Ascii2

Typically, When an update package is run, use of select arguments notwithstanding, it is extracted and an update program (typically "update.exe") from the extracted files is run. Extracting the update packages first, then running the update program seems only better in the following circumstances: It is preferred to explicitly specify the extraction location (determination of such explicit location may still be variable) Update package does not (or cannot) invoke update program It is desirable to perform another or other operations between the extraction of an update package and the running of the update program. It is not desired to use an argument that update package supports that the the update program does not support ("/integrate" switch is an example ) Alternate method or software of or for package extraction is proffered. The use of QCHAIN.EXE often is redundant. However, considering that QCHAIN runs quickly and is a small program, it is often preferable to run QCHAIN.EXE after installing multiple updates with only a single reboot, than it is to check the versions of the individual update programs to determine whether they should contain the QCHAIN program logic. Trying to script also much more complex.Newer (within about the last 9 years) updates often should contain the QCHAIN logic; sometimes or oftentimes what should happen or exist does not always happen or exist (this is often due to error or defect). It is safer to use QCHAIN.EXE than to not.

That seems like a more likely possibility;, especially after noticing that the *.U.* files are of greater file size than the similarly named *A.* files.

I noticed that WIndows XP setup has files with similar names and descriptions, but that are different. These files are in the for *A.* and *U.*. For example, there are files that can be paired: WINNTBBA.DLL and WINNTBBU.DLL WINNT32A.DLL and WINNT32U.DLL I am thinking that the files in the form *.A.* are for use during attended installation, while the ones in the form *U.* are to be used during unattended installation. I request an explanation of the differences between the similar files of the forms *A.* and *U.*.

For Dogway, I recommend you examine my thread at:http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/122694-patch-insllation-and-slipstreaming-order/ . The thread pertains directly to order of updates and also lists some information about updates being defective by design. Also, I recommend that you run qchain.exe after running the . Although many patches should include the qchain.exe logic, many do not implement it correctly. FOr acticles regarding qchain.exe, see: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815062 and http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296861 . To downloa qchain.exe go to: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=23908

DownThemAll for Firefox doesn't change the date. DownThemAll is an extension for Mozilla Firefox. There is another extension that allows preserving the original timestamp; that extension is Preserve Download Modification Timestamp.It should be noted that it is not accurate that DownThemAll (and Preserve Download Modification Timestamp) do not change the date; rather they do change the , and change it such that it matches that of the host copy. This distinction is important because it means that the correct timestamp might not always be preserved. This typically happens due to antivirus software locking the downloaded file longer than whatever amount of time is given to timestamp the file. Windows Explorer on Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 family operating systems' Windows Explorer is able to retain when the Copy handler is used (the usual way downloading from an FTP site using Windows Explorer). Browsers do not ignore the timestamp by default. The browsers typically retain timestamp information when it is available (view cached objects to see an example). However, it seems to be the convention that the browser not append the timestamp to a file and when a file is explicitly requested or specified for download.

Normally the order should not matter unless something is messed up with the update itself. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of defective update packages with defective installation, migration, or integration logic. So due care should be taken. There are Appcompat (not sure of the spelling at the moment) updates to allow a target system to automatically workaround the problem. An example of one such update (which also supports Windows XP Service Pack 1 level) is the KB928595 update. The Microsoft Knowledge Base article numbering seem to be ordered ascending and in direct relation to the order that they are assigned. The updates typically are also assigned the Microsoft Knowledge Base article number.

Shortcut 1.11 (from Optimum X) does not often create valid shortcuts (though the defects are often repaired by Windows), and I would recommend against using the tool.The command line utility XXMKLINK works well and creates valid shortcuts correctly (I have tested and use XXMKLINK). XXMKLINK is available at: http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy38.htm MakeLink might also function (I have not tested it). MakeLink is described at:

There was a time that applying only the security updates, plus maybe some other stability normal channel available updates worked well for both the system and the user. However, my experience is that this is no longer the case today, especially for newer (multi-core processor(s)) systems and especially for data source files (like for Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 and Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4). EDIT: As things are today, with exception to few select updates and their replacements (which I may update more often), I do not typically apply a Windows update unless it has already been at least 2 to 3 years since its release (I do not restart the clock for re-releases). I have noticed that hibernation often does not work properly on newer (muti-core processor) systems. It is only after applying the hotfixes (typically those for the HAL, NT Kernels, and ndis.sys / Ndiswan.sys are sufficient).

No.The list provided by -X- only seems to list select updates; typically, the "recommended updates" (security updates and some others). It is, however, an excellent starting point if you are using the Service Pack 3 service pack level. To be fully up to date on Window XP family operating systems, it is also necessary to use the hotfixes. I have not found a good way of finding all the hotifixes to update Windows XP. I have also been recently been trying to update My instance and source of Windows XP. I have been trying to find the updates (including the hotfixes) for Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1, but I have found no good way of doing this. At the moment I am traversing individual Microsoft Knowledgebasearticles.

It seems that updates for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are available that might get around the defective updates integration problem (using the operating systems' AppPatch functionality). The update is described: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928595 The update mayh be found: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/d/e/1de7644f-079a-42b9-8d78-e236e85247de/WindowsXP-KB928595-v5-x86-custom-ENU.exe Interestingly, the actual update supports Microsoft Windows XP family at the Service Pack 1 level (after support officially retired). I have not tested the update yet.

ericore, it is not clear what you want help with, if anything at all. It might be wise to clarify what it is you want. Also, you do not indicate what utility, if any, you are using to manage the Wireless connections.

I do not like Widows Vista nor Windows 7. I do like Windows 2000 and initially (before Service Pack 2), the Windows XP family. Windows 2000 family operating systems were quite effective and usually efficient to work with initially. Unfortunately, sometime after the release of Service Pack 4, the quality of many the individual updates became poor and the performance and stability of the operating system, fully updated with security updates, was significantly reduced. Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 was quite good. The operating system was very much like Windows 2000, but with Prefetch and a tweaked interface. The resource use for many things tended to be about 2.7 times what Windows 2000 would use (this seemed intentional, considering that its target market were the regular consumer class (which were typically using Windows ME, Windows 98, and Windows 95)). Performance (from a usability standpoint) was quite like Windows 2000 with Service Pack 3 or Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4, but many things would launch faster (due to the naively included Prefetch). Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 was and is an inferior product. It was a product that broke precedence of what kind of updates were included in Service Packs. This was the the turning point (downwards) in the quality of Microsoft operating system software. Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 included negative performance changes plus new features to reduce its usability and function. For me, the crippling of the included Hardware Abstraction Layers, where the sum of the addressable device memories and RAM could no longer exceed 4 GB, is perhaps the best example of a severe and restricting functionality change. The change is so severe, that one cannot work around the issue in Windows XP with Service Pack 2.

The problem with this potential cure is that the cure might be worse than the disease/problem.I have tried upgrading to Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3 for testing purposes in the past; however, there were new problems with Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3 for which there was no or not always a good solution. For cases (where the amount of RAM plus device memory significantly exceeds 4GB), I am now using Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1, due to wanting to use Windows XP, but not wanting to be subject to Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3's crippled HAL limitations.

Computers with and while running Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 (all using or almost using same updates) are failing to find an entered Search query the first time the search occurs. When retrying the search without changing the search criteria, the search criteria file(s) is(are) found. I am thinking that perhaps one or some of the (very) many Windows updates might have defected the search. What files are responsible or are important for the functioning of Windows Search? As a side, the only search being used is Windows Search.

It is possible. DO note that 48-bit Logical Block Addressing is disabled by default in the RTM build of Windows XP Professional. So if the drive is larger than about 128 GB, you would need to update a hive file in the installation source used during text mode setup (I forgot which) to enable 48-bit LBA addressing. (Like what is necessary for Windows 2000 family at at least the Service Pack 3 level) 48-bit LBA was enabled by default in the Windows XP family (this does not include x64 Edition) at the Service Pack 1 level.

There are many inaccuracies. The most blatant is probably the references to Limited Distribution Release or LDR. Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 family operating systems do not have LDR releases and there are no LDR versions of files; there are only the GDR and QFE releases, and some other non-LDR files (these often do not have consistent version identification information as specified in the KB824994 article). Even after the release of Windows Vista, binary files are not LDR, but are often GDR or QFE releases. For WIndows NT 5 series operating systems, Limited Distribution Releases were never once (correctly) known as Quick Fix Engineering releases. It is possible that Windows Vista has or has had both Quick Fix Engineering releases and/or Limited Distribution Releases, but that is something I do not know (nor that I am interested in). I have noticed that GDR release of files contain non-securty releated bug fixes (as well many times new bugs) and that non-security functionality changes have been included in the GDR releases may times in the past.

Thanks dencorso. I have read the web pages you linked to, examined update packages, and performed some experiments, and I believe that I have determined the answers to my questions. The http://blogs.technet.com/mrsnrub/archive/2009/05/14/gdr-qfe-ldr-wth.aspx article contains much misinformation and should be ignored. KB824994 and also somewhat KB328848 contain plenty of useful information.

Do updates on GDR branch not contain functionality updates? For example, if security fix is released that updates "ntkrnlpa.exe" to version 5.1.2600.5000 on GDR branch and a hotfix is released that can update "ntkrnlpa.exe" to version 5.1.2600.4999 on the QFE branch, and the GDR security update is applied, would the system not have the functionality changes that could have been introduced by the hotfix, were it applied? I have noticed that many hotfix packages that are meant to change functionality have GDR branches, often in addition to the QFE branches. Do such hotfixes select the GDR branch by default if only the GDR branch has been used in the past? What happens, in terms of selection of GDR and QFE branches or files, when an update patch has both QFE and GDR branches with multiple files for update and is applied to a system that already has the relevant but older files installed? Also what would happen if the system files are older but on a different branch? For example, suppose the following exists: System copy of files prior to patching: File Version Branch File.one 1.2600.5000 GDR File.two 1.2600.5500 GDR File.thr 1.2600.5000 QFE File.fou 1.2600.5500 QFE Suppose that a hotfix package exists and has the following file versions: File Version Branch File.one 1.2600.5300 GDR File.two 1.2600.5300 GDR File.thr 1.2600.5300 GDR File.fou 1.2600.5300 GDR File.one 1.2600.5300 QFE File.two 1.2600.5300 QFE File.thr 1.2600.5300 QFE File.fou 1.2600.5300 QFE What should be the the resulting files and version of fixes on the system after the hotfix is applied? In practice, does what should happen regarding the file selection actually happen? There are also update packages that do not contain explicitly specified QFE branches (the older Windows 2000/XP hotfixes, for example). Are these patches assumed to be of GDR type?

Thanks blackwingcat.

I have installed to local disk, the Microsoft Windows Recovery Console on computers. I installed the version of the Microsoft Windows Recovery Console from the Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 installation media alongside an installation of Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2. However, the Microsoft Windows Recovery Console would not run on the computers with EFI and UEFI system firmware. (Tested on Apple motherboards with EFI system firmware and Asus motherboards with UEFI system firmware) Why does the Microsoft Windows Recovery Console fail to run on computers that use EFI and UEFI system firmware? Is there a way to get Microsoft Windows Recovery Console installed and functional on computers with EFI or UEFI system firmware?

I am intending to start a project that may benefit the users of these forums. The results are to be posted on these forums. I intend to produce update lists and automating update integration and patching of the Office 2000 installation sources for different Office 2000 products. have already completed my update lists for Microsoft Office 2000 Premium (this is the version that does not come updated to SR-1). However, to do this correctly, I need to examine the different Office 2000 product installation files and media (or represented media). I have examined the retail version of Office 2000 Premium (the copy I have), but require discs or disc images of the following (in order of importance): Microsoft PhotoDraw 2000 V2 Microsoft Project 2000 Microsoft Office 2000 Premium SR-1 Microsoft Office 2000 Developer (SR-1 or without SR-1) I would prefer retail or volume license media or their disc images (serials or product keys are not necessary). Although OEM media might have an installer for an OEM version of Office 2000 or an Office 2000 application, the contents of the media might not be consistent for different media for what should be the same software product. and, wherefore, I have a bias (for the purposes of this project) against it. I shall later (tomorrow or next week), start a new thread about this. In the meantime (or thereafter) I may be PMed regarding this (especially to those with discs of the listed software above).

Thank you Sceleron for providing the list of Office Update/WSUS Offline updates of what was offered prior to product End Of Life.I do note for others in this thread that it appears that you provided a list for Office 2000 Professional with Service Pack 3; Office 2000 Premium and Office 2000 Developer editions include software that are not available with Office 2000 Professional (such as Microsoft FrontPage 2000). Your list does not include updates for the Office 2000 Premium or Office 2000 Developer ed (nor is it expected that it should) The list is an excellent starting point for users of Office 2000 (especially Premium and Developer editions). Microsoft offer of updates generated by Office Update did not include all available updates. For example, the office updates that were not made available as Windows Installer Patch Files (.MSP files), were not included in the update list. Hotfix updates also would not have been included in the list. For the United States of America/Canada Office users, applying the KB947700 ( http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947700 ) update should be sufficient. There were changes in year 2010 for countries outside of United States and Canada (I forgot what they were), but they are not included with KB947700; KB947700 only has time updates through January 2008.

I have tested the MS10-105 update for Microsoft Office File Converter Pack with Office 2000 Premium installed, and have determined that the "Allow List" behavior as described in the KB2479871 article, does not apply to the MS10-105 update for Microsoft Office File Converter Pack.

The KB2479871 article seems to have been update after my initial reading of it. Now the article is easier to understand. I have tested the "Allow List" functionality. After applying MS10-105 or other newer update update regardless of whether or not they update the graphics or other filters) an "Allow List" is enforced and checked. The "Allow List" behavior is not enforced for the, nor due to the update for Microsoft Office File Converter Pack (this has been tested using Microsoft Office File Converter Pack with Office 2000 and applying updates). Unfortunately, to display all images correctly now, yet another registry modification should be configured. For 32-bit versions of Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Office 2003, Microsoft Office 2007, and Microsoft Office 2010, the following information can be used to disable the graphics filters "Allow List": (Thanks GrofLuigi for making reference to it) (Copy below contents and save as am ANSI-encoded text file ending in a black line and merge file to Windows registry) REGEDIT4 ; Applies to Office XP, Office 2003, Office 2007, and 32-bit Office 2010. ; Updates as of MS10-105 (update dated November 12, 2010), ; a graphics filter whitelist ("Allow List") is checked and enabled by default (KB2479871). ; AllowListEnabled value data of 0 disables the "Allow List"; value data of 1 enables the Allow List. ; This setting may be overridden by policy setting at the ; HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Office\Common\Security\AllowLists\GraphicsFilterImport key. ; Disable "Allow List" restriction [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Office\Common\Security\AllowLists\GraphicsFilterImport] "AllowListEnabled"=dword:00000000 ; Default ;"AllowListEnabled"=-

Thank you for the information GrofLuigi.So it seems as though I should test using different image formats. I also prefer to have everything enabled; however, it seemed that, as of MS10-105, every graphics filter except those except those explicitly specified to be enabled on an "Allow List" would be disabled. I also could not find documentation to disable the "Allow List". I wanted to test the impact of the change if the MS10-105 update were applied and to test the impact on the Microsoft Office File Converter Pack (see my other related thread at ).