Farelf Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 After days of work, a little more searching, a "simple" solution and my work PC is whole once more. Sad story - old XP SP2 started re-booting after some hours of running, errors on HD weren't the cause (tech guy replaced drive and loaded an image of the old one but that was just the "best case" scenario, soon disproved), main suspect, the motherboard then replaced with another necessitating a reload - but I ordered "repair" instead (who needs all the bother of configurations, not to mention the problematical location of the installation disks for the numerous apps? - apps all pass audit as installed already) but then MS/Windows critical updates won't run. Tactic of downloading and installing one by one (84 -> 81 once IE7 upgrade done) exploring the "received wisdom" notion that some magic patch will unjam something and the rest will run in batch looks forlorn by #41 with the odds no longer favorable. Googling finds Normally, users who repair XP can easily download and install the latest patches, using the Automatic Updates control panel or navigating directly to Microsoft's Windows Update site. However, after using the repair option from an XP CD-ROM, Windows Update now downloads and installs the new 7.0.600.381 executable files. Some WU executables aren't registered with the operating system, preventing Windows Update from working as intended. This, in turn, prevents Microsoft's 80 latest patches from installing â€” even if the patches successfully downloaded to the PC. from the guy (Scott Dunn) at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/27/03-St...vents-XP-repair and yep, his little batch file, specified in the Sep 27 article, does the trick, the rest of the things promptly install like they're supposed to. Well, there's the matter of a "File Protection" warning asking for the original versions of files which have been replaced by unrecognized versions, to be loaded to some non-existent server location, specified as a local file. Which I (eventually) ignored for the want of better response - guessing compliance would undo the fix, besides having no idea on how to comply. Touch wood (numinous incomprehension feels similar to but is far easier to obtain than actual knowledge). Further in the article it says In my articles in the last two weeks on the silent installation of the Windows Update support files, I stated that the stealthy upgrade seemed harmless. Now that we know that version .381 prevents a repaired instance of XP from getting critical patches, "harmless" no longer describes the situation. The crippling of Windows Update illustrates why many computer professionals demand to review updates for software conflicts before widely installing upgrades.Amen to that. Why does MS do things like this? I still haven't forgiven them for not including doskey in DOS 1.1 (when the necessary services were all available, requiring only trivial code for implementation). Instead they left it until 5.0 or somesuch - despite the moaning and pleading of users about the lack of a command-line editor (some even vowed to stay with CPM because of that). Anyhow, anyone running "Repair" on an XP installation, do yourself a favor and look at the materials referenced in the article. Whole species may become extinct in the time it takes to install those critical patches one at a time to get current, not to mention for the rest of the life of the machine. Anything which defers confronting Vista has to be good (considering the MS track record) but needn't be quite so painful as they would like it to be. And some wonder why I'm a curmudgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.