• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Mim0

The File-Checker (HFSLIPFC) for HFSLIP

1,617 posts in this topic

Suggestion to make your list a bit more intutitive to use, especially for new users...

now...

HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

suggestion, add links below (or use whatever links you think is best)...

HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

Hi Lilla,

thx for this idea. I've thought about it and I come to the conclusion to leave it as it is, because I want to recommend the latest beta. If I add links on th top of the page, a user will probably use the final instead of the latest beta (betas often have the touch of 'unstable').

But I've modified the line with the download-links for HFSLIP in table 6. Until now the final was more in the foreground than the current beta (which is to prefer). I changed it now in that way, that the latest beta stands more in the foreground. What do you think?

Hi is there any kind of intention on adding the updates that are shown in thehotifxshare(google for it), all of them are downloads originaly from microsoft, you most probably know it already, i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process.

Tomorrow, i will a list of the updates a have used, and a list of the ones that could be directly slipstreamed, i'm at work right now, and no net until friday at home. :(

Thanks for this great job :)

Interesting! Yes, I would like to see your list. :thumbup: I've just quick looked at this side. Many hotfixes!!! :huh:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process."

Needed??? Hotfixes are fixes for non-widespread, non-critical issues, which is developed fast and hasen't gone through as much regression-testing as the normal updates...

Also, since HFSLIP allready is using the QFE branch of the updates, then the files in the updates allready include the fixes from the hotfixes(only for the included files in the updates that is...)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion to make your list a bit more intutitive to use, especially for new users...

now...

HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

suggestion, add links below (or use whatever links you think is best)...

HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

Hi Lilla,

thx for this idea. I've thought about it and I come to the conclusion to leave it as it is, because I want to recommend the latest beta. If I add links on th top of the page, a user will probably use the final instead of the latest beta (betas often have the touch of 'unstable').

But I've modified the line with the download-links for HFSLIP in table 6. Until now the final was more in the foreground than the current beta (which is to prefer). I changed it now in that way, that the latest beta stands more in the foreground. What do you think?

I like it! I like that you give a recommendation as this will help people!

Lilla

Edited by Lilla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, sorry for contaminating this thread with an off-topic post. :)

As far as I am concerned the beta is pretty stable. I still await others to chime in (on the right thread) to say it works for them too. If I don't hear anything, then I'll assume it works and release it. I'll give it until the end of the week and then I can call it a day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process."

Needed??? Hotfixes are fixes for non-widespread, non-critical issues, which is developed fast and hasen't gone through as much regression-testing as the normal updates...

Also, since HFSLIP allready is using the QFE branch of the updates, then the files in the updates allready include the fixes from the hotfixes(only for the included files in the updates that is...)

Sorry, i may have used a worng word for that, i'm brazilian, my english isn't that good, lol.

A good word would be as optional updates, and also, you that obviously knows more about updates Tommyp could take a better look on them.

In HF folder:

WindowsXP-KB944898-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB945060-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB945436-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB946554-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB946666-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB946775-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB948046-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB948101-v3-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB948277-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB948720-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB949033-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB949127-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB949764-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB949900-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB950162-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB950312-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB950565-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB950616-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB950982-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951312-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951347-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951624-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951709-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951822-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB951937-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB952079-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB952117-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB953028-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB817688-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB889320-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB932521-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB940648-x86-PTB.EXE

WindowsXP-KB943326-x86-PTB.EXE

In HFSVCPACK_SW1 folder:

WindowsXP-KB974266.exe

All of this ones were taken from thehotfixshare, i know that may be not all of them are available in every language and so far will sometimes be hard to acquire them, but they still are hotfixes that could or not be added to the list.

They are optional, and still have to check if they are not replaced already.

What i can say for sure is that i have tried using them with nlite to see if any problems related to older updates beeing used and so far it showed me only five(or something like that) updates that were replaced that i already removed from my list.

Also i think you could remove this:

missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))

as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

Thanks

TheRuan

Edited by theruan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also i think you could remove this:

missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))

as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

What ist the new one?

As far as I know KB960225 can be replaced by KB968389. If KB968389 is existing in HF the file-checker will not report KB960225 as missing.

THX for the list.

Mimo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also i think you could remove this:

missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))

as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

What ist the new one?

As far as I know KB960225 can be replaced by KB968389. If KB968389 is existing in HF the file-checker will not report KB960225 as missing.

THX for the list.

Mimo

Exactly, but the file checker doesn't need to search for the older one, just the new one.

In my opinion it should just say that KB968389 is missing or not found. And if the older one is present say it's replaced by KB968389. Just that, as there is no need to someone download something if it's already old.

I'm sayind this because in the speed this project is going on, in two or three months the checks will be to many, lol.

Also i was thinking about to help with other updates, like legit check, optional updates like ever needed addons flash for firefox and others, i'm just thinking yet where i could put the files.

But of course if there interest on that.

About the list if you want i could try to verify the ENU one 'cause they might have many more than in my language, i will probably do that next week or the other.

Do someone know what's the command line to extract files from the hotfixes that have .sfx inside seen with normal winrar or 7z ? It would make my life easier to verify the files on hotfixshare.

Edited by theruan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, but the file checker doesn't need to search for the older one, just the new one.

In my opinion it should just say that KB968389 is missing or not found.

After some discussions with others I tried to suit everybody with INI-options what shall be listed. If you set ADVISORIES=1 (or empty because 1 is default) then KB968389 will be listed as missing if it not present in HF.

And if the older one is present say it's replaced by KB968389.

Independend from INI-settings:

- KB960225 will be reported as obsolete when both (KB960225 and KB968389) are present.

- KB960225 will not reported as missing if KB968389 is present

Edited by Mim0
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theruan - You need to open a command window and use the filename with a /X switch to unpack each hotfix. I have a VERY STRONG feeling that the hotfixes you list are either not needed or not supported. Tell us, when you load windows using mimo's list and hfslip, do all of those hotfixes you list come up to be installed? If not, then you don't need them. Another thing you should check is whether or not the hotfix list you proposed has any superceded any other hotfixes.

mimo - don't pull your hair out incorporating theruan's hotfix list. Let theruan post his results. This same non-essential hotfix situation came up a number of times several years back. The end story was always the same. The OP would eventaully say that the files weren't needed after all.

Edited by tommyp
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the hotfixes dosen't show up on WU/MU, as they are hotfixes and not updates and comes from xable' site: www.thehotfixshare.net (hotfixes only!).

As a sidepoint, i've never understood why HFSLIP insists(like nLite) on using the QFE branch of the updates...

Here's what msft states in each hotfix kb article:

However, this hotfix is intended to correct only the problem that is described in this article. Apply this hotfix only to systems that are experiencing this specific problem. This hotfix might receive additional testing. Therefore, if you are not severely affected by this problem, we recommend that you wait for the next software update that contains this hotfix.

Also in msft's own hotfix explenation:

Hotfixes are distributed by Microsoft Product Support Services to address a specific customer situation. Hotfixes are produced quickly to provide immediate assistance to specific Microsoft customers. Therefore, hotfixes may not be tested as thoroughly as security updates, critical updates, updates, update rollups, drivers, and feature packs. Microsoft maintains different development environments to isolate security updates, critical updates, updates, update rollups, drivers, and feature packs from hotfixes and the ongoing development work that is being performed by Microsoft for subsequent service packs. This process minimizes the risk for customers by allowing them to install only fixes that address widespread critical issues, such as security vulnerabilities, and that do not include hotfix files.

HFSLIP then incorporates those hotfix fixes for each slipped file in the sourcess folder:

Files in the <cardinal point>QFE folders are cumulative and contain both the GDR-class fix and all previous hotfixes that affect the included binaries.

Anyway, just my 2 cents... And sorry for off-topic'nes..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New High-Priority Update (at least for EU-contries):

2010-03-05

- Added: KB976002 (Browser-choice for EU-countries)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the KB976002 doesn't fix anything , it's just a f***ing popup that force you to choose a browser

if you don't choose Internet Explorer it doesn't uninstall it , there is no way to uninstall IE (it's integrated to deep in the system)

if you choose another browser , it's just downloading the installer as a regular executable installer

as a french user (european) i would recommand to don't slipstream this

i recommand to uncheck it in windows update and chose something called "never remind me about this update"

this update have been made "high priority" only for legal decision (to leave the choice to the final user)

but it dont really leave the choice since it don't uninstall Internet Explorer

ps : is my english correct ? not really sure !

Edited by tfoutfou
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps : is my english correct ? not really sure !

I'm with you. For me, it's not the only one I don't integrate! But I want to keep the list complete and I don't want to rate an update. ;)

For users who don't wanna see this by the file-checker, put this in the INI (an empty IGNORE-sections should already exists in the INI):

+IGNORE
H|KB976002
-

Edited by Mim0
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i understand your point -> having a big nice list that include ALL the update

I'm with you. For me, it's not the only one I don't integrate! But I want to keep the list complete and I don't want to rate an update. ;)

what are the update you don't integrate ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the update you don't integrate ?

I integrate all except for WU/MU and these files (part of my ini):

-------------------------------------------------

! Expected updates to be ignored

! To make it more consistent the format is

! identical to the other sections, but only

! the file (column 2) is used. In column 3 you

! should add your own remarks (but do not use

! pipe-characters and backspaces).

! For col. 2 You can also use regular-expressions

! (see help for FINDSTR). When using regular-

! expressions consider that the backslash is the

! escape-character. It has to be replaced by a

! dot. When possible use just the KB-number

! (including 'KB').

-------------------------------------------------

+IGNORE

O|HF\windows-kb890830-v3.4.exe|Malicious Software Removal Tool v3.4

O|HF\KB961742-v3.exe|Enable RemoteApp to XP SP3 VMs on a Windows 7 host

O|HFSVCPACK\WindowsXP-KB967715-x86.reg|Disable Autorun for all drive-types

O|HFGUIRUNONCE\UPHClean-Setup.msi|User Profile Hive Cleanup Service 1.6d

O|HFGUIRUNONCE\messenger.msi|Windows Messenger 5.1| | \ | |Ensure that Windows Messenger 5.1 is the current version 5.1.0.715

O|HF\WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB979099-Client-x86-!ln979099!.exe|Rights Management Services Client with SP2

H|HFSVCPACK_SW1\windowsxp-kb976002-v5-x86-enu.exe|Browser-choice for EU-countries

-

Only the KB-No in col 2 (from my prev. example) is not working (but it should work. why isn't it working? )

Edited by Mim0
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIMo, MRT v3.5 released today!

Yes. Patch-day is a normal update-day. Later a sec-bulletin for XP will also be available. :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2010-03-09

- Added: Malicious Software Removal Tool 3.5

- Added: MS10-016: Movie Maker (KB975561)

- Added: Protocol negotiation for RPC over HTTP Authentication (KB974841)

- Removed: Malicious Software Removal Tool 3.4

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process."

Needed??? Hotfixes are fixes for non-widespread, non-critical issues, which is developed fast and hasen't gone through as much regression-testing as the normal updates...

Also, since HFSLIP allready is using the QFE branch of the updates, then the files in the updates allready include the fixes from the hotfixes(only for the included files in the updates that is...)

Sorry, i may have used a worng word for that, i'm brazilian, my english isn't that good, lol.

A good word would be as optional updates, and also, you that obviously knows more about updates Tommyp could take a better look on them.

In HF folder:

...

...

...

All of this ones were taken from thehotfixshare, i know that may be not all of them are available in every language and so far will sometimes be hard to acquire them, but they still are hotfixes that could or not be added to the list.

They are optional, and still have to check if they are not replaced already.

What i can say for sure is that i have tried using them with nlite to see if any problems related to older updates beeing used and so far it showed me only five(or something like that) updates that were replaced that i already removed from my list.

Also i think you could remove this:

missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))

as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

Thanks

TheRuan

Ok guys, new list checked and re-checked everything twice.

The versions are organized in this way: KB - files - original version - update version.

I have removed "5.1.2600." from the updates that have only 4 digits in versions.

WindowsXP-KB944898-x86-PTB.EXE

cscdll.dll 5512 5586

mrxsmb.sys 5911 5586

WindowsXP-KB945436-x86-PTB.EXE

usbccgp.sys 5512 5585

WindowsXP-KB946554-x86-PTB.EXE

cimwin32.dll 5512 5591

WindowsXP-KB946775-x86-PTB.EXE

ndiswan.sys 5512 5584

WindowsXP-KB948046-v2-x86-PTB.EXE >>>>>>>> NOT NEEDED

(ONLY COULD CHECK THIS THIS FILES ON THE UPDATE OTHERS DON'T HAVE VERSION INFO)

pcl4res.dll 0.3.5479.0 0.3.5479.0

pcl5eres.dll 0.3.5479.0 0.3.5479.0

pcl5ures.dll 0.3.5479.0 0.3.5479.0

pclxl.dll 0.3.5479.0 0.3.5479.0

unidrv.dll 0.3.6002.22136 0.3.6001.22116

unidrvui.dll 0.3.6002.22136 0.3.6001.22116

unires.dll 0.3.6002.22136 0.3.6001.22116

WindowsXP-KB948101-v3-x86-PTB.EXE

usbohci.sys 5512 5550

WindowsXP-KB948277-x86-PTB.EXE

licdll.dll 5512 5587

msgina.dll 5512 5587

winlogon.exe 5512 5587

WindowsXP-KB948720-x86-PTB.EXE

setupapi.dll 5512 5603

WindowsXP-KB949033-x86-PTB.EXE

usbehci.sys 5512 5587

WindowsXP-KB949127-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

wzcsvc.dll 5512 5585

WindowsXP-KB949764-x86-PTB.EXE

usbport.sys 5512 5551

WindowsXP-KB949900-x86-PTB.EXE

shimeng.dll 5512 5555

WindowsXP-KB950162-x86-PTB.exe >>>> Not Needed

WindowsXP-KB950312-x86-PTB.EXE

winsrv.dll 5512 5585

>>>> WindowsXP-KB950565-x86-PTB.EXE >>>> Not Needed

WindowsXP-KB950616-x86-PTB.EXE

portcls.sys 5512 5566

WindowsXP-KB950982-x86-PTB.EXE

odbc32.dll 3.525.1132.0 3.525.3000.0

odbccp32.dll 3.525.1132.0 3.525.3000.0

WindowsXP-KB951312-x86-PTB.EXE >>>>>>> NOT SURE

Weird this found two files here:

NTDLL.DLL in i386 folder 5755 5594

NTDLL.DLL in i386\system32 5512 5594

WindowsXP-KB951347-x86-PTB.EXE

fxscomex.dll 5.2.2600.5512 5588

WindowsXP-KB951624-x86-PTB.EXE

hnetcfg.dll 5512 5589

ipnathlp.dll 5584 5589

WindowsXP-KB951709-x86-PTB.EXE

disk.sys 5512 5597

WindowsXP-KB951822-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

alpsres.dll 0.3.1281.0 0.3.1282.0

WindowsXP-KB951937-v2-x86-PTB.EXE >>>>> NOT NEEDED

msadce.dll 2.81.3010.0 2.81.3001.0

WindowsXP-KB952079-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

ntfs.sys 5512 5585

WindowsXP-KB952117-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

ndis.sys 5512 5588

ndiswan.sys 5512 5588

WindowsXP-KB953028-x86-PTB.EXE

d3d9.dll 5.3.2600.5512 5.3.2600.5601

WindowsXP-KB817688-x86-PTB.EXE

ntbackup.exe 5512 5808

WindowsXP-KB889320-v2-x86-PTB.EXE

browser.dll 5512 5574

WindowsXP-KB932521-x86-PTB.EXE >>>>>> NoT NEEDED

rastls.dll 5886 5586

WindowsXP-KB940648-x86-PTB.EXE

mup.sys 5512 5589 <<<<<< NEEDED <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

wkssvc.dll 5826 5589 <<<<<<< NOT NEEDED

WindowsXP-KB943326-x86-PTB.EXE <<<< NOT NEEDED

win32k.sys 5863 5612

WindowsXP-KB974266.exe(RUNONCE UPDATE TYPE)

gpprefcl.dll 5.2.3790.4568 5.2.3790.4569

This ones i could'nt get their version

>>polbase.mof

>>polpro.mof

>>polproc.mof

>>polprocl.mfl

>>polprocl.mof

>>polprou.mof

>>spupdsvc.exe

I agree this aren't exactly essential updates, i do use them because i like to be on the end point of updates, what could be done is to add another category like HOTFIXES, or if you don't think they are usefull to trash list, shaushaushau.

There are some updates that aren't needed, i removed in the beginning until i have realized that someone else could use to see the not needed aswell.

Sorry to take so long but i wasn't home until yesterday.

Thanks

Edited by theruan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THX for this nice work.

I agree this aren't exactly essential updates, i do use them because i like to be on the end point of updates

That's what I have also in mind smile.gif

what could be done is to add another category like HOTFIXES

There is already a HOTFIXES-ini-setting:
2010-02-10

- Fixed: There was a typo at KB977377 (! instead of |)

- Added: Some obsolete updates

- Added: INI-setting HOTFIXES to disable/enable list missing hotfixes

- Added: KB961451, Hotfix: MDAC (identity-attribute in combination with ADO)

- Added: KB974905, Hotfix: MBR file or a live stream with more than 32 streams

Regarding new INI-settings, the easiest way is to let hfslipfc create a new ini and see whats new. smile.gif

Hotfixes are disabled by default. And so it's no risk to include these additional hotfixes in the file-checker.

Now I'm thinking about my update-list. Probably it's a little bit confusing to have so much hotfixes inside. Do I make two lists? (one with hotfixes, another w/o hotfixes). Hmm...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm thinking about my update-list. Probably it's a little bit confusing to have so much hotfixes inside. Do I make two lists? (one with hotfixes, another w/o hotfixes). Hmm...

I like the idea of everything in one list, and having the list and the File-checker in sync, ie covering the same things. Maybe a separate Table for "optional" Hotfixes that don't belong in your other tables? Just my two cents.

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe a separate Table for "optional" Hotfixes that don't belong in your other tables?
Hmm... No bad idea! Then I have still one list but don't blow up the already existing tables. I keep in in my mind. THX!!!

2010-03-10
- Added: Replacement-info for KB970238 (optional KB974841 can replace
KB970238/MS09-026)

Mimo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I integrate all except for WU/MU and these files (part of my ini):

-------------------------------------------------

! Expected updates to be ignored

! To make it more consistent the format is

! identical to the other sections, but only

! the file (column 2) is used. In column 3 you

! should add your own remarks (but do not use

! pipe-characters and backspaces).

! For col. 2 You can also use regular-expressions

! (see help for FINDSTR). When using regular-

! expressions consider that the backslash is the

! escape-character. It has to be replaced by a

! dot. When possible use just the KB-number

! (including 'KB').

-------------------------------------------------

+IGNORE

O|HF\windows-kb890830-v3.4.exe|Malicious Software Removal Tool v3.4

O|HF\KB961742-v3.exe|Enable RemoteApp to XP SP3 VMs on a Windows 7 host

O|HFSVCPACK\WindowsXP-KB967715-x86.reg|Disable Autorun for all drive-types

O|HFGUIRUNONCE\UPHClean-Setup.msi|User Profile Hive Cleanup Service 1.6d

O|HFGUIRUNONCE\messenger.msi|Windows Messenger 5.1| | \ | |Ensure that Windows Messenger 5.1 is the current version 5.1.0.715

O|HF\WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB979099-Client-x86-!ln979099!.exe|Rights Management Services Client with SP2

H|HFSVCPACK_SW1\windowsxp-kb976002-v5-x86-enu.exe|Browser-choice for EU-countries

-

Mimo, regarding...

2009-10 Enable RemoteApp to XP SP3 VMs on a Windows 7 host Optional KB961742 KB961742-v3.exe HF

Hummm... Seeing the above in your +Ignore list caused me to go back and read the related article again. Given my limited understanding of VM, I do not fully understand the article. However, after reading it more closely I now realize that I should not have included it in my build (as I was doing until reading your post), instead I should have added it in my +Ignore list (something I did only after reading your post).

Perhaps a hint could be added to help others avoid making the mistake I made.

SUGGESTION, add a hint such as the one below (or other words of your choosing):

Include only if you are installing Win XP SP3 on a Virtual Machine running on a computer running Windows Vista. Read article for details.

PROBLEM. Unfortunately, I used a HFSLIP build where I had included it when I did a fresh install of Windows XP Pro on my sister's computer after her power supply went bad. While her machine seems to work OK so far, I would like to undo the file changes made by this update ASAP. The article includes a list of files included in the update. Can I simply replace these files with ones from a computer installed without this update? Or, do I need to unregister the old and re-register the new dlls? Did the update delete any files that I need to add back? Is there anything else I need to consider in reversing this update?

Thanks for any advice on this,

Lilla

Edited by Lilla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lilla,

regarding uninstalling KB961742-v3 manually I cannot say anything. Sorry.

Making a hint for this update is no prob.

But can you tell me whats the problem when using this update? Are there any disadvantages when running XP on your sister's computer?

Mimo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lilla,

regarding uninstalling KB961742-v3 manually I cannot say anything. Sorry.

Making a hint for this update is no prob.

But can you tell me whats the problem when using this update? Are there any disadvantages when running XP on your sister's computer?

Mimo

Mimo, thanks for reply. So far I'm not aware of any problems with her computer. But I'm concerned because as they say "I don't know what I don't know". She is a average sort of user and most likely would not recognize subtle problems.

Opinions on this would be most welcome: Is it OK to run a regular computer (not a VM) with this update slipstreamed?

Edited by Lilla
0

Share this post


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.