|
WinXP 'Windows Updates' The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU run smooth after that. It did for me. Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP (KB2898785) http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 Imperial Beach, CA |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' On 12/21/2013 09:27 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: > The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. > If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. > Yep, I often have two machines at a time on my workbench and last week *all* post sp1 win7 updates were downloaded before XP was able to find the newest half-dozen or so. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Hmm, posts HTML in a text-only newsgroup. Forgets to trim off the signature in the quoted content. Not quite got the new NNTP client configured yet? |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message news:l94ju5$n5o$1@dont-email.me... > Hmm, posts HTML in a text-only newsgroup. Forgets to trim off the > signature in the quoted content. Not quite got the new NNTP client > configured yet? Reply to messages using the format in which they were sent got inadvertently unchecked. I use the NNTP Bridge for the MS forums and as it is a "back door" to a Website, HTML is preferred there. -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 Imperial Beach, CA |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' David H. Lipman wrote: > The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. > If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. > What happens is, if an Internet Explorer update is "pending" and in your queue, wuauserv goes off in a loop for half an hour. If you can guess at what the KB is of the latest Internet Explorer security patch, you can download that patch separately. Once installed, your Internet Explorer version is up to date. The very next attempt to reach Windows Update, because it has no need to burrow into all the old Internet Explorer information, wuauserv finishes its job in ten to fifteen seconds. When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) Paul |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' From: "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> > >David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... >> >> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. > > > > Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU run smooth after > that. It did for me. > > Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP (KB2898785) > http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 Thanx, I'll give ist a shot. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' From: "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... >> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. > Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU run smooth after > that. It did for me. > > Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP (KB2898785) > http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 This worked. Thanx Bruce and Happy Holidays ! -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:l96p8p02rul@news1.newsguy.com... > From: "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> > >>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message >>> news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... >>> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >>> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a >>> loooooooooooooooong time. > > >> Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU >> run smooth after >> that. It did for me. >> >> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP >> (KB2898785) >> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 > > > This worked. Thanx Bruce and Happy Holidays ! > You're very welcome. -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 Imperial Beach, CA |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Paul wrote: > When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same > thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track > down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, > and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open > Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. > > While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it > and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until > April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to > clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. > It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". > > We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) > > Paul Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer cannot find them. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Bob F wrote: > Paul wrote: >> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >> >> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >> >> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >> >> Paul > > Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP > machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the > WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of updates, > and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it downloads? I found > plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer > cannot find them. > My bookmarks list has this one. http://download.wsusoffline.net/ Tools like that, they probe the Microsoft manifest files, and make a list of updates. Then, the actual file comes from Microsoft, for each download. So the files are not actually hosted on that site, and you're downloading them from Microsoft. If the files were stored on wsusoffline web site, the Microsoft lawyers would come after them. Later, you're supposed to be able to update your OS, against that downloaded folder. That's the part I haven't tried yet. Since I have VMs available, I'm going to have to test that soon, in preparation for April. There are tools besides that one. That's not the only one. A previous one, the tool wasn't kept up to date, and at the end of Win2K support, the tool was useless. (I was not able to make a repository for Win2K.) It's a lot of work to keep stuff like that working properly. You can't expect developers to work on that forever, for free. It's different than writing a utility, that after a while it's "finished". There's always a "curve-ball" with that WU stuff, an unexpected thing that needs to be fixed. Paul |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' On 12/22/2013 05:38 PM, Paul wrote: > Bob F wrote: >> Paul wrote: >>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>> >>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>> >>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >>> >>> Paul >> >> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep >> XP machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used >> the WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset >> of updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones >> it downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the >> downloaded library, but the installer cannot find them. >> > > My bookmarks list has this one. > > http://download.wsusoffline.net/ > > Tools like that, they probe the Microsoft manifest files, and > make a list of updates. Then, the actual file comes from > Microsoft, for each download. So the files are not actually > hosted on that site, and you're downloading them from Microsoft. > If the files were stored on wsusoffline web site, the > Microsoft lawyers would come after them. > X I've used that utility and it takes so long to calculate what is needed I can actually download all the updates and install them from the update site faster. The main question is : How long will they be available after support ends? |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Paul wrote: > Bob F wrote: >> Paul wrote: >>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>> >>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>> >>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >>> >>> Paul >> >> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to >> keep XP machines running when MS stops making updates available? >> I've used the WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty >> limited subset of updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to >> install the ones it downloads? I found plenty of updates that show >> the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer cannot find >> them. > > My bookmarks list has this one. > > http://download.wsusoffline.net/ > > Tools like that, they probe the Microsoft manifest files, and > make a list of updates. Then, the actual file comes from > Microsoft, for each download. So the files are not actually > hosted on that site, and you're downloading them from Microsoft. > If the files were stored on wsusoffline web site, the > Microsoft lawyers would come after them. > > Later, you're supposed to be able to update your OS, against > that downloaded folder. That's the part I haven't tried yet. Since > I have VMs available, I'm going to have to test that > soon, in preparation for April. That's the one I mentioned. I was trying to restore a laptop that had had Win7 installed over it's origional Vista installation and had some serious problems booting up. It still had its origional recovery partition, so I used that to restore the origional Vista installation. I then tried using an then up-to-date WSUSofline v8.6 DVD I had just created to update it with all updates from when it was manufactured. It failed badly, not successfully installing many updates it found, and not finding probably a hundred updates that to me seemed to be in the downloaded files (referenced by KB# - I could find the KB# in the list on the DVD that it claimed it couldn't find). I finally had to use Windows Update to get it up-to-date, and had to run Windows Update and reboot at least half a dozen times to do that. Researching WSUSofline, it became apparent to me that it downloads a limited number of the microsoft updates mostly related to security problems, and not many others. For instance, it did not get the update for Internet Explorer from ver.7, I believe, that was on the recovery disk. Windows Update also did not get this one until well into the multiple update cycles, but my reading suggested that the WSUSoffline tool might not get this kind of thing. ********************************** from http://forums.wsusoffline.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=172 "On both sides, i.e. for download and installation parts, WSUS Offline Update uses Microsoft's update catalog file wsusscn2.cab to dynamically determine the required patches. This catalog file contains at least all the updates classified as "critical" and "security relevant", but it does not necessarily contain all "important" and "optional" ones. Compared with other competitors, the great advantage of this solution is that no one has to maintain statical download/installation lists, so you may be up to date with your update repository immediately after a Microsoft "patch day", without having to wait for a new release of WSUS Offline Update. The disadvantage of this implementation is that computers updated by WSUS Offline Update will hardly ever completely satisfy Microsoft's Online Update afterwards, but the patch coverage does completely satisfy Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer (see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/secu ... 84923.aspx), and you also may add any optional update of your choice to both download and installation parts using statical definitions. Furthermore, as WSUS Offline Update uses "Windows Update Agent" (WUA) to determine the patches to install on client/target side, there won't be any way to support deprecated systems like Windows 95/98/ME and NT. As a conclusion one has to state that WSUS Offline Update is not a complete replacement for Online Update, but it's not meant to be! The main goal of WSUS Offline Update is to quickly and safely bring freshly installed Windows systems to a patch level which allows them to be safely connected to the Internet. From this point of view, even the Office part of WSUS Offline Update is a "goodie"." *********************************** Which leaves you short, if Microsoft will no longer offer the updates. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:l97l1t$e9t$1@dont-email.me... > Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP > machines running when MS stops making updates available? After the next 14 April, I hope Microsoft will publish the whole final updates. In any case, after or before April, there is a guy who every month publishes the whole XP updates in one package. It's sure that guy will publish it even after 14 April 2014, so we should be tranquil about updates. I don't know well that system, nor I know if it's avalaible in English language too. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> ha scritto nel messaggio news:52b83307$0$23123$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it ... > I don't know well that system, nor I know if it's avalaible in English > language too. If someone wish it, I can try to get more information. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Bob F wrote: > Paul wrote: >> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >> >> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >> >> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) I share that exact cynicism. > Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP > machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the > WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of updates, > and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it downloads? I found > plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer > cannot find them. You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named "WinUpdatesList": http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what the problem with my idea is. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Bruce Hagen wrote: > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net > <mailto:DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>> wrote in message > news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... > The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. > If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a > loooooooooooooooong time. > > -- > Dave > Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk > http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp > > Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU > run smooth after that. It did for me. > Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP > (KB2898785) > http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 > -- > Bruce Hagen > MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 > Imperial Beach, CA Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as the others have said, this fixed the problem. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "John Corliss" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:xbSdnfjJAe0FiCLPnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.ccoun trynet... > Bruce Hagen wrote: >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net >> <mailto:DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>> wrote in message >> news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... >> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a >> loooooooooooooooong time. >> >> -- >> Dave >> Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk >> http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp >> >> Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU >> run smooth after that. It did for me. >> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP >> (KB2898785) >> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 >> -- >> Bruce Hagen >> MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 >> Imperial Beach, CA > > Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as the > others have said, this fixed the problem. > You're welcome. -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 Imperial Beach, CA |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > Bob F wrote: >> Paul wrote: >>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>> >>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>> >>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) > > I share that exact cynicism. > >> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to >> keep XP machines running when MS stops making updates available? >> I've used the WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty >> limited subset of updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to >> install the ones it downloads? I found plenty of updates that show >> the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer cannot find >> them. > > You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular > machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. > Each update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an > update.exe file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, > you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would > probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in > which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named > "WinUpdatesList": > http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html > > to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then > click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". > > Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't > work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what > the problem with my idea is. Good information to have. Thanks. |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Bruce Hagen wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> Bruce Hagen wrote: >>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>> >>> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >>> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a >>> loooooooooooooooong time. >>> >>> Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU >>> run smooth after that. It did for me. >>> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP >>> (KB2898785) >>> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 >> >> Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as >> the others have said, this fixed the problem. > > You're welcome. Bruce, Paul (in this discussion) has said the following: "If you can guess at what the KB is of the latest Internet Explorer security patch, you can download that patch separately. Once installed, your Internet Explorer version is up to date. The very next attempt to reach Windows Update, because it has no need to burrow into all the old Internet Explorer information, wuauserv finishes its job in ten to fifteen seconds. When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches." I don't run Automatic Updates on my XP MCE SP3 computer, do it manually every couple of weeks or so. My question would be then, how does one guess at what the KB name of the next Internet Explorer 8 security patch so as to be able to download and install it before attempting to update one's system? Or is there a way to find that update which is easier? TIA -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > Bob F wrote: >> Paul wrote: >>> >>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>> >>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>> >>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) > > I share that exact cynicism. > >> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP >> machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the >> WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of >> updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it >> downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded >> library, but the installer cannot find them. > > You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular > machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each > update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe > file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, ....by which I meant the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. On my system, that folder is currently 874 MB (916,549,677 bytes) in size. YMMV though of course, depending on whether or not you've allowed MS to install everything they want to put on your system. I did not allow them to do that, eg. any dotnet version newer than 2.0, ANY driver updates (they always, *always* mess things up when I download driver updates from MS for some reason), Bing desktop, various search modules, etc. > you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would > probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in > which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named > "WinUpdatesList": > > http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html > > to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then > click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". You can convert the generated report to .rtf (there are various methods for doing this) and then print it out to use as a reference or simply save the webpage and put it on a thumb drive for future reference. So far, the only problem I've run into with my idea is that XP doesn't always write the installation date for an update into the registry. This is usually dotnet updates though (the updates starting with "M" instead of "KB".) Often, installing an update is dependent upon another update already having been installed. This could cause problems so it's very important to install the updates in the correct sequence. You can also get a list of the updates you've installed by going to the MS update website using IE, then click on "Review your update history". After loading that list, click on "Print All" in the upper right hand corner. If, like me, you have a print-to-pdf printer driver installed (I recommend doPDF at http://www.dopdf.com/) you can print the list to a ..pdf file. I just did this and it works nicely. The next question then, of course, would be to ask "is this list complete?" and from what I can see, it isn't. It appears that MS only lists about roughly a quarter of the updates I see in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. Not sure why they do this, it might be that they only list updates which haven't been superceded by others. > Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't > work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what > the problem with my idea is. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> Bob F wrote: >>> Paul wrote: >>>> >>>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>>> >>>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>>> >>>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >> >> I share that exact cynicism. >> >>> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to >>> keep XP >>> machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the >>> WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of >>> updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it >>> downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded >>> library, but the installer cannot find them. >> >> You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular >> machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each >> update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe >> file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, > > ...by which I meant the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. On my > system, that folder is currently 874 MB (916,549,677 bytes) in size. > YMMV though of course, depending on whether or not you've allowed MS to > install everything they want to put on your system. I did not allow them > to do that, eg. any dotnet version newer than 2.0, ANY driver updates > (they always, *always* mess things up when I download driver updates > from MS for some reason), Bing desktop, various search modules, etc. > >> you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would >> probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in >> which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named >> "WinUpdatesList": >> >> http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html >> >> to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then >> click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". > > You can convert the generated report to .rtf (there are various methods > for doing this) and then print it out to use as a reference or simply > save the webpage and put it on a thumb drive for future reference. So > far, the only problem I've run into with my idea is that XP doesn't > always write the installation date for an update into the registry. This > is usually dotnet updates though (the updates starting with "M" instead > of "KB".) Often, installing an update is dependent upon another update > already having been installed. This could cause problems so it's very > important to install the updates in the correct sequence. > > You can also get a list of the updates you've installed by going to the > MS update website using IE, then click on "Review your update history". > After loading that list, click on "Print All" in the upper right hand > corner. If, like me, you have a print-to-pdf printer driver installed (I > recommend doPDF at http://www.dopdf.com/) you can print the list to a > .pdf file. I just did this and it works nicely. > > The next question then, of course, would be to ask "is this list > complete?" and from what I can see, it isn't. It appears that MS only > lists about roughly a quarter of the updates I see in the > C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. Not sure why they do this, it might be that > they only list updates which haven't been superceded by others. > >> Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't >> work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what You can also get the order the updates were installed by looking at the "Date Created" column in the original C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. It even gives the time. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > John Corliss wrote: > >> John Corliss wrote: >> >>> Bob F wrote: >>> >>>> Paul wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>>>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>>>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>>>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>>>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>>>> >>>>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>>>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>>>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>>>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>>>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>>>> >>>>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >>> >>> >>> I share that exact cynicism. >>> >>>> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to >>>> keep XP >>>> machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the >>>> WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of >>>> updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it >>>> downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the >>>> downloaded >>>> library, but the installer cannot find them. >>> >>> >>> You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular >>> machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each >>> update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe >>> file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, >> >> >> ...by which I meant the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. On my >> system, that folder is currently 874 MB (916,549,677 bytes) in size. >> YMMV though of course, depending on whether or not you've allowed MS to >> install everything they want to put on your system. I did not allow them >> to do that, eg. any dotnet version newer than 2.0, ANY driver updates >> (they always, *always* mess things up when I download driver updates >> from MS for some reason), Bing desktop, various search modules, etc. >> >>> you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would >>> probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in >>> which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named >>> "WinUpdatesList": >>> >>> http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html >>> >>> to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then >>> click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". >> >> >> You can convert the generated report to .rtf (there are various methods >> for doing this) and then print it out to use as a reference or simply >> save the webpage and put it on a thumb drive for future reference. So >> far, the only problem I've run into with my idea is that XP doesn't >> always write the installation date for an update into the registry. This >> is usually dotnet updates though (the updates starting with "M" instead >> of "KB".) Often, installing an update is dependent upon another update >> already having been installed. This could cause problems so it's very >> important to install the updates in the correct sequence. >> >> You can also get a list of the updates you've installed by going to the >> MS update website using IE, then click on "Review your update history". >> After loading that list, click on "Print All" in the upper right hand >> corner. If, like me, you have a print-to-pdf printer driver installed (I >> recommend doPDF at http://www.dopdf.com/) you can print the list to a >> .pdf file. I just did this and it works nicely. >> >> The next question then, of course, would be to ask "is this list >> complete?" and from what I can see, it isn't. It appears that MS only >> lists about roughly a quarter of the updates I see in the >> C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. Not sure why they do this, it might be that >> they only list updates which haven't been superceded by others. >> >>> Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't >>> work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what > > > You can also get the order the updates were installed by looking at the > "Date Created" column in the original C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. It > even gives the time. > My $hf_mig$ folder only goes through 5/14/13. Where are the rest of them please? |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "John Corliss" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:TKWdnbnX8JruZSLPnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.ccoun trynet... > Bruce Hagen wrote: >> John Corliss wrote: >>> Bruce Hagen wrote: >>>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> >>>> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >>>> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a >>>> loooooooooooooooong time. >>>> >>>> Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU >>>> run smooth after that. It did for me. >>>> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP >>>> (KB2898785) >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 >>> >>> Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as >>> the others have said, this fixed the problem. >> >> You're welcome. > > Bruce, Paul (in this discussion) has said the following: > > "If you can guess at what the KB is of the latest Internet Explorer > security patch, you can download that patch separately. Once > installed, your Internet Explorer version is up to date. > > The very next attempt to reach Windows Update, because it has > no need to burrow into all the old Internet Explorer information, > wuauserv finishes its job in ten to fifteen seconds. > > When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same > thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track > down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, > and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open > Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches." > > I don't run Automatic Updates on my XP MCE SP3 computer, do it manually > every couple of weeks or so. My question would be then, how does one guess > at what the KB name of the next Internet Explorer 8 security patch so as > to be able to download and install it before attempting to update one's > system? Or is there a way to find that update which is easier? > > TIA > I have my machines set to notify, but not install. When the patches are released on January 14, they will all be labeled and finding the IE patch will be easy. Only 3 more updates after that. -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010 Imperial Beach, CA |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > Bruce Hagen wrote: >> John Corliss wrote: >>> Bruce Hagen wrote: >>>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> >>>> The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. >>>> If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a >>>> loooooooooooooooong time. >>>> >>>> Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU >>>> run smooth after that. It did for me. >>>> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP >>>> (KB2898785) >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 >>> >>> Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as >>> the others have said, this fixed the problem. >> >> You're welcome. > > Bruce, Paul (in this discussion) has said the following: > > "If you can guess at what the KB is of the latest Internet Explorer > security patch, you can download that patch separately. Once > installed, your Internet Explorer version is up to date. > > The very next attempt to reach Windows Update, because it has > no need to burrow into all the old Internet Explorer information, > wuauserv finishes its job in ten to fifteen seconds. > > When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same > thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track > down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, > and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open > Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches." > > I don't run Automatic Updates on my XP MCE SP3 computer, do it manually > every couple of weeks or so. My question would be then, how does one > guess at what the KB name of the next Internet Explorer 8 security patch > so as to be able to download and install it before attempting to update > one's system? Or is there a way to find that update which is easier? > > TIA > Well, you know it's a Catch 22. I made the suggestion, as a means to state what the "most efficient" solution would be. Can we know using ESP, what the KB number of the January release of IE Cumulative Security Update will be ? One of the MVPs, seemed to have advanced warning of incoming updates, implying the "numbers" of the updates were available, somewhere. As for me personally, I just "Google and hope for the best". I have no "guaranteed good source" of info. I'm not an insider. Some of the security institutions (SANS institute), may have notices concerning IE issues and have an MS security bulletin number. So there may be scraps of information floating around. But if you rely on Windows Update to "fetch" the information, then we have to wait the "30 minutes plus, running at 100% CPU" to get the KB number. Surely not a good way to get the KB number :-) If Google gives you the number, then great. If not, be patient, and sit on your hands for 30 minutes, until WU "coughs up the number". Argh! Paul |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Henry wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> John Corliss wrote: >>> John Corliss wrote: >>>> Bob F wrote: >>>>> Paul wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same >>>>>> thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track >>>>>> down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately, >>>>>> and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open >>>>>> Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches. >>>>>> >>>>>> While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it >>>>>> and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until >>>>>> April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to >>>>>> clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on. >>>>>> It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update". >>>>>> >>>>>> We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-) >>>> >>>> I share that exact cynicism. >>>> >>>>> Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to >>>>> keep XP >>>>> machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the >>>>> WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of >>>>> updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it >>>>> downloads? I found plenty of updates that show the KB# in the >>>>> downloaded >>>>> library, but the installer cannot find them. >>>> >>>> You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular >>>> machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each >>>> update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe >>>> file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, >>> >>> ...by which I meant the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. On my >>> system, that folder is currently 874 MB (916,549,677 bytes) in size. >>> YMMV though of course, depending on whether or not you've allowed MS to >>> install everything they want to put on your system. I did not allow them >>> to do that, eg. any dotnet version newer than 2.0, ANY driver updates >>> (they always, *always* mess things up when I download driver updates >>> from MS for some reason), Bing desktop, various search modules, etc. >>> >>>> you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would >>>> probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in >>>> which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named >>>> "WinUpdatesList": >>>> >>>> http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html >>>> >>>> to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then >>>> click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items". >>> >>> >>> You can convert the generated report to .rtf (there are various methods >>> for doing this) and then print it out to use as a reference or simply >>> save the webpage and put it on a thumb drive for future reference. So >>> far, the only problem I've run into with my idea is that XP doesn't >>> always write the installation date for an update into the registry. This >>> is usually dotnet updates though (the updates starting with "M" instead >>> of "KB".) Often, installing an update is dependent upon another update >>> already having been installed. This could cause problems so it's very >>> important to install the updates in the correct sequence. >>> >>> You can also get a list of the updates you've installed by going to the >>> MS update website using IE, then click on "Review your update history". >>> After loading that list, click on "Print All" in the upper right hand >>> corner. If, like me, you have a print-to-pdf printer driver installed (I >>> recommend doPDF at http://www.dopdf.com/) you can print the list to a >>> .pdf file. I just did this and it works nicely. >>> >>> The next question then, of course, would be to ask "is this list >>> complete?" and from what I can see, it isn't. It appears that MS only >>> lists about roughly a quarter of the updates I see in the >>> C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. Not sure why they do this, it might be that >>> they only list updates which haven't been superceded by others. >>> >>>> Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't >>>> work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what >> >> You can also get the order the updates were installed by looking at >> the "Date Created" column in the original C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ folder. >> It even gives the time. >> > My $hf_mig$ folder only goes through 5/14/13. Where are the rest of > them please? Yep, you're right. Mine is the same way, so I guess my suggestion is only a partial solution at best. IIRC, that folder contains updates which can be affected by other updates. "Its name $hf_mig$ stands for 'Hotfix Migration'. It's for tracking versioning information about hotfixes to keep from accidentally breaking or downgrading your system." Maybe the best thing to do at this point is to do a format and reinstall of the hard drive, then redo all the updates. *Groan*. Either that, or simply make an iso of your hard drive if it's running well at this point, and then back that iso up on safe media. I've been removing the KB folders from the Windows folder all along in order to save space. Maybe that wasn't such a great idea after all. My update history isn't complete at the Microsoft update website because somewhere along the line, I was switched from the Windows Update website to the Microsoft Update website. That came about maybe because I'm running XP MCE SP3. So now, I don't even have a way to find out which updates I'd need to rathole for this computer. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' > > My update history isn't complete at the Microsoft update website > because somewhere along the line, I was switched from the Windows > Update website to the Microsoft Update website. That came about maybe > because I'm running XP MCE SP3. So now, I don't even have a way to > find out which updates I'd need to rathole for this computer. Will a Belarc Advisor profile tell you which one's you have currently installed? (Even though you deleted the listings from the Windows folder). -- Ed Mc Nam Vet '66-'67 Semper Fi |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' Motor T wrote: > >> >> My update history isn't complete at the Microsoft update website >> because somewhere along the line, I was switched from the Windows >> Update website to the Microsoft Update website. That came about maybe >> because I'm running XP MCE SP3. So now, I don't even have a way to >> find out which updates I'd need to rathole for this computer. > > Will a Belarc Advisor profile tell you which one's you have > currently installed? (Even though you deleted the listings from the > Windows folder). Sorry, I don't use that particular program. I use several others though, one of which is WinAudit: http://www.pxserver.com/WinAudit.htm I just ran it and it provides what looks like a nice list of all the updates that are installed along with the dates they were installed. -- John Corliss |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > Motor T wrote: > >> >>> >>> My update history isn't complete at the Microsoft update website >>> because somewhere along the line, I was switched from the Windows >>> Update website to the Microsoft Update website. That came about maybe >>> because I'm running XP MCE SP3. So now, I don't even have a way to >>> find out which updates I'd need to rathole for this computer. >> >> >> Will a Belarc Advisor profile tell you which one's you have >> currently installed? (Even though you deleted the listings from the >> Windows folder). > > > Sorry, I don't use that particular program. I use several others though, > one of which is WinAudit: > > http://www.pxserver.com/WinAudit.htm > > I just ran it and it provides what looks like a nice list of all the > updates that are installed along with the dates they were installed. > What a neat program. Thanks. Henry |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' John Corliss wrote: > Motor T wrote: > >> >>> >>> My update history isn't complete at the Microsoft update website >>> because somewhere along the line, I was switched from the Windows >>> Update website to the Microsoft Update website. That came about maybe >>> because I'm running XP MCE SP3. So now, I don't even have a way to >>> find out which updates I'd need to rathole for this computer. >> >> >> Will a Belarc Advisor profile tell you which one's you have >> currently installed? (Even though you deleted the listings from the >> Windows folder). > > > Sorry, I don't use that particular program. I use several others though, > one of which is WinAudit: > > http://www.pxserver.com/WinAudit.htm > > I just ran it and it provides what looks like a nice list of all the > updates that are installed along with the dates they were installed. > AIDA32 and AIDA64 will also show your updates. Google them. Henry |
Re: WinXP 'Windows Updates' "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:l94erh$nfn$1@dont-email.me... "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:l94c0i02lsf@news6.newsguy.com... The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority. If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a loooooooooooooooong time. Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU run smooth after that. It did for me. Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP (KB2898785) http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404 I was given a Dell Dimension and "had" to reinstall WinXP (I have to get them to BUY new computers bh 4/8/14). I installed WinXP with SP3 but updates were NONE existent and WUAUSERV was causing SVCHOST.EXE to go to 99% and made the PC practically unusable. I downloaded the offline IE8 installer. If I chose to get updates it went nowhere and SVCHOST was at 99%. I rebooted and installed IE8 but chose NOT to get updates and I stopped WUAUSERV and IE8 installed. I rebooted and then I installed the above IE8 patch. I rebooted again and then went to "Windows Update". B I N G O ! I got 127 updates and they are smoothly downloading and installing ATM. I have to remember this process 'cause I know I'll see it again by April. After April I do NOT want to install WinXP ! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:52 AM. |
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.