jcarle

Not quite sure yet. I'll keep you guys posted.

The Pre-SP3 Update Lists will be posted soon.

Are they in UL or ULZ format?

After a very long pause in development, the long anticipated sequal to WUD is finally underway! The new version will be built using Microsoft's newest WPF technologies... so bare with me as we work out the bugs once I get around to the pre-release stage. For the impatient... here's a preview for the beginnings of the new interface...

Unfortunately, that is not possible as that is against Microsoft's EULA, reasons why AutoPatcher received Cease and Desists from Microsoft.

After installing WUD, you must download the appropriate Update List from the website.

The correct date for 2000 / 2003 ULs is indeed 05/14/2008... this has been corrected. Thank you.

I'll see if I can get a copy of all of the XP ULs pre-SP3...

Unrar the attachment above and place the UL file in the WUD program folder.

I'm proud to announce that WUD was published today in the official Microsoft Technet Blog : Deployment Guys http://blogs.technet.com/deploymentguys/ar...ws-updates.aspx Thanks for all the support from this fantastic community.

Yes, you are correct. WUD sorts ULs based on publishdate. At the moment, I haven't implemented a 2nd level sort, though I'm looking at a better way to implement navigation of the ULs to allow filtering as well as user controlled sorting.

The Windows Media Player 11 Integrator at the moment is untested with SP3, if someone can confirm, I'd love to hear it.

There's a lot of work that goes into integration, and it's a whole section that requires a lot of time, knowledge and support, one unfortunately I'm not ready to do for the moment. As suggested above, you can use nLite only for integration if need be.

I'd need more information on the Exception in order to help you.

I appreciate the feedback and thanks for the support. It's an interesting idea, and not too much work to do. I'm planning (hopefully this time around, it'll become true) soon to actually start development on revision 3 now that a lot of the dust has settled recently. Do keep in mind, there's already an option which will seperate downloads from each UL into their own Product folder. Though I still like the idea of saving settings based on the UL in use.

The new lists updated this May now include SP3 as their base.

seems to be jcarle. nice program by the way. Thanks, glad you enjoy it.

Sounds like you're either experiencing hardware or driver issues.

You windows installation may be corrupt, althought this is not a problem with WUD and may have been pre-existing before your update.

E-66 asked me the following and I thought my reply could be useful in this thread: Depends on the motherboard you have. Some have a setting dedicated to establishing the ratio between the FSB and the memory, you'll see options like 1:1 2:1 1:2 5:4 3:4, etc... however most modern motherboards, especially ASUS ones, have memory speed settings instead. First you need to determine your motherboard clock speed based on your FSB. Knowing that Intel processors have quad pumped FSBs, your true clock speed is divided by four. So if your CPU is running a 800FSB processor, your clock speed (800 / 4) is 200. DDR memory is double pumped at 1:1, so to get 1:1 with a 200 clock, you need to run your memory at 400MHz. What happens then when you overclock, your memory will follow and still be within the specification it was designed for. So say you overclock your motherboard's FSB from 200 to 333, which a lot of motherboard easily support due to new processors originating with 1333FSB, you memory if still at 1:1 will now indicate that it's running at 667MHz. If you were to push the FSB to 400MHz, your memory would now be running at 800MHz, as it was originally. However, now instead of running at 1:2, it's running at 1:1. The cpu is now running at double it's speed, the FSB and interconnects are at double speed and the memory is still running at stock speeds. (Memory is the touchiest thing to overclock).

Also have this problem.

Is lastupdate="2007-11-04" the newest available?

No offence, but this thread should have been locked with a reference to one of the thousands of threads discussing this issue. This has been discussed to death and then some.

Memory speeds are usually best at 1:1 ratios (1333FSB means 667MHz memory), the next best thing is 1:2 with the CPU (1333FSB at 1:2FSB would be 1333MHz memory). What a lot of people do, myself included is buy memory that's rated for higher then the 1:1 ratio would recommend, lock it at 1:1 and then overclock the FSB. So if your FSB is at 333Mhz (1333MHz CPU and 667MHz memory) overclocking it to 400MHz would bring your cpu to a 1600MHz FSB and your memory (using 1:1) to 800MHz. So if you were using 667MHz memory to start with, you'd be overclocking your memory as well as your CPU (and it's a hell of a lot harder to overclock memory then it is a CPU), yet if you were using 800MHz memory to start with, even with the FSB overclocked your memory would simply be running at it's stock speed and only your CPU would be overclocked.

The framework version 3.0 is built UPON version 2.0 but version 2.0 is still required for 3.0 to work. Same with 3.5 upon 3.0/2.0.