bphlpt

Thanks, jaclaz! the explanation is very clear - very helpful. @allen2 - I appreciate the link, but I'm afraid I don't understand the routine. The only parameter, "What", I assume is the web page you want to parse essentially passed as a single string? And if there are more than one link on the page, how do you specify which one you want? Or did I totally misread how this works? Cheers and Regards

To get the version of a particular file within a batch file is actually quite easy using an embedded VB script like so: (Note: Escaping the left-hand parenthesis "^(" is not required, but I usually do it anyway to be symmetrical. ) Hope this is useful. Cheers and Regards

Thanks for the reply jaclaz. i always learn something from reading your posts. I knew that the two versions of the line I posted were "equivalent" though not equal, being familiar with ASCII. Trying to learn more, in the line: what are all the "§1 §2" etc for? They look like parameters, but what exactly is being passed? And how do you make the "§" character and what does it mean? Then in the code: I sort of know how variable substitution works, but I didn't expect to see the "§" character - again, what does it mean? Running the code I can see that it works, but I want to know WHY it works to better understand how to use/modify it. Re modifying it... The download.cmd routine is called passing "%_DownloadPage%", "%_LinkStart%" and "%_LinkEnd%" to it. It, in turn uses wget to get the Server Response from the "%_DownloadPage%", and then get the "%_ConfirmationFile%" that is specified there. Then it creates a VB script routine embedding the "%_LinkStart%" and "%_LinkEnd%" in it and calls that VB script routine to parse the "%_ConfirmationFile%" looking for "%_LinkStart%***%_LinkEnd%" and returning all the unique links it finds on that page which match that pattern. Here's the Call to create the VB script, run the routine, and get the first link found, if any: And here's where it actually creates the VB script: So, with all the steps currently involved, it SEEMS that it would make sense to use the "friendly" version of the link parts as much as possible and only do the change as "deep" in the code as I can to minimize the hassles in trying to pass the "%" character. That would mean doing it in the created VB script, ie in "regEx.Pattern". But I've forgotten whether I can modify .Pattern directly or if I need to create a new .Pattern from modified "%_LinkStart%" and "%_LinkEnd%" elements? And do I need to Close fs and reopen it in order to reread it? I've been away from this stuff for too long. LOL I would like to end up with the following logic, all in the VB script that I'm creating and within the batch download.cmd (At least that seems to make the most sense of where to put it): This way, all manipulation of the link parts can be in "friendly" form, and I won't have to change the code again to be able to handle links in either form, since it will look for both types if necessary. And all of this will be transparent to the rest of download.com and the calling program. Can anyone help me with this code, or suggest an alternate approach to accomplish this goal? Thanks in advance again to all help anyone can provide. Cheers and Regards

I wrote a script to help me download the latest DirectX redistributable from MS, attached below - Download.cmd - and now, of course, MS changed the coding on their page so that the link is now in the form of: http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2f8%2f4%2fA%2f84A35BF1-DAFE-4AE8-82AF-AD2AE20B6B14%2fdirectx_Jun2010_redist.exe instead of what it was: http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/4/A/84A35BF1-DAFE-4AE8-82AF-AD2AE20B6B14/directx_Jun2010_redist.exe Anyone have any ideas if/how this coding can be handled in batch? Especially how to pass this - http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2f - in a variable? I guess the best/most flexible way might be to try to find the link first using the friendly "http://download" type format, and if not found to change ":" to "%3a" and "/" to "%2f" and search again, and if found convert "%3a" and "%2f" back to ":" and "/" in order to end up with a usable link for wget. But I'm embarrassed to say that I've been away from batch coding long enough that I'm drawing a blank how best to handle all the manipulations of "%" required. Could anyone please remind me or help with the rewrite? Here is the ReadMe for the file: Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions anyone can provide. Cheers and Regards Download.cmd

The comments by Yzöwl, and your own tests re version numbers of files rather than just dates, probably deserve a little more consideration. After all, depending on one's settings, sometimes just downloading or copying a file can change the date of the file - and then what? Cheers and Regards

Probably the best approach jaclaz. Cheers and Regards

Thanks for this. But, since you are trying to make this perfect, I'm afraid that the spelling error that Sp0iLedBrAt pointed out has crept back in. The correct line should be: Echo Pls enter [full file path] / filename including its extension below. its == the possessive form it's == a contraction of either it is or it has One of many references - http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/its.html Cheers and Regards

OK, I'm a little confused. If I want a TOTALLY up to date Win2K installation with ALL possible updates, official, unoficial, and HBRs, then what do I need to include? Are all of these planned to be included in the proposed SP6, or what? What would be wild would be to end up with a Onepiece type addon result, in one or more pieces, including latest versions of IE and WMP that will run on Win2K, .NET, DirectX, etc, with all official, unofficial, and HBR type updates, all able to be added using HFSLIP. Any suggestions to end up with this result in the easiest possible manner with the fewest number of pieces? Cheers and Regards

I'm very sorry for your loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Cheers and Regards

Thanks for this info. I used to use Karen's PowerTools for YEARS, but it's been awhile since I've done so. Even when I didn't use her tools, I learned things just by reading about her tools and how she did things and why. It is sad to hear about the pioneers in the industry passing. Cheers and Regards

You could check out ssWPI here http://www.lastos.org/index.php?threads/sswpi-v8-11-3-15-stable.218/. Please read around on the forum before you try to use the tool. It has a little bit higher learning curve than some of the other options, but it has more capabilities, IMHO. Cheers and Regards

That's what I get for not coming to this forum much lately or I would have seen this sooner. I'm very sorry for your loss, Kel. I've tried to spread the word over the other forums I frequent so others who know you can also do what they can, if nothing else but to wish you the very best. Cheers and Regards

Good idea. Please, be my guest and set it up. That would be most helpful. Many of them are, or at least seem to be. Cheers and Regards

A better example of what I meant is: We start out with: Then KB890340 says it changes only: Then KB893251 says it changes only: Then KB899181 says it changes only: Then KB900822 says it changes only: and it continues with 922542, 924421, 927495, 935224, 942228, 953297, 979906, and 2416447 all having later editions of those four files. So my thought was, if I could figure all the interactions out, if you have one of the later files, there is no need to apply the earlier ones because they will get overwritten anyway. strel already does this with the "standard" updates - he only applies the latest, if it supercedes an earlier file. But the request only hotfixes are VERY intermingled so it's complicated. Other opinions? Cheers and Regards

Anyone out there use the Request only hotfixes? I'm looking at the logic needed to be able to advise the user which have been superceded by what. strel didn't do this and I'm beginning to see why. Some of them are quite intermingled and overlapped so it's not at all a straight forward decision. It would be a lot easier to figure that if it's request only then the user is responsible for deciding whether to put it in there or not. If it's there it will get ingtegrated, which is essentially what strel did. Problems with that? Does anyone care? Has anyone used NDP1.1sp1-KB946922-X86.exe? The exe and msp are both named NDP1.1SP1xxxxx, but the info from M$ about KB946922 says that it applies to .NET 2.0. I'm tempted to believe M$, but I'm more likely to either ignore it if it's there, or again since it's a request only hotfix apply it even though I don't think it's right and let the user be responsible. Opinions? Any other requests for changes/additions/subtractions? NOW is a good time to let me know. Cheers and Regards

I'll just have to make sure I do just as good a job as WU since I'll be doing WU's job as I build the administrative installs. Thanks for the heads up regarding WU's sensitivity about Netfx30a_x86.msi as it stands now. I'll try to make sure that is not an issue. One way that comes to mind to check that would be to build a pack but leave out on purpose one hotfix/update and see if WU is then able to add just that one update without complaining about needing Netfx30a_x86.msi. As I get further along, I'm sure that that and other issues will be resolved. Cheers and Regards

In this case, I don't know. Since KB960043 is included inside the hotfix exe that requires its presence, I don't know what WU/MU does when it comes across another hotfix that also has KB960043, but a different version. Is it applied also? Potentially 8 times since I found 8 versions? Only versions 4, 7 and 8, or what? What happens if you use version 8 only, even though the hotfix was distributed with version 1 or 2? I have found NO documentation from M$. As I said, I can try it, but how do we verify it? If I can't find anyone who knows, I guess that's what I'll have to do, but it's frustrating. (But isn't everything M$ does?) When I get this done I'll have to rely a LOT on you guys to test this. Cheers and Regards

As I'm trying to update strel's SNMsynth script I have become very confused about KB960043 and it's use. I'm looking for AN"YONE that can shed just a little light on it for me. I have downloaded and examined ALL the .NET hotfixes I could find on thehotfixshare.net. I have found SIX different versions of NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp BEFORE M$ finally designated them NDP35SP1-KB960043-v3.msp (only used for NDP20SP2-KB972848.msp that I've found) and NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp. The widest variety of versions is used for .NET 2.0. The hotfix is always named NDP35SP1-KB960043xxx.msp regardless whether it's intended to be applied to .NET 2.0, 3.0, or 3.5. For .NET 3.0 and 3.5 strel handled it this way: 1) Create an administrative install point. 2) Don't apply hotfixes that have been superceded. 3) Sort the remaining hotfixes that apply to that framework (incorrectly, but I know a way to handle that issue). 4) Apply the GDR branch hotfixes (those that have no version of KB960043 included) in numerical order. 5) Apply NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp (if included with any hotfix) then apply the hotfixes that included it in numerical order. [if there were more than one version of NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp involved, it's not clear to me which one was used and if it matters.] 6) Apply NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp (if included with any hotfix) then apply the hotfixes that included it in numerical order. 7) Apply language packs. etc, etc NOTE: If the right hotfixes are there, then BOTH NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp AND NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp will be applied. For .NET 2.0 it's similiar but a little more complicated. The differences are in step (5) and (6). A few of the hotfixes, even if distributed with one of the later versions of NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp, are not applied until after NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp is applied, but if and only if there are other hotfixes present that use one of the earlier versions of NDP35SP1-KB960043.msp. If NDP20SP2-KB972848.msp is present, then NDP35SP1-KB960043-v3.msp is applied first, unless there are other hotfixes present which need NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp, then NDP20SP2-KB972848.msp is applied with them and NDP35SP1-KB960043-v3.msp is not used. It might even be more complicated than that, depending on the exact hotfixes present, but that's what I can wrap my head around so far. This seems extrordinarily convoluted. What's the difference between KB960043, KB960043-v3 and KB960043-v4? I can't find any discussion by M$ that even acknowledges that there ARE different versions much less explains their differences and which ones are used when and why. And it doesn't seem right to apply BOTH NDP35SP1-KB960043.ms AND NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp. Would it be OK to always just use KB960043-v4? Would it hurt to always apply NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp to .NET 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 even if it wasn't necessary? YumeYao has explained to me that "KB960043 doesn't contain any actual file inside it, it mainly changes the "UpgradeCode" of a specific product(2.0/3.0/3.5). In this way, the LDR branch can be applied upon it." If this is true, then it seems that it really only effects the administrative (or regular) install, and not the hotfix it is distributed with, so why can't I just use NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp? If I could do that, then I would think a revised build scenario could be: 1) Extract all hofixes, that have not been superceded, in correct numerical order, overwriting any xxxxx.msp with a earlier date code. 2) Resort, in correct numerical order, by framework. 3) If any version of KB960043.msp is present, use only the latest and delete the others, or even force the use of NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp. Then for each framework: A- Create an administrative install point. B- Apply NDP35SP1-KB960043-v4.msp if present, or do it all the time if that would not cause a problem. C- Apply the framework hotfixes in correct numerical order. D- Apply language packs. etc, etc The revised step (1) is almost necessary now as a general build process since M$ has started distributing hotfixes that apply to more than one framework, such as NDP30SP2-KB982168-x86.exe, if I don't want to have to handle special cases. If nothing else, I can just try it, but then how can I tell if it worked, since the effected hotfixes are generally request only and wouldn't show up on MU/WU even if they weren't installed correctly? Any thoughts, opinions, or advice? I could sure use some. I look forward to hearing from anyone about this very confusing matter. Cheers and Regards

Just to give everyone a heads up, since strel has been MIA now for quite awhile, I'm making an attempt to update this script. I've gotten a LOT of help from gora and YumeYao so far, but I'm always very happy to get all the help I can from anyone who is willing/able to help. Some Questions/Comments: 1) Anyone still using this script for Win2K? - My2GirlsDad did if I remember right. 2) I'm fixing the script so the work arounds that Mooms, SunLion, & Escorpiom came up with will not be required. 3) The IExpress method that krose came up with to handle the multiple embedded hotfix issue will also not be required. 4) I'll update the advice section to current so recently superseded hotfixes will be taken care of. 5) I'm looking at the posibility of adding the ability to add .NET 4 with this method - NO PROMISES - I know several other methods seem to have a few issues with XP and slow start up, so if I can't come up with a way that works, I won't add it. 6) I'm looking at the posibility of adding the ability to handle Win7 (for .NET 1.1 and .NET 4 ONLY) with this method - NO PROMISES 7) I'm very curious why I can't recall anyone asking strel about adding the capability for using this method for x64 - no interest at all? It should work, but I don't even have a x64 capable system, so I would need a LOT of help with testing. It would also help to be able to see someone else's x64 addon that works to see what they did and possibly use it as a model for what my result needs to look like. I might play with this, but - NO PROMISES 8) I'll TRY to add the improvements that are possible with this method that YumeYao has implemented, but again - NO PROMISES 9) I would really appreciate being able to bounce some questions/ideas off anyone who might know just a little bit about this script and it's inner workings, especially concerning the use of the many different versions of KB960043 that have come out and when to use which version. Any help out there, PLEASE??? It would really speed things up as to when I can get this script reworked. If you don't have any idea what I'm talking about, don't worry about it. I'll get it figured out eventually. I'm just the kind of guy that has to understand WHY it works, not just that it does. Some of the other members here have really been great about taking up the slack in strel's absence to help everyone with their problems. Just to mention a few, Mooms, SunLion, Escorpiom, My2GirlsDad, -X-, gora, YumeYao, Sp0iLedBrAt, Kurt_Aust, krose, and user_hidden among others I'm sure I've forgotten. This script would not have survived without the help of members like this. I'll try to keep you updated with my progress. If there are any questions, comments, suggestions as to what you would like to see added, changed, or taken out, NOW is the time to make them. Cheers and Regards

Hey fdv I read both threads, and also saw the apparent lack of interest. I guess everybody is like me, thinking "So? The dialog box pops up. And this means?" There are several people on the board that I would have thought would "get" the importance of this - maybe they haven't seen this yet. But for the rest of us, would you please expand a bit on the implication of this. Then we could better help you spread the word as to what this can do and drum up help for you. I know many are focusing all the efforts on Win7, but there are lots of us that still use the "older" OS's out there. Hoping to understand more ... Cheers and Regards

I know we ALWAYS want to download all hotfixes directly for MS when at all possible, but in this case, since it's not, it is available at The HotFix Share. I do trust xable. Cheers and Regards

Mim0, Muppet Hunter, Parseus, tommyp, etc - I ran into a discussion over at RyanVM's, beginning Here and continuing for the next 7 posts, that seem to agree that there is a problem with all of the updates to the Windows Installer 4.5 after KB967756. This includes last month's KB981669 which causes a problem with the Wndows Live Photo Gallery installation such that the installer stops with the following message: I tend to find that when 5eraph, ricktendo64, user_hidden, and RogueSpear all agree that there is a problem, there usually is. Has anyone run into this problem with a build made using HFSLIP such that we need to be aware of this and change our update lists accordingly? Just trying to keep anyone from having an unexpected problem. Cheers and Regards

Once the multi-language issues are resolved and we have a chance to play with this for awhile, if this was folded into the file checker, maybe then it could be set up for Muppet Hunter to be able to provide his list as a possible input for those that prefer a leaner XP installation, just like Mim0 for a full featured XP installation, and Parseus for Win2k, and ??? for 2003, and ??? for XP64, and ...? Just a thought. Cheers and Regards

Thanks! Hopefully this will help ionbiryu, too. Cheers and Regards

This is Great, Muppet Hunter! _-X-_ has a batch file that effectively does the same thing available on his site here - http://win-x.co.cc/updates.html, His downloads the list from his site and yours obviously does it from yours. Same thing for Windows Updates Downloader available here - http://www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com/. But the great thing about yours is that it puts the updates in their correct folders for use by HFSLIP! Fantastic! Combining this with the update checker script from mim0, and we don't have any excuse for screwing up an HFSLIP run anymore! Keep up the great work! Cheers and Regards