submix8c

Well! Looks like MS probably got an earful from their customers, more than likely those businesses still using Server2k3. You could see they were hot under the collar for horking their WSUS Servers and Client Workstations. $ talks. Just for funsies, first chance I get I'll retest a "clean install" and see what happens. Note: haven't tried putting the v257 one back yet but I trust that all is well as reported.

Mmmm... could the DOS one be loaded at Startup via AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS? As rloew said, never tried a DOS NIC driver under Win9x, but they (others) work fine for (e.g.) DOS Symantec Ghost purposes interfacing to another Ghost PC or Ghostcast Server. Worth a shot...

Yes and yes (if there were two items). My "raw" test indicates that there needs to be no change *under current conditions* except for that dang MUWEB.DLL. However, after "Stepping up" and failing/exiting IE, performing *downlevel" replace, and going back I found I had to clear the IE cache of extraneous "junk" (it "blew up" with "Not Found" screen), going back to WU then though "Step up" (which installed nothing), then all was "well". It *really* does appear that they want to "kill" Support for not-XP SW on XP (e.g. Office). Remember that little blurb about supporting the OS but *not* anything else (can't remember OH the post and link)? Still, WTH did they "kill" 2K3 and POSReady? I'll *test* a clean (raw) XP plus the "official" package just for grins, but as I said the only (significanrt) difference I seen was the SETUP and the INF/CAT. *Surely* that doesn't have to do with anything... Again - that is all (for now)... ==EDIT== May be a moot point, other than getting the *official* package (containing *only* v256). See this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089710

Just to keep this connected to the original Topic: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172203-advice-on-a-64bit-system-upgrade/#entry1088564 Glad you got that part sorted. From SuperMicro: ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-SIMIPMI_1.13_for_SIM_IPMI/LAN/Intel/v10.4/ HTH

This may help with the "partial" explanation of what's going on: http://web.archive.org/web/20120705003313/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/949104 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-windows_update/why-doesnt-my-windows-update-agent-update-to/283f4edf-aab6-4348-907d-984a1661e2a7?page=2 "If you expand the "File Information" section of MS KB article 949104: there are two versions of the wuweb.dll file listed. one is v7.6.7600.256 and the other is v7.6.7600.257. build 257 is indicated with a "+" sign and a "*" symbol + This file may only be installed if the machine is opted to receive updates for other Microsoft products from the Windows Update website. * Not Applicable on Vista and above" The KB article has been updated to "toss" that info, hence the WebArchive. It "seems" that when you opt into MU (from Windows Update) the v256 gets updated to v257, along with an installation of "MUWEB.DLL" v257. This is what "breaks" MU, so regressing MUWEB works around it. Looking back through this thread, you'll see how v257 was "automagically" updated. As I've stated, I suspect (a conspiracy theory?) MS has held to their statement of not updating XP (maybe even 2K) non-OS-related software (e.g. Office). Worse, in the process, have totally "broken" MU. At one point, fiddling around (swapping the two), it actaully gave me a message (paraphrase), "So sorry, we don't support this OS". Heck, even the Catalog link has to use the direct URL or it says the same thing. Go figure... Addendum: I'm re-testing a Clean Install (XPsp3 "raw") as we speak. "I *heart* Microsoft"

@Nomen - you really don't want to do that anyway. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089385 Maybe Michael Horowitz should. It seems that even New Users on MSFN are smarter than the rest of the world.

@Nomen: You must have missed this part: "Kerberos.dll" is replaced on Workstations as well as Servers. You already cited the link that said "somewhat" why. In addition, you apparently disregarded the first link (Technet) I gave. Try looking at that nifty chart. If you don't want to patch a Workstation, then don't and see what happens. Otherwise, go argue with MS as to why they did (see your quotes above). We're not privy to MS' secrets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29

ROTS, you're a loonie! And waaaaaay off-topic!

Do not - repeat... DO NOT use the scripts for Building a "hyrid" v256/v257, i.e. using WUWEB.DLL v257. It causes a problem with Microsoft Update (NOT Windows Update!). Use the 2K3/XP one directly from MS. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089544 And do read the whole thread to understand what the symptoms are. The UDC scripts will also need to be changed as it currently inserts v257. Until such time as -X- changes the script to obtain the MS one (ref above link) I recommend changing the following lines in the BAT script *before* running it! Old: wget -nc http://www.update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/v5controls/en/x86/client/wuweb_site.cab?1340383010227Remove: ren "%~dp0wuweb_site.cab@1340383010227" wuweb.cabNew: wget -nc http://download.windowsupdate.com/v9/1/windowsupdate/b/selfupdate/WSUS3/x86/Other/wuweb.cabPlease note that this file is *not* the real problem (as far as is currently known) but the *real* problem *seems* to be the MUWEB.DLL (among other potential problem files). http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089455 Further testing of MU and WU will be forthcoming. Meantime, the work-around replacement file (MUWEB) is here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089383 ***EDIT!*** Also see this: http://www.msfn.org/board/statuses/user/72994-submix8c/?status_id=3393

I have yet to find out where the latest MUATH.CAB is. It *seems* that MU is looking at the Digital Signature date(?). Also, there seems to be *something* about AUTHCAB.CAB. ATM, i'm ignoreing the MU part of the "problem" since... As for the script to build v256 (with the v257 WUWEB) I'll correct/remove that as soon as I have the chance. In the meantime, it seems that Ricktendo (one of the folks that helped with the project) has been holding out, or at least forgot to inform us of this development. http://www.wincert.net/forum/topic/9907-official-windows-update-agent-767600320 As you can see, the links are directly to the MS files as also given here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2887535 You will need the Win7SP1 one that corresponds to the x86/x64 that you have. (note: this is v320) From the Wincert link, you'll see the last comment that indicates the specific EXE within this combo package. Extract the MS Download and you will find the long-awaited v256 Standalone Package "WUA-Downlevel.exe". I've compared the contents to a (corrected) Build Script and they are identical except for: - The 3 WUClient cabs are different (just becaase of compression headers) but the contents are identical - The WUSETUP.INF is nearly identical to the Built (difference is insignificant aand applies to x64) - The WUSETUP.EXE (and the MUI's in the Lang sub-folders) are as follows : :: 7.6.7600.243 (winmain_wtr_wsus3sp2(oobla).110811-1411) <-From the original v243/built :: 7.6.7600.311 (winmain_wtr_wsus3sp2(oobla).140312-1810) <-From the Downlevel package I've yet to load Raw XP-SP3 and install/test, but it *seems* to make the Build Script obsolete. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157027-windows-update-agent-which-version-do-you-have/ (Will remove the attachments at first chance.) I therefore recommend that the MS package be tested/used. ***EDIT!*** Also see this: http://www.msfn.org/board/statuses/user/72994-submix8c/?status_id=3393 (sigh... initially "clean install" using MUWEB v256 may/may-not *cure* the problem involving WU...) edit2: ONO's!!! I'm sensing a pattern here. No matter the version WUWEB, if you start in WU and "Step up to MU" you *do* get MUv257, so it almost looks as if MS is standing by its word of supporting *only* XP on XP. Of course, I haven't done a "clean" install yet.

Yes, I "kind of" said that. Here is the MS article that has a Direct UpdateCatalog Link in it (as given by dencorso). Again, the link I gave with "LinkID=" in it does *not* work. That one (apparently) directs to a script that check the OS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323166 To clarify: 1 - Windows Update is to get *only* Windows Updates for *your* OS 2 - Microsoft Update is to get *all* Microsoft Updates for *your* OS/MS-Software 3 - Microsoft Update Catalog (aka Windows Update Catalog) is to *search* for *any* OS/MS-Software x - Office Update is (now) obsolete, but *some* can still be found on the Office site for direct download. The whole problem appears when *before* the change #2 website that it *failed* because of "muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.257". Regressing to v256 (apparently) "cures" it and as well allows "undoing" MU to use just WU again (if you desire). There *is* "some sort of" a problem with the XML's dates and the Redirects found inside the "WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe" v256(built)/v257(my hybrid) build. You see, when using the *original* "v248" directly from MS, WU does *not* work, so we resorted to a "built" one. *However* auto-updates *upgraded* module(s) to "v257" which caused the problem. Do read the whole thread and all embedded links. HTH @ppgrainbow - DUDE!!! Did you *not* see that above??? You *are* aware that the files get "updated" from time-to-time, right? That's *exactly* why we got "bit" at an inopportune time.

The first one seems to have no effect on WU-MU. As indicated here. However, The Microsoft Update Catalog does *not* work. It says "Support has ended". @dencorso, do you, by change have the POSReady Reg Edit installed? (Ref. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089303 ) ARGGG! The DIRECT URL works but THIS one doesn't (does in 2K3): http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=8973 Also, please note there are TWO v249 MUCatalog offenders. The following are the ones referenced: :: v248: 7.4.7057.248 (winmain_wtr_wsus3sp2_muv4_win7(oobla).110208-1203) 142 KB (145,688 bytes) :: v249: 7.4.7057.249 (winmain_wtr_mu_win8_murc(oobla).120501-0858) 137 KB (140,376 bytes) :: v249: 7.4.7057.249 (winmain_wtr_mu_win8(oobla).130620-1021) 137 KB (140,456 bytes) <-Latest Guess I'll have to *continue* revisiting the v256/v257 WindowsUpdate BAT file. BRB (eventually) to report back after "fixed"... Forgot to mention... check your "dllcache" folder as well.

This is being highly discussed here: https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Microsoft+November+out-of-cycle+patch+MS14-068/18967 The above link was just updated with a post about 1hr ago. It's starting to look like MS has screwed up ROYALLY! There are *two* CAB files: "MUAUTH.CAB" and "AUTH.CAB". I just ran MBSA2.2 and copied "MUAUTH.CAB" to my MU-WU work folder. The contents clearly indicate LEGACYsites and CABS. I downloaded the AUTH.CAB indicated inside and... Definitely different from previous. MBSA works! I'll do some further work on what I've found on my XP VM to see if that's the only bugaboo and see if there's a "latest" workaround. Contents of the XML downloaded <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ProviderAuthorizationInfo xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/msus/2002/12/SUSProviderAuthorization"> <ServiceID>7971f918-a847-4430-9279-4a52d1efe18d</ServiceID> <CabVersion>8110</CabVersion> <IssuedDate>2013-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</IssuedDate> <ExpiryDate>2017-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</ExpiryDate> <RedirectUrl>http://ds.download.windowsupdate.com/v11/2/microsoftupdate/redir/v6-legacy-muredir.cab</RedirectUrl> <RedirectUrl>http://www.update.microsoft.com/v11/2/microsoftupdate/redir/v6-legacy-muredir.cab</RedirectUrl> <OffersWindowsPatches>true</OffersWindowsPatches> <UIPluginCLSID>3809920F-B9D4-42DA-92E0-E26265E0FB89</UIPluginCLSID> <IsManaged>false</IsManaged> <CanRegisterWithAU>true</CanRegisterWithAU> <ServiceUrl>https://www.update.microsoft.com/v6/</ServiceUrl> <SetupPrefix>mu</SetupPrefix> <LocalizedProperties> <Language>en</Language> <Name>Microsoft Update</Name> </LocalizedProperties></ProviderAuthorizationInfo>It really is starting to look like (according to the link) that the Date is the go-bang *but* may be "patch-able".

Well, you're not going to believe this! I decided to fight with it in a VM. Seems that MUWEB.DLL v257 is the culprit. - Deleted the "Windows\Downloaded Program Files\WUWEBCONTROLCLASS" - Deleted all occurrences (in the Registry) of ---- "{6E32070A-766D-4EE6-879C-DC1FA91D2FC3}" ---- including "SoftwareDistribution.MicrosoftUpdateWebControl" ---- and "SoftwareDistribution.MicrosoftUpdateWebControl.1" - Deleted (or renamed) all HDD files beginning with "MUWEB" within "Windows" folder Rebooted, started Microsoft Update (NOT WINDOWS UPDATE!) in IE, it wanted to install the ActiveX, so I let it, and it failed with the symptoms given. I then renamed the "Windows\System32" one (v2.57) and copied the v256 one in and VOILA! It worked! Bear in mind the "Windows Update" *used to* Redirect to "Microsoft Update" but now gets a "404" error. How weird is that? At least so far... ============== DANG! EDIT! Just seen the above! BTW, the version of "MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll" on mine is 7.4.7057.249! I'll try the v248 and see if the "404" error disappears. **EDIT2** Yep, swapping in the slightly older fixed the "404" as well! "Son of a...." *(edit3)* I should mention that the latest (AFAIK, and will check -later-) are in my Srv2k3 Test Bed and I have MU turned "off" - "New! Get MU now!" from (???) "Windows Update" (NOT MS-Update). ...and from me to @b3270791, also welcome to MSFN! (even though you beat me to it. )

As Ponch said... Where's your XP (pre-SP3) Source located? You must have an I386 Source folder "somewhere". I believe Ponch is saying "If you already have reinstalled, all you *really* want to do is install the Updates". That is unless you want to integrate using nLite and reinstall *again*? Easiest (maybe) if just install Updates: 1 - Install SP3 2 - Install the first 3 Updates listed in the UDC website (the 2nd one has an executable inside it - extract & run it) 3 - Go to Windows Update and do "custom" and get the list 4 - Install from the UDC folder just those listed Note that just because you got all of the Latest Updates it doesn't mean that you can install them all since you don't have *all* items Selected (Add/Remove Windows Components), e.g. you *can't* install the FTP Fix since you won't have that installed. I guess we could ask - by what means did you reinstall? Retail Full/Upgrade or OEM XP, or is it a "Recovery" CD/DVD?

"Primarily at risk"... See description of Kerberos: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780469%28v=ws.10%29.aspx Also pay attention to the Contents of the Technet link (listed in the KB): https://support.microsoft.com/kb/3011780 For the POSReady the "Kerberos.dll" Version is "5.1.2600.6667" (consider this a Workstation). Obviously the "Kdcsvc.dll" won't be installed on non-Server Systems. Note the Version#'s for those OS. I'm not so sure that this can be ported to Win2K Servers/Workstations *or* NT4 Servers/Workstations. Win2K3 versions are 5.2.xxx, for this Fix it's v5.2.3790.5467. **AHHH!** Looking at the first link, it basically says "Nope, not NT4" (also googling indicates that). Also note that Active Directory is a part of this (only applies to Servers). Here's another MS article explaining more. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742516.aspx IOW, it appears that you're really making an issue of Win2k/NT4 for no reason. *UNLESS* the POSReady can be ported to a Win2kPro (ignoring the v5.2 porting necessary for Servers). http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/#entry1089299 Just realize it *appears* to be directly related to Logon to an Active Directory Domain and the Domain Server itself.

You actually *paid* to have that done? And *yes* it was a Vista transplant. It *had* to be! Outlook Express pre-Vista=Vista Microsoft Mail ("more-or-less"). Here's an "oddball* Utoob vid that tells "how to": Here's the Vista "setup" article from MS: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/windows-mail-setting-up-an-account-from-start-to-finish A couple of related Topics: http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/150722-Copying-Windows-Mail-folder-to-Windows-8-from-Vista-DVD http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/149609-Using-WinMail-%28Vista-version%29-in-Win-8 Kind of says (implies) that Vista folders/contents were "left in-place" when developing Win7/8. Also: http://www.eightforums.com/browsers-mail/3698-how-use-winmail-windows-8-a-2.html JFYI... EDIT! And this specifically says "updates" will more than likely "break" the transplant. http://www.techspot.com/community/topics/how-to-enable-windows-mail-app-in-windows-7.137494/ More info (settling "left in place" not really true...) See Page#2 thats states Live Mail works just as well/the same when set up properly. I also *highly* recommend that *nobody* download illegal software. See the above links and note the Attachments have been removed accordingly.

(Jeez...) 1) Not your PC 2) OS is Win8.1 (appears that both x64 and x86 exist?) 3) Never mentioned SCANDISK (Win9x). CHKDSK for an NT system. 4) SCANPST.EXE is a program, not a Folder. http://www.howto-outlook.com/faq/usingscanpst.htm#locatescanpst *IF* your OS is x86 then the folder name would correspond to the above. My Office 2007 has that file. There are a number of Folders on the Office 2007 install: Office.en-us, Office64.en-us, etc. One will have (something).WW and will indicate what type it is, e.g.: Enterprise.WW, ProPlus.WW, etc. Inside the above Folder will be a CAB file similar in name to the Folder Name. Inside that is the file in question, under a different name but *still* begins with "SCANPST" in the name. There is *also* inside it a "SCANOST.EXE" (for the xxx.OST files). Why you *don't* (didn't) have that file is a complete mystery. Good luck!

OK, your "error message" is not quite accurate. Look here: http://www.msoutlook.info/question/98 Also here: http://www.genie9.com/Support/kb/KnowledgeArticle.aspx?KBID=155 Finally here: http://office.microsoft.com/en-001/outlook-help/repair-outlook-data-files-pst-and-ost-HA010075831.aspx Not sure what you did before it got corrupted, but... HTH and good luck. WARNING! I *strongly* suggest you make a backup copy of the PST file *first*!

Google this "Windows 2000 hfslip" RC14a blackwingcat@dencorso: WLU... Please note that all indications are that this file is by Oracle Contract, so... That is all...

Huh! USP3.33=Unofficial Service Pack 3 (successor to sesp21a). Technet link specifically points to "Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Service Pack 6 (KB946235)" FYI: those are designated as "Unofficial", including the one listed on MDGx. Note that it's a "repackage". The one to use from the VB6 update is the "oant4.dll" and *not* the "oant4ts.dll" (Terminal Server) one. Also note that many NT files were specifically designed (apparently) with Win9x (i.e. Win95) in mind and work on either OS. Take a look at the properties of some of them if you feel like that may not be true (specifically a Win95 OS). Hope this clarifies the confusion. edit: And I do believe this whole "version" subject ("which is newer?") has been brought up before.

Hmmmm..... You never got an answer to this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172381-outlook-2010-problem-imap/ And never resolved this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170385-items-in-outlook-2007-not-being-deleted/ Was the "PST" file always there (created from the beginning) or did it come from elsewhere? Did it *ever* work? Take a gander at this, just for fun: http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Personal_Folder_File_%28PAB,_PST,_OST%29

Yeah, I know, wiki-wiki... APM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Power_Management ACPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface Not interchangable and definitely a different interface. See Post#2: http://www.techspot.com/community/topics/acpi-vs-apm.2868/ MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff540487%28v=vs.85%29.aspx Technet: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc958145.aspx BIOS is written for Hardware Vendors. Big flub example of bad BIOS code is (especially older) Compaq's that use their own version of LBA that prevents a *data* HDD from being transferred to another PC that does it "the right way". IOW, don't depend on ACPI being correctly implemented *at the BIOS level*. (agreeing with jaclaz above...) Side note: Just for fun, take a look at the MS recommendation for Win2k3 PnP in BIOS and dual-boot: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/en-en/library/cc781092%28v=ws.10%29.aspx Weird how this stuff works (or don't), huh?

Seems that the Gateway's "name" of motherboard is Nimitz (the NMZ part is the "tell"). The last # is the Serial#. You *need* the ADI Soundmax Drivers for Windows98. Apparently, your *original* installation had them and now they're gone/overwritten. You should have tried following the given instructions in that link before reinstalling. At the least, you should have located and backed up your drivers. The good news is that the Sound Drivers on the given link (mpc) are also for Win98SE, even though it says WinXP+Win2K. ***Download it and install it.*** It's a self-extracting ZIP file executable, so run it, then run "SETUP.EXE" -or- just go select the INF file in the "SE" folder. Be aware that many motherboards used in Gateway were MPC (Business/Pro desktops). This is almost the *only* place you can find them easily. This should "cure" all (most?) of your problems. I *believe* this may be your Motherboard (ignore the CPU spec) - http://panam.gateway.com/s/MOTHERBD/INTEL/2516282/2516282tc.shtml http://panam.gateway.com/s//MOTHERBD/INTEL/2516282/2516282nv.shtml Open the case (with unplugged, natch) and check. If so, you should have everything you need. THIS one is the "Nimitz 2" (seems to be "newer" version, higher FSB) - http://panam.gateway.com/s/MOTHERBD/Intel2/2519274/2519274nv.shtml It's probably not yours. HTH slightly o/t -seems to be manufactured around 2002/2003? http://forums.techguy.org/windows-xp/945460-xp-wont-install-completely.html also used in the "300X" - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/56608-2-gateway-mfatxpnt-300x-specs ...and the 500L http://www.techspot.com/community/topics/so-you-only-have-pci-slots-and-want-to-game.51437/page-74 Google: nimitz site:panam.gateway.comor just the model name gets results. Craigslist Tower: https://atlanta.craigslist.org/nat/sys/4759201879.html More from this link - http://www.motherboards.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51895 Leads to another link (Archived) - http://web.archive.org/web/20040305084015/http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/rg/ OK, I'm done here... ...or maybe not! Here *should* be your Manual (VERY slow download) - http://web.archive.org/web/20040423062208/http://support.gateway.com/s/Manuals/Desktops/8508813/8508813.pdf(I happened to already have it, so I know.)