celzius Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Do i have to install the hotfixes in a particular order or does it not matter, will any new files be replaced by older ones?Also what is qchain.exe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike500 Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 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, seehttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/dow...p1/hfdeploy.aspI 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 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.EDIT:Actually, better read this from microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike500 Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 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.EDIT: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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Well, who knows. Everything you read is contradictory. Look at this snipet from the article I posted above.The following code sample is a batch file that installs hotfixes and makes sure that the correct files are replaced after the computer is restarted. @echo offsetlocalset PATHTOFIXES=E:\hotfix%PATHTOFIXES%\Q123456_w2k_sp4_x86.exe /Z /M%PATHTOFIXES%\Q123321_w2k_sp4_x86.exe /Z /M%PATHTOFIXES%\Q123789_w2k_sp4_x86.exe /Z /MNotice the 'order' they are in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 From microsoft about the wrong file version geting installed when chaining hotfixes.Your computer has File.dll version 5 installed, and you install a hotfix with File.dll version 8 while File.dll is in use. This creates a Pending File Rename operation for File.dll version 8 to be installed after you restart your computer (before the file is used by any programs).You do not restart your computer, because you are chaining the install of another hotfix that contains File.dll version 12.You install the hotfix with File.dll version 12 while File.dll is not in use (the program that was previously using the file has been closed). Although the installer successfully replaces File.dll on the disk with version 12, the Pending File Rename operation for File.dll version 8 still exists. You restart your computer, and File.dll version 12 is replaced with File.dll version 8 by the Pending File Rename operation created in step 1.If you manage to follow that lot you'll notice it talks about the 'file being in use'. Well surely if you add the hotfixes during xp install using the %oem% method then they are installed before even explorer is started so there are no programs using the files -- I wouldn't have thought so anyway. But it does suggest using an updated qchain for some older hotfixes even xp ones so I'd say get that and use it anyway as it won't hurt (unless ms post an article in 6 months time saying 'there was a problem with the updated qchain which made sure only the oldest files were installed' or something).Gosh, this is a long post, sorry everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Just one more thing:Note QChain functionality is included with all Windows XP and Windows 2000 hotfixes released since May 18, 2001. However, Windows XP and Windows 2000 hotfixes released before December, 2002, do not include the update discussed this article. If you are chaining multiple Windows XP or Windows 2000 hotfixes released before December, 2002, and two or more of the hotfixes contain different versions of the same binary, make sure that you use the updated version of QChain.exe that is discussed in this article. For additional information about Qchain.exe and how to install multiple hotfixes with only one reboot, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:296861 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike500 Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 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)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 And also check which patch supercedes which older patch, so you don't have doubles Yes, this is something that bugs me. When microsoft release new patches I wish they'd say there and then on the update site or update catalog which patches -- if any -- the new one replaces. That link you posted Mike500 does this but I can't really make the article out. Is it just for one patch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike500 Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 And also check which patch supercedes which older patch, so you don't have doubles Yes, this is something that bugs me. When microsoft release new patches I wish they'd say there and then on the update site or update catalog which patches -- if any -- the new one replaces. That link you posted Mike500 does this but I can't really make the article out. Is it just for one patch? Yes, that page is only for the patch 823980.Take this link and replace the number at the end of it with any patch number:http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;823980Then you see the notes for that patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royalbox Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 @Mike500Ok thanks, I didn't know about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now