Jump to content

POSReady 2009 updates ported to Windows XP SP3 ENU


glnz
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

From http://web.archive.org/web/20191108174030/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/898461/software-update-898461-installs-a-permanent-copy-of-the-package-instal

Quote

The Package Installer for Windows is used to install software updates for Microsoft Windows operating systems and for other Microsoft products. Software update 898461 installs a permanent copy of the Package Installer for Windows version 6.1.22.4 on the computer so that subsequent software updates can have a significantly smaller download size.

Quote

Currently, the files for the Package Installer for Windows are downloaded every time that you use the Windows Update site or Automatic Updates to update the computer. This redundant download can be avoided if the installer files are made resident on the computer, because subsequent updates can use the resident files. Software update 898461 installs the files for the Package Installer for Windows version 6.1.22.4 on the computer.

Note This change in behavior applies only to express installation packages that are downloaded from the Windows Update site or through Automatic Updates for Microsoft Windows XP. Downloads from the Windows Update Catalog site are not affected.

I have KB898461 installed long ago and integrated to a fresh installation, no problem observed. But from descriptions above KB898461 is not needed now since WU and AU is dead for XP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks for the info @luweitest

It's interesting that when I reboot, I'm offered 94 updates via the systray popup but if I close it, the WU shield will still sit in the systray this time with only the above update being offered. After reading about each update offered on reboot, on the next reboot I chose around 40 of them to be installed and all appeared to be going well however the only one that was going to be installed was again this same KB898461. So I cancelled it.

Like I said in my H3llo thread, I'm not sure what I did but I seem to have broken IE8 somehow. 

System properties says XPpro 2003 SP3 and winver says MS Windows Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp.080413-211 : Service Pack 3) if this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you do not enable POSready patch, I think you could safely install all patch offered, leave off those would not install, then turn off WU for ever. Use other offline patcher alternatively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if this will change WU into a DRM?

No. I have this update installed on at least 3 systems - two of which have had the HDDs replaced several times so Windows got reinstalled and updates re-applied several times - and have never seen any issues from it.

18 hours ago, DbLH3liX said:

It's interesting that when I reboot, I'm offered 94 updates via the systray popup but if I close it, the WU shield will still sit in the systray this time with only the above update being offered. After reading about each update offered on reboot, on the next reboot I chose around 40 of them to be installed and all appeared to be going well however the only one that was going to be installed was again this same KB898461. So I cancelled it.

Continuing to quote from the same KB article as luweitest found above,

Quote

The files for the Package Installer for Windows are installed in the following folder:

%windir%\System32\PreInstall\WinSE\WXP_%lcid%_v1

Note The placeholder %windir% represents the location of the Windows system directory. The placeholder %lcid% represents the language identifier for the operating system that the computer is running. For more information about language identifiers, visit the following Microsoft Web site:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms776324.aspx

The following files are installed in this folder:

Update.exe.ref

Updspapi.dll.ref

Spuninst.exe.ref

Spcustom.dll.ref

Spmsg.dll.ref

Spupdsvc.exe.ref

You can look there to see if you have any of these files.  Depending on which updates you have already installed, you may have some of them (minus the .ref suffix) also in \windows\system32 or elsewhere, probably even a newer version.

In any case updates downloaded from the Update Catalog will generally have these files (or more likely a newer version, this set is VERY old, from 2005) packed inside each update as needed, although there is the occasional poor quality update that has a missing file, these will probably have been flagged somewhere in this massive thread. (As noted above, "Downloads from the Windows Update Catalog site are not affected.") So you could just get ALL your updates from the catalog and install them manually without needing to install this one first.

I suspect Windows Update considers this to be a prerequisite for doing any further updates, this may be why you see this behavior of not doing the other updates. If you want WU to install ANYTHING for you, this one is probably needed first.

But beyond that, I'm a little surprised WU did anything at all, I thought the update server was no longer compatible with XP since they changed all the certificate signatures to SHA2 only....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @luweitest and @w2k4eva for your replies.

I'm only just catching up on this update journey so no, I haven't yet applied the POSReady patch and to be honest I'm not really sure what it does but I wanted to be as up-to-date as possible before researching it any further.

As for the folder of the package installer, I do have C:\WINDOWS\system32 (like everyone else with a 32bit XP) but I don't have that folder at all so perhaps you are right in that I need that update (to install that folder) before the others can install, which I think I'm going to go ahead an do manually if they're not installed by WU again.

I assume the list in WU via my popup is the order of importance because when I checked out the update catalogue the dates for the updates weren't in order, so therefore I should install them manually in the order they were offered. Is this the case?

Updating IE6 to IE8 seems to have been the "trigger" to re-activate WU.

Is it WMP11 that takes away the ability to play all files? Currently I have WMP9 and am happy with it. It plays most files and the ones it won't, I use VLC to play anyway. I'm not sure I really want to mess with media player since it's not broken...unless it was a "critical" update ..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 8/24/2018 at 6:05 PM, wyxchari said:

Since August 2018, Windows XP POSReady updates require SSE2 and no such requirement is notified.
The last valid updates for SSE processors were those of July 2018.

What is your processor?

Do we have a list of SSE2-only XP updates? or does this comment solve it all?

I Ran XP updates bundles on my 2001 machine with Athnlon 4, non SSE2 and I think I might have broken the system this way, as some features work... and others do not.

Worry not, a true man does backup befoer performing dangerous operations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2021 at 3:42 PM, Mcinwwl said:

Do we have a list of SSE2-only XP updates? or does this comment solve it all?

There are a few lists, depending on whether you do/don't use MS Office, .NET, WMP11, IE8 etc.

Some posts:

https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/?do=findComment&comment=1156088

https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/?do=findComment&comment=1162280  (and next post too)

https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/?do=findComment&comment=1167061

On 12/8/2021 at 3:42 PM, Mcinwwl said:

I Ran XP updates bundles on my 2001 machine with Athnlon 4, non SSE2 and I think I might have broken the system this way, as some features work... and others do not.

Perhaps you want the opposite list, of updates that are SSE2-free?

https://msfn.org/board/topic/178377-on-decommissioning-of-update-servers-for-2000-xp-and-vista-as-of-july-2019/?do=findComment&comment=1162417

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 5/23/2021 at 10:23 PM, luweitest said:

 

From http://web.archive.org/web/20191108174030/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/898461/software-update-898461-installs-a-permanent-copy-of-the-package-instal

I have KB898461 installed long ago and integrated to a fresh installation, no problem observed. But from descriptions above KB898461 is not needed now since WU and AU is dead for XP.

Well, this is a thread I didn't think I'd ever see bumped again! But I guess folks occasionally reinstall WinXP, and sometimes things go wrong with the updates.

First I want to show you what the above link looks like on Serpent 52:

image.thumb.png.5cc7311b5f43eae11c6900d7677a922c.png

Useless. What about 360Chrome? Well, I briefly see the correct page - but it quickly reverts to the same useless crap above. Even with Chrome, the Wayback Machine lets me down!

Attempting to go back to an earlier version, August & Sept. 2019 just return captured 404 pages, and May 19-28 just lock up the browser - and now I've lost the cursor here on MSFN! I never realized the Wayback Machine could screw up a Web browser so badly.

The harder I try the worse it gets! I lost all my opened tabs on the last browser restart!

Could someone please explain the magical secret to actually viewing this archived Web page?

Edited by Mathwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

Could someone please explain the magical secret to actually viewing this archived Web page?

I found one way, but it's a bit weird:

When it showed the correct page (on Chrome), I clicked Stop on the address bar, and I was able to view the web page fully without any issue. Yeah, the archived web page looked a bit incomplete, and I know it's not the best way, but that's the way I found to open web pages like this for now.

spacer.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mathwiz said:

Useless. What about 360Chrome? Well, I briefly see the correct page - but it quickly reverts to the same useless crap above. Even with Chrome, the Wayback Machine lets me down!

Attempting to go back to an earlier version, August & Sept. 2019 just return captured 404 pages, and May 19-28 just lock up the browser - and now I've lost the cursor here on MSFN! I never realized the Wayback Machine could screw up a Web browser so badly.

The harder I try the worse it gets! I lost all my opened tabs on the last browser restart!

Could someone please explain the magical secret to actually viewing this archived Web page?

I've been seeing this Wayback problem for at least 4 years now. It seems to affect many (most/all?) MS KB pages that were crawled from 2016 onward.

1 hour ago, mina7601 said:

When it showed the correct page (on Chrome), I clicked Stop on the address bar, and I was able to view the web page fully without any issue.

I never had much luck with this method, since for me the page load takes several seconds after clicking Stop to take effect. So I must stop it before the page is shown and it was very hard to get the timing right on something I can't see yet and am not sure exactly how long it will take on any given attempt.

What I did notice is that over the years MS has changed the format of URLs for their KB pages, and usually the older version of the URLs was from a time before this wayback problem. So fortunately for this particular update there is actually an older crawl with the different format of URL that works, even from SeaMonkey 2.49.2 on XP:

http://web.archive.org/web/20150602151315/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/898461

(notice the /en-us/kb/ part, these are usually the better formatted crawls)

Sadly for other updates there isn't always an older crawl that will work, and sometimes I am stuck with having to view page source and poke through the HTML tags to find the unformatted content (which is generally still present although not rendered correctly/at all).

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes; that's even better. That link works without having to time hitting "Stop," and even the links within the page are active! M$ probably added some JavaScript and/or CSS to the "new" KB articles that (intentionally?) blocks them on the Wayback Machine, and the latter never adapted.

As it happens, I already had the files that this update supposedly installs, and from what I read, it looks like if I hadn't had them, I would've had problems installing updates long ago. So I'm good. But for some reason the update doesn't show up in my update history, so I wasn't sure until I could read the KB page and see what files were involved.

Only thing I'm still curious about is how @luweitest was able to view the (new) KB page well enough both to quote it and include a link, apparently unaware that the link wouldn't work for the rest of us! Maybe using NoScript?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

What about 360Chrome? Well, I briefly see the correct page - but it quickly reverts to the same useless crap above.
Even with Chrome, the Wayback Machine lets me down!
(redacted for brevity)
Could someone please explain the magical secret to actually viewing this archived Web page?

2 hours ago, mina7601 said:

I clicked Stop on the address bar, and I was able to view the web page fully without any issue.

... The breakage is due to JS scripts that are not palatable to the web engines that can be used on Windows XP/Vista... :angry:
If, like me, you have uBlock Origin installed in your browser, just blanket-forbid all javascript on "web.archive.org" via the pop-up: 

uAJgUm8.jpg

and then reload the culprit WA page: 

G5A1kVc.jpg

Of course, WA will nag that JS is disabled, but you'll be able to load the bulk of that M$ KB content, in an easy and reproducible manner... :P

I feel very lazy now :rolleyes:, especially after a "full" dinner (in my timezone), but the masochist among you can determine which one (or more) of the 26 scripts uBO blocks is responsible for the breakage under "legacy" browsers... FWIW, my screengrab is from 360EEv11 (Chromium 69 based...). 

Best regards y'all :)

Edited by VistaLover
  • Like 1
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

  • Recently Browsing   1 member



×
×
  • Create New...