I reinstall the Soundtek drivers, the audio comes back and
> works fine.
> Windows update has installed the Realtek drivers about 5-6 times in the last
> week and it is time consuming to keep reverting it back to a functional
> state.
> Is there a fix to keep this from happening in the future?


Simply don't allow Microsoft Update to install anything until you tell
it to do so.

I really don't like to see people use the Automatic Updates, unless
they take precautions to ensure that no patches or drivers get installed
without the user's express permission, given only after he/she has
researched each individual patch to ensure that it applies and is
necessary. Due to the nearly infinite number of possible combinations
of hardware, device drivers, and applications on any given PC, it's
impossible to guarantee that all patches will be 100% harmless. In a
very small number of cases, patches and hotfixes can cause conflicts or
other problems. So, as with all changes to an OS, caution is advised.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, all "Critical" updates
should be installed. These address serious issues that can affect a
large number of computers. There will be only rare occasions when a
Critical update will not apply. Of special importance are those that
address security vulnerabilities. If people had installed the available
critical updates to WinXP in July of 2003, the Blaster and Welchia worms
would not have spread throughout the Internet the following month. In
the unlikely event that problems do develop, you can always use the
Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs applet or a System Restore Point to
uninstall the troublesome hotfix.

For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information
provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If
they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed,
you needn't install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's
MovieMaker, so I ignored any updates to it. Again, in the unlikely
event that problems do develop, you can always use the Control Panel's
Add/Remove Programs applet or a System Restore Point to uninstall the
troublesome hotfix.

In general, though, I've found it best *not* to download the
"Driver" updates from Windows Update, unless they're for a hardware
device originally manufactured by Microsoft. Device drivers provided by
each component's manufacturer's web site are likely to perform better
and offer more features than will the watered-down, "generic" drivers
that those manufacturers provide to Microsoft for distribution via
Windows Update.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[snipped]

> For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided
> to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they don't
> apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you needn't
> install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I
> ignored any updates to it.

I would suggest to keep even unused programs updated. Some
malware may be able to leverage software flaws in programs
you seldom or never use.

"t-4-2" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%231jJSz3sIHA.420@xxxxxx
>> [snipped]
>> > > >
>> > > For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information provided
>> > > to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If they
>> > don't
>> > > apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed, you
>> > needn't
>> > > install them. For instance, I had no use for WinXP's MovieMaker, so I
>> > > ignored any updates to it. > >
>>
>> I would suggest to keep even unused programs updated. Some
>> malware may be able to leverage software flaws in programs
>> you seldom or never use.
> Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional
> updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto updating
> option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non-
> essential" will be under the umbrella "optional".

More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended" condition.
Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because
they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular update.

....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that related
to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the mix.

t-4-2 wrote:

>
> FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote:
>> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
>> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > >
>> > >
>> > > FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote:
>> > > Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional
>> > > updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto
>> > updating
>> > > option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non-
>> > > essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". > >
>>
>> More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended"
>> condition.
>> Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because
>> they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular
>> update.
>>
>> ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that
>> related
>> to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the
>> mix.
> Hello,
> I understand what you had said. Please consider this :
> 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista.
> 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be
> labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat.
> 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if
> one did not use it much, if at all.
> So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to
> satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a
> myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that.

The downside of autoupdating is that Windows Update may very well install an
update that will render your computer unusable. Additionally, your faith
that "MS won't jam it down your throat" is naive. All of us in the tech
industry have seen otherwise in practice.

As far as I'm concerned, Bruce is 100% right and I'm with him all the way.
He did an elegant job of explaining his position, too.

All my Windows boxen - XP and Vista - are set to download updates and to let
me know when they are ready. I don't allow automatic installation on my
machines. I also set machines up this way for my clients, explaining the
situation carefully. They can always call/email me if they need help.

Bottom line: don't install anything automatically. Look before you leap.

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
Don't Panic!

"t-4-2" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:4b46036aebd15e078181fa00ac5d912e@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> FromTheRafters;709265 Wrote:
>> "t-4-2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
>> news:dea25e92fd0aa81fa845698ef6a01a39@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > >
>> > >
>> > > FromTheRafters;709193 Wrote:
>> > > Bruse Chambers must have a XP. In vista all updates ,except optional
>> > > updates, will be installed auto, unless one disables the auto
>> > updating
>> > > option ( not recommended). Any updates that are so called "non-
>> > > essential" will be under the umbrella "optional". > >
>>
>> More likely IMO is that his Vista is in the "not recommended"
>> condition.
>> Those with a clue often use the "not recommended" setting because
>> they want the choice of whether or not to install a particular
>> update.
>>
>> ....and of course my above recommendation was for updates that
>> related
>> to security - not just new features the developers are adding to the
>> mix.
> Hello,
> I understand what you had said. Please consider this :
> 1. MS will not offer you an XP update if you have Vista.
> 2. As stated before, an update which is" non-essential" will be
> labelled optional. MS won't jam it down your throat.
> 3. You said that yourself that you would recommend to update it even if
> one did not use it much, if at all.
> So, what is the down side of enabling auto updating other than to
> satisfy one's ego of being master of one's destination, which is just a
> myth. It only applies to 1 % of the population -- may be less than that.

On those occasions where an update causes problems on some systems,
you have the option of implementing a workaround rather than the faulty
update. Indeed, the recommendation is meant 'for most people' because
they aren't expected to know how to implement workarounds - and the
assumption is that updates won't be faulty.

IIRC history has proven otherwise.