WinXP 'Windows Updates'

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:56:44 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

I don't know who this guy is nor any details about what he does or
where to get what he publishes. However downloading and installing
what some anonymous individual does in this regard is playing with
fire. It may be safe but it also may not. There's no way to be sure
that he isn't malicious and what he publishes isn't laced with
malware.

I strongly recommend against it.

Your doubts and your prudence are unquestionably right.
However the guy is well known in a trusted forum. I am inclined to trust
him.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:14:51 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:56:44 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

I don't know who this guy is nor any details about what he does or
where to get what he publishes. However downloading and installing
what some anonymous individual does in this regard is playing with
fire. It may be safe but it also may not. There's no way to be sure
that he isn't malicious and what he publishes isn't laced with
malware.

I strongly recommend against it.

Your doubts and your prudence are unquestionably right.
However the guy is well known in a trusted forum. I am inclined to trust
him.


OK, then what you say takes away *some* of the risk.

But not all of it. Note that not everyone in this newsgroup knows you
and can trust you when you say something like that.

Please understand that I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I
don't know you and I have no reason to suspect you of doing anything
malicious. My point is just that, when it comes to the possibility of
malware, trusting a stranger (whether the stranger is you, me, or
anyone else) is a very dangerous thing to do.

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

OK, then what you say takes away *some* of the risk.

But not all of it. Note that not everyone in this newsgroup knows you
and can trust you when you say something like that.

Please understand that I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I
don't know you and I have no reason to suspect you of doing anything
malicious. My point is just that, when it comes to the possibility of
malware, trusting a stranger (whether the stranger is you, me, or
anyone else) is a very dangerous thing to do.

+1

In my zone a famous proverb literally says: "Prudence is never too much".

(I hope my literal translation is valid for English/American people too)

From: "G.F."

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

OK, then what you say takes away *some* of the risk.

But not all of it. Note that not everyone in this newsgroup knows you
and can trust you when you say something like that.

Please understand that I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I
don't know you and I have no reason to suspect you of doing anything
malicious. My point is just that, when it comes to the possibility of
malware, trusting a stranger (whether the stranger is you, me, or
anyone else) is a very dangerous thing to do.

+1

In my zone a famous proverb literally says: "Prudence is never too much".

(I hope my literal translation is valid for English/American people too)


I don 't know. I'm still reconciling her pill.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063467/

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:20:54 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

OK, then what you say takes away *some* of the risk.

But not all of it. Note that not everyone in this newsgroup knows you
and can trust you when you say something like that.

Please understand that I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I
don't know you and I have no reason to suspect you of doing anything
malicious. My point is just that, when it comes to the possibility of
malware, trusting a stranger (whether the stranger is you, me, or
anyone else) is a very dangerous thing to do.

+1

In my zone a famous proverb literally says: "Prudence is never too much".



Glad you agree, and glad you didn't find my message insulting. It
certainly wasn't meant that way.


(I hope my literal translation is valid for English/American people too)



It looks fine to me. E Italiano? Parlo un pochino d'Italiano.

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

E Italiano? Parlo un pochino d'Italiano.

"La prudenza non è mai troppa"

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:44:37 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

E Italiano? Parlo un pochino d'Italiano.

"La prudenza non è mai troppa"


My Italian is good enough that I can understand that even without your
prior translation.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:44:37 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

E Italiano? Parlo un pochino d'Italiano.

"La prudenza non è mai troppa"


My Italian is good enough that I can understand that even without your
prior translation.

Hello Ken Blake!

Merry Christmas :-D

Bob F wrote:
Paul wrote:
When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same
thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track
down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately,
and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open
Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches.

While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it
and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until
April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to
clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on.
It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update".

We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-)

I share that exact cynicism.

Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP
machines running when MS stops making updates available? I've used the
WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty limited subset of updates,
and seems unreliable in it's ability to install the ones it downloads? I found
plenty of updates that show the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer
cannot find them.

You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular
machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each
update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe
file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever, you can have
it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would probably only be a
matter of installing the updates in the order in which they were
originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named "WinUpdatesList":

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html

to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then
click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items".

Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't
work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what
the problem with my idea is.

--
John Corliss

Bruce Hagen wrote:
"David H. Lipman"
mailto ...
The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority.
If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a
loooooooooooooooong time.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU
run smooth after that. It did for me.
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP
(KB2898785)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as the
others have said, this fixed the problem.

--
John Corliss

"John Corliss" wrote in message
trynet...
Bruce Hagen wrote:
"David H. Lipman"
mailto ...
The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority.
If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a
loooooooooooooooong time.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU
run smooth after that. It did for me.
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP
(KB2898785)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as the
others have said, this fixed the problem.





You're welcome.
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

John Corliss wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Paul wrote:
When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same
thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track
down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately,
and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open
Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches.

While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it
and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until
April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to
clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on.
It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update".

We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-)

I share that exact cynicism.

Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to
keep XP machines running when MS stops making updates available?
I've used the WSUSoffline program, but that seems to get a pretty
limited subset of updates, and seems unreliable in it's ability to
install the ones it downloads? I found plenty of updates that show
the KB# in the downloaded library, but the installer cannot find
them.

You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular
machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder.
Each update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an
update.exe file in it. If you copy that folder to a DVD or whatever,
you can have it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would
probably only be a matter of installing the updates in the order in
which they were originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named
"WinUpdatesList":
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html

to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then
click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items".

Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't
work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what
the problem with my idea is.

Good information to have. Thanks.

Customers used to be able to order update DVD's from MS.
Has MS stopped doing this?

Bruce Hagen wrote:
John Corliss wrote:
Bruce Hagen wrote:
David H. Lipman wrote:

The WinXP Windows Updates seem to have been given the lowest priority.
If manually searching for updates, it sure does take a
loooooooooooooooong time.

Download this update manually then restart the PC. It should make WU/MU
run smooth after that. It did for me.
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP
(KB2898785)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=41404

Bruce, thanks very much. I was having a problem updating too and as
the others have said, this fixed the problem.

You're welcome.

Bruce, Paul (in this discussion) has said the following:

"If you can guess at what the KB is of the latest Internet Explorer
security patch, you can download that patch separately. Once
installed, your Internet Explorer version is up to date.

The very next attempt to reach Windows Update, because it has
no need to burrow into all the old Internet Explorer information,
wuauserv finishes its job in ten to fifteen seconds.

When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same
thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track
down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately,
and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open
Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches."

I don't run Automatic Updates on my XP MCE SP3 computer, do it manually
every couple of weeks or so. My question would be then, how does one
guess at what the KB name of the next Internet Explorer 8 security patch
so as to be able to download and install it before attempting to update
one's system? Or is there a way to find that update which is easier?

TIA

--
John Corliss

Charlie+ wrote:
John Corliss wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Paul wrote:

When an Internet Explorer patch arrives in January, the same
thing will happen. Long delay on Windows Update. Simply, track
down the Jan.2014 Internet Explorer update, install it separately,
and the long delay will be gone again. You can then open
Windows Update and finish the other Jan.2014 patches.

While a Microsoft manager claims they've "put the right staff on it
and will fix it", I'm expecting a "sit on my hands" behavior until
April 2014. Causing all sorts of grief for people attempting to
clean install their WinXP later than April 2014, and so on.
It would just be Microsoft's way of "encouraging you to update".

We'll see whether my cynical speculation pans out or not :-)

I share that exact cynicism.

Is there really a way to gather up all updates to have on hand to keep XP
machines running when MS stops making updates available? (snip)

You should have all the updates that you've installed on a particular
machine backed up in the C:\Windows\$hf_mig$ hidden system folder. Each
update folder contains a subfolder named "update" with an update.exe
file in it. If you copy that folderto a DVD or whatever, you can have
it on hand for that particular machine. Then it would probably only be a
matter of installing the updates in the order in which they were
originally. You can use a Nirsoft utility named "WinUpdatesList":

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wul.html

to provide you with a list of that order. Run that program and then
click on "View" and then "HTML Report - All Items".

Note: I've never done it this way, but I don't see why it shouldn't
work. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody in this thread will point out what
the problem with my idea is.

The length of time and effort it would take to go one by one?!

No idea. It would be tedioius and that would just be the nature of the
beast. However, at least the updates are there and they're specific to a
particular computer. When was the last time you tried to do a fresh
install of XP followed by updating from the Windows Update site? I did a
couple computers a little over a month ago, and it took a *huge* amount
of time. At least already having the updates on hand would cut
downloading out of the equation. In any event, it beats the heck out of
not having the updates at all if MS decides to make them unavailable
after ending support for XP. If I remember correctly, that's exactly
what happened with W98.

--
John Corliss