Jump to content

Windows Updates

tommyp

By tommyp
in HFSLIP

 Share

Recommended Posts


Kiki Burgh

Kiki Burgh

Posted
Posted (edited)
btw, what can be done to prevent KB973687 from overwriting the newer msmxl6.dll in KB973686?

I have these two updates in HF directory and KB973687 doesn't overwrite the newer msxml6.dll - KB973686 is slipstreamed after KB973687 because of the name of the first one (msxml6-KB973686-enu-x86.exe). I have msxml6.dll 6.20.2003.0.

hi Parseus! partly the reason why i brought this up was because mine in system32 has msxml6.dll 6.20.1103.0 which comes from KB973687 so i'm thinking it could've overwritten what KB973686, specifically what SP3 has. i'm thinking though that hfslip would not allow that to happen since afaik it only takes in the newer ver (either based on time-stamp or ver #) to the new iso. i'm baffled as to why i have an older ver though. :no: in your case though, it's kinda odd since if your premise is alphabetical integration, then msxml6-KB973686-enu-x86.exe gets processed 1st compared to WindowsXP-KB973687-x86-ENU.exe. may i ask too why you have both in HF as KB97386 was shipped with sp3? perhaps, then with your setup we must still integrate KB97386 to end up with newer msmxl6.dll. i'm hoping we can all get clarity on this (perhaps an update to Mim0's table or comments from other members who have more definitive resolution). cheers! Edited by Kiki Burgh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parseus

Parseus

Posted
Posted (edited)
btw, what can be done to prevent KB973687 from overwriting the newer msmxl6.dll in KB973686?

I have these two updates in HF directory and KB973687 doesn't overwrite the newer msxml6.dll - KB973686 is slipstreamed after KB973687 because of the name of the first one (msxml6-KB973686-enu-x86.exe). I have msxml6.dll 6.20.2003.0.

hi Parseus! partly the reason why i brought this up was because mine in system32 has msxml6.dll 6.20.1103.0 which comes from KB973687 so i'm thinking it could've overwritten what KB973686, specifically what SP3 has. i'm thinking though that hfslip would not allow that to happen since afaik it only takes in the newer ver (either based on time-stamp or ver #) to the new iso. i'm baffled as to why i have an older ver though. :no: in your case though, it's kinda odd since if your premise is alphabetical integration, then msxml6-KB973686-enu-x86.exe gets processed 1st compared to WindowsXP-KB973687-x86-ENU.exe. may i ask too why you have both in HF as KB97386 was shipped with sp3? perhaps, then with your setup we must still integrate KB97386 to end up with newer msmxl6.dll. i'm hoping we can all get clarity on this (perhaps an update to Mim0's table or comments from other members who have more definitive resolution). cheers!

MSXML updates (which have msxml*- in name) are slipstreamed in HFSLIP after updates which have WindowsXP- in their names:

Slipstreaming Service Pack --> Slipstreaming WMP --> Slipstreaming Windows updates --> Slipstreaming IE updates ---> Slipstreaming Windows Update Agent 3.0 --> Slipstreaming Windows Installer 4.5 --> Slipstreaming HFCABS files --> Slipstreaming MSXML --> Slipstreaming DX 9.0c

Edited by Parseus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mim0

Mim0

Posted
Posted
- WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-ENU.exe replaced by WindowsXP-KB968389-x86-ENU.exe

- WindowsXP-KB960803-x86-ENU.exe replaced by WindowsXP-KB971737-x86-ENU.exe

On quick-view it seems to be true.

KB960225: Schannel.dll 5.1.2600.5721 (only this)

KB968389: Schannel.dll 5.1.2600.5834 (and much more)

KB960803: Winhttp.dll 5.1.2600.5727 (only this)

KB971737: Winhttp.dll 5.1.2600.5868 (only this)

Updated list&file-checker is coming asap :)

Mimo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muppet Hunter

Muppet Hunter

Posted
Posted

The MDAC update kb952287 is superseded by kb961451 which is available by contacting Microsoft, ie it's being beta-tested.

The ENU version is called WindowsXP-KB961451-v2-x86-ENU.exe and msadce.dll gets upgraded from 2.81.3002.0 to 2.81.3010.0.

A more stable update will probably get released eventually, but there are English, Greek, Czech and Russian versions of the new fix available via a certain other hotfix sharing site. Personally, I'd just stay with kb952287 for the time being.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=952287

Note The hotfix that was described in the "Resolution" section in the earlier version of this article is superseded by the hotfix that is described in 961451.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muppet Hunter

Muppet Hunter

Posted
Posted
hello! just a little clarification needed with: Update for Windows XP (KB973687) - WindowsXP-KB973687-x86-ENU.exe has MSXML6.dll

6.20.1103.0 while Update for MSXML Core Services 6.0 Service Pack 2 (KB973686) - msxml6-KB973686-enu-x86.exe has MSXML6.dll 6.20.2003.0 ... doesn't KB973687 revert what is in KB973686?

The following is just in case anyone reads this via google and wants an easy life - all these msxml fixes are confusing and can cause a bad headache :wacko:

KB973686 and KB973687 are listed together on their kb pages and imo the different version numbers of msxml6.dll are probably so that they can easily be distinguished (eg by MS support), rather than one being newer/better than the other.

The two updates fix exactly the same issue and you can safely leave out KB973686 which is intended for SP2; KB973687 is intended for SP3 and fixes msxml3 too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kiki Burgh

Kiki Burgh

Posted
Posted
- WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-ENU.exe replaced by WindowsXP-KB968389-x86-ENU.exe

- WindowsXP-KB960803-x86-ENU.exe replaced by WindowsXP-KB971737-x86-ENU.exe

On quick-view it seems to be true.

KB960225: Schannel.dll 5.1.2600.5721 (only this)

KB968389: Schannel.dll 5.1.2600.5834 (and much more)

KB960803: Winhttp.dll 5.1.2600.5727 (only this)

KB971737: Winhttp.dll 5.1.2600.5868 (only this)

Updated list&file-checker is coming asap :)

Mimo

hi Mim0! just wanted to share results in recent run (with consideration to the ones mentioned above):
[font="Courier New"]Check missing updates for Windows XP SP3:
-----------------------------------------
missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-ENU.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Chann
el))
missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960803-x86-ENU.EXE (MS09-013: HTTP Services)[/font]

thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin H

Martin H

Posted
Posted

@Mimo

First, i love your update-list, so thanks alot for that(the thing i like the best is that you have a legend(history) with what to add/remove for each new month, so that we don't have to cross-check the whole page for the dates of each new update)...

Anyway, under 'Description', then MS08-036 links instead to MS08-050.

Also, MS08-076 lists two XP-SP3 updates, but only one download link is presented for it. Does that mean that the un-presented update: KB954600 is obsolete?

Thanks again!

CU, Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mim0

Mim0

Posted
Posted (edited)
First, i love your update-list, so thanks alot for that(the thing i like the best is that you have a legend(history) with what to add/remove for each new month, so that we don't have to cross-check the whole page for the dates of each new update)...
THX :)
Anyway, under 'Description', then MS08-036 links instead to MS08-050.
Will be fixed! Thx again!
Also, MS08-076 lists two XP-SP3 updates, but only one download link is presented for it. Does that mean that the un-presented update: KB954600 is obsolete?
Yes, it's obsolete (replaced by MS09-052).

MS08-076: Strmdll.dll 4.1.0.3937

MS09-052: strmdll.dll 4.1.0.3938

Mimo

Edited by Mim0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mim0

Mim0

Posted
Posted (edited)
hey Mim0! i just perhaps misinterpreted this. hehehe! perhaps you are still digging deeper about the aforementioned updates. ;) cheers!
Normally the things are clear! But I'm thinking about how to write it in the table... Because an optional update replaces a security-update. And then the optional-update becomes a severity (like the optional MSXML-Updates KB973687 and KB973685 which are listed in table 2). I don't like it and I think I will turn it back so that optional updates stays in table 3!

But obsolete updates shall be avoided. And for that I have two things in mind:

1. A hint in the table (when not using the file-checker)

2. An extra-check in the file-checker!

That's the reason. It's not critical.. i think... plz gimme a little bit more time :D

Edited by Mim0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...