Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


Posts posted by Mike500

  1. Well, who knows. Everything you read is contradictory. Look at this snipet from the article I posted above.

    Yes, i don't know what to believe anymore.. :) Anyway, you can't go wrong with a "sorted" install, it's the safe way. And also check which patch supercedes which older patch, so you don't have doubles. It's noted on the patches' website, for instance: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;823980 -> "For Windows XP-based computers, this security patch replaces 331953 (MS03-010)."

  2. I don't think it matters what order you install them with xp. I read somewhere that qchain is not necessary in xp as it sorts the problem of older files replacing newer ones itself -- or the hotfixes do.


    Actually, better read this from microsoft.

    Yes, it explains why it *is* important to make a "sorted" install when you don't use qchain.exe:

    When you install hotfixes, if a file is locked or in use and cannot be replaced, it is placed in the Pending File Rename queue to be replaced after the computer is restarted. The problem occurs in this scenario:

    - You install hotfixes A and B without restarting the computer between installations.

    - Both packages contain file X. Package A's file X is version 3; package B's file X is version 2. The version of file X on the computer is version 1.

    - When package A is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.

    - When package B is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.

    - When the computer is restarted, because package B was installed last, its version of file X is installed (in the Pending File Rename queue, the last file is the one that is used). You end up with version 2 instead of version 3 as you expected.

  3. Yes, it's wise to do so. This ensures that, if two patches contain different versions of the same file, the newer one is installed. qchain.exe is a tool by Microsoft to chain hotfixes that prevents this, see


    I don't know if the qchain method is really necessary, if you install the hotfix in a sorted manner... it should be better, but it's not as easy as the traditional method.

    About the sorting: First Q3..., then Q8..., then KB...

  4. Thought I might tell you lot that currently I only install the hotfixes I feel I really need for a decent system performance:

    Hehe, maybe if you're not connected to the internet.. :)

    ECHO Installing Q815411: Help Algorithm Update for atypically large Heap Requests...
    This fix in the Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Windows Server 2003 heap algorithm was released to better handle a particular atypical and uncommon sequence of heap requests by a private, internally developed program that is not commercially available. This program allocated and freed large chunks from the heap tens of thousands of times. The original scope and the size of the improvement for the particular program were mistakenly overstated in a prior version of this article based on an internal test application designed to reproduce the symptom, and is not relevant for any known programs or overall system performance. Typical Windows operation and common business, home, gaming and Internet programs will not be affected by this fix. It is not recommended that you use this fix except to address the specific program.
  5. Ah so that's why it showed in WindowsUpdate even when it was properly installed via hotfix.cmd before! I had this yesterday too when i did a test of my unattended XP CD. I guess i will just add that key to my .reg file, thanks for the tip!

    No wonder the solution to the famous worm was to take WindowsUpdate offline ...

    They never took it offline. Lovsan/Blaster tried to connect to "windowsupdate.com". Microsoft took that address out of DNS, so the worm couldn't reach it anymore. Microsoft itself uses "windowsupdate.microsoft.com" which is not the same address, so they could keep it online all the time.

  6. I noticed that hotfixes for applications that can be added/removed from control panel will revert back to Windows XP SP1 version if you install/uninstall the appropriate application.
    If it wasn't for this, I'd use the other way.

    Well, the hotfixes can't be uninstalled from control panel -> software, and what other apps is this referring to?

  7. I don't think i'll go through this... first i thought "hmm maybe this is really more stable and stuff", but i tried the traditional method - hotfix.cmd - on a Celeron 300A with 96 MB RAM at 66 MHz FSB, and what can i say, it worked fine! So what is the big advantage of the new method? I mean, the end result counts...?

  8. You have a few irrelevant ones there. What you should do is this: Get a machine where you can do a test install of XP SP1 *without any fixes*. Then go to the online WindowsUpdate and make note of the patch numbers. It only shows those that you need, not old patches that were replaced by new patches.

    Also: Install them in alphabetical order. Right now you have a big mess there, it's not sorted. General rule: Install like Explorer sorts it. First Q3......, then Q8......, then KB......

  9. Just reviewed my documentation - I assume that I no longer need the following as well -

    IE6 Patch July 14, 2003  Q816868

    IE6 Patch June 21, 2003  Q818060

    IE6 Patch June 18, 2003  Q817979

    Correct. At least i didn't include them in my test install today, and Windowsupdate didn't complain.

    Also, the recent patch 823980 (the well-known "Blaster patch") supercedes Q331953.

  • Create New...