[Tarun]

Scan for viruses and malware. Then go to Start > Run > cmd
Enter this:
sfc /purgecache
When complete, enter:
sfc /scannow
This may ask for your Windows install cd.

[bilemke]

MagicAndre1981, on Oct 16 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

I solve this issue.

The update Hotfix KB916089 Version 5 ( http://support.micro...kb/916089/en-us ) (Msi.dll 3.1.4000.2805) solve the issue. I don't have 100% cpuusage and I still have a GUI when installing programs through a msi-file. The GUI wasn't shown while installing, so that programs which have 2 or more cds fails to install, when I installed other patches who had a never msi.dll than MSI 3.1V2.

I'm so happy

Yeah, ran in to that last week trying to install Street and Trips 2006.. Took me a few minutes to track down the the probelm and then the hotfix that updated msi.dll.. Going to try this new one out so I can have the fix and still run MSI installers correctly..

Tarun, not spyware in this case.. Seen it on 2 machines that are completely clean.. (1 doesnt even get connected to the net actively).. Before 916089 v5 there was another hotfix (I dont remember the number now, the one I removed earlier) that also updated msi.dll but didnt cut it for this bug..

Update: Found it..

Actually there were a couple updates that replaced msi.dll

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/906219

Never installed that one.. (Oldest update I can find that is newer then the MSI 3.1 base install)

And

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914810

Which happens to deal with a problem with Automatic Updates too.. It is the one that caused my installer for Streets and Trips to fail..

Msi.dll version 3.1.4000.2648

It didnt do anything to resolve the slow or dead stop updating I ran in to occasionally. It would still take forever to scan..

This post has been edited by bilemke: 17 October 2006 - 01:17 AM

[MagicAndre1981]

bilemke, on Oct 17 2006, 07:52 AM, said:

Tarun, not spyware in this case.. Seen it on 2 machines that are completely clean.. (1 doesnt even get connected to the net actively)..

yes, thats right. Tarun you are wrong, this is a strange Bug in the Microsoft Installer, but now, every thing is ok

[Tarun]

Ooh, harsh!

I just cover the most common possibilities, including that of which I just recently had to resolve at the shop. Those just turned out to be virus/malware related. Glad yours isn't though.

[bilemke]

You are both wrong.. Wrong wrong wrong!!!!




Just a very annoying problem to encounter..

(And, end smiley face mod)

[Chrysalis]

ok an update to this going back to windows update speeds it up a lot but seems doesnt completely fix it. On a pwoerful pc its not as bad but on a amd 900mhz its still a looooong wait waiting for windows update to load and for updates to install.

This is a very stupid bug to leave unpatched and I cant believe ms have not had reports about it.

If googling this many people are blaming it on viruses and spyware.

This post has been edited by Chrysalis: 20 October 2006 - 08:36 PM

[MagicAndre1981]

Chrysalis, on Oct 21 2006, 04:35 AM, said:

This is a very stupid bug to leave unpatched and I cant believe ms have not had reports about it.

the patch is avaiblibe at support

Chrysalis, on Oct 21 2006, 04:35 AM, said:

If googling this many people are blaming it on viruses and spyware.

thats right. most people think it is a virus or spyware

[Chrysalis]

is there a reason no patch on windows update?

[cluberti]

Because newer versions of the msi.dll that contains the MSI function invariably break certain installers, and programs fail to install. Although this happens with almost all incremental msi updates, most people only install a new version of the msi engine when a new major version is released (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, etc), and these versions are better tested and supported by both Microsoft and third-party vendors that write .msi packages - meaning less impact on users and more stability in the engine. I think the ultimate factor in why this has not been released en-masse is that the problem, while an annoyance, is not necessarily a critical update to an actual broken, non-functioning component (things still work with the current non-patched version, for the most part, unless you leave your box up for weeks without rebooting after multiple patch installations). Therefore, the harm is quite possibly worse than the good the update brings, and vendors really only write .msi packages to the major versions.

Ultimately, the bug isn't a major issue, it's an annoyance, and the possibilities to break things by releasing a fix for something that's not technically broken means the change will not be rolled out publicly - it'll simply be rolled into the next major msi engine release (4.0, with Vista).

This post has been edited by cluberti: 23 October 2006 - 09:37 PM

[Chrysalis]

disagree, if I left winupdates to auto then on every bootup their is a 7 minute worth of 100% cpu usage on svchost.exe on my older pc as auto updates checks for updates.

if it finds any it then takes 5-10 minutes to install them.

if this was a production pc it would be very disturbing and more then a minor annoyance.

[cluberti]

But is it broken (technically, not perception)? No. And possibly breaking currently working and shipping 3rd party and Microsoft application installers is not an acceptable solution. It's a no-win situation, but the private is available by contacting Microsoft - it's not like there's no patch, it's just not built and tested currently to the same level as a public hotfix, but if you want it, you can certainly call or email support and ask.

This post has been edited by cluberti: 24 October 2006 - 11:04 PM

[TravisO]

Francesco, on Aug 17 2006, 05:13 AM, said:

If you clear the MSI files you can't uninstall anything without the installer. **** somebody should report this to MS to have this mess fixed.

It's by design, they're will aware of it. I've even read a detailed explanation on a MSDN blog in the past (sorry no link). I guess MS just found a way to make use of those 500GB HDs! One of the most obvious reasons is that, without the entire install file, it wouldn't be possible to "Change Installation".

Don't get me wrong, I hate the wasted space and while there would be simple shortcut, imho MS screwed that up.

Obviously you could burn the entire folder to a DVDr, but it won't do you any good because Windoze renames the install file, and if the install file isn't found, Windows does ask for a diff location, but sadly, it uses the original install file name, not the new name, so there's no way to know which file it is!!!!! I've been peeking around and I can't find where MS hides this table of old vs new names.

[Chrysalis]

I have had to disable the auto update checker because everytime it checked for updates I had a massive slowdown for 3-4 mins whilst it checked for updates, svchost.exe. It caused a video clip I was watching to go about 5fps on a amd64 3500+.

If I delete all the msi files will it stop the problem and what downside is there just the inability to modify installations?

MagicAndre1981, on Oct 16 2006, 09:42 PM, said:

I solve this issue.

The update Hotfix KB916089 Version 5 ( http://support.micro...kb/916089/en-us ) (Msi.dll 3.1.4000.2805) solve the issue. I don't have 100% cpuusage and I still have a GUI when installing programs through a msi-file. The GUI wasn't shown while installing, so that programs which have 2 or more cds fails to install, when I installed other patches who had a never msi.dll than MSI 3.1V2.

I'm so happy

man I missed this post, you a star thanks.

Hmm what the... for some reason they havent made the patch public no link to download.

This post has been edited by Chrysalis: 29 October 2006 - 01:23 AM

[Chrysalis]

got 916089 installed unfortenatly no improvement, I gave windows update a test run and svchost still hogged cpu for some minutes, but now it was also slowing down the animation bar the entire pc struggling very bad.

This post has been edited by Chrysalis: 30 October 2006 - 12:09 AM

[Chrysalis]

Microsoft Baseline Security app has same problem, its worse now tho, both the app and MS update site take over 20 minutes to scan for updates.

Office update website however is FAST no cpu hog, so for office update there is a different algorithm in place that works.

[cluberti]

That's actually an old hotfix, replaced by 927891.