Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Windows Updates


Recommended Posts

Yeah, i recently updated my sisters new PC which had WinXP-SP3 on(i tried to convince her to change to 2k, but couldn't :)), anyway, when i followed Tommy's list and then came to KB893803v2, then i could see that it didn't installed right from the batchfile i had made and when i then tried to install it manually, then a prompt stated that the SP level on the system(i.e. SP3) wasen't supported for that update...

Note, this wasen't a slipstream, though... Just a FYI... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I just finished evaluating a Windows XP SP2 machine (not slipstreamed) which hadn't been upgraded in about a year.

Checking Windows Update showed 893803, 950760 and 951748 as being needed (plus a few others).

Instead of getting all the updates, I went ahead and upgraded the machine to SP3.

I checked Windows Update and 893803, 950760 and 951748 weren't offered.

I tried installing 951748 against SP3 too and it installed without issue. It seems to me this one should probably be included in a slipstream process regardless of what WUA and MBSA 2.1 indicate (or don't indicate as the case may be).


Edited by turdflinger
Link to post
Share on other sites
The WindowsXP-KB915865-v11-x86-ENU.exe points to Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe. The correct I think is Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe


same question here !

the description , the date and the link are all pointing to KB943729 but only the filename is wrong !

some copy/paste error ?


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it was a copy/paste error. I'll send the new version to FDV for hosting. The hotfix lists are pretty much generated by a spreadsheet. I have all the KB numbers and MS article numbers. From there, I use some concatenate functions to generate the HTML code. So it's just a copy/paste thing at this point. I feel it's 99% there. But with any software, there is always room for improvement.

Merry Christmas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked the whole process again and still the asking kb956391 update I have not made any modification of the process and I have used the latest beta of hfslip......

but if we put this. reg in hfsvcpack not ask me to update the ActiveX killbits:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{0002E510-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400

I am also a doubt ... because it is blocked windows installer 4.5 in the latest versions of hfslip? Is it a problem caused by this update? Solve WindowsXP-KB958655-x86-ENU.exe this problem?

Edited by willydejoe1234
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep this thread on topic for windows update list corrections.

It may be worthwhile to edit your hfslip.ini file to delete the NoKillBits line. Also, it maybe worthwhile for you to compare your hotfix list from what is presented on the xp hotfix page. Please start a new thread if you run into probs. :)

Edited by tommyp
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have compiled this whole process .reg and everything went perfect ... I think you should put on the page updates for XP SP3 ..... I do not know that I have HFANSWER.INI anything about killbits

so that other users know ....

any suggestions regarding my question on the Windows Installer 4.5?

thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.

I feel much painful English

Edited by willydejoe1234
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tommy :)

Thank you so much for making such a great update list, i really appreciate your efforts, mate :thumbup

I think that the XML3 update 'Windows2000-KB955069-x86-ENU.EXE', shouldn't be listed as 'Optional' under it's 'Notes' section...

(If i'm wrong then i apologise).

Very minor issue, but just thought that i would report it...

Thank's again, mate :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Martin H. It's a yes and no situation. The entire msxml "block" is optional. If you slipstream msxml, then it's critical. If you don't slipstream msxml then you don't need it. So you're right, it's optional. However, I take the ratings from MSFT's security bulletin (MSxx-yyy).

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...