"Microsoft Update" offers 898461 for XP SP3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stefan Kanthak
  • Start date Start date
S

Stefan Kanthak

Hi @ll,

"Microsoft Update" just offered the update 898461 for my (german)
XP SP3 system.
According to MSKB 946480 this update has been included in SP3 but
apparently this is wrong!

Unfortunately this patch REALLY gets installed and writes OUTDATED
files to my system:

| C:\>dir %windir%\System32\Preinstall\WinSE\wxp_x86_0407_v1
| Datenträger in Laufwerk C: ist WINDOWS
| Volumeseriennummer: 2C36-0AF4
|
| Verzeichnis von C:\WINDOWS\System32\Preinstall\WinSE\wxp_x86_0407_v1
|
| 27.05.2008 20:38 .
| 27.05.2008 20:38 ..
| 25.02.2005 05:34 15.584 spmsg.dll.ref
| 25.02.2005 05:34 213.216 spuninst.exe.ref
| 25.02.2005 05:34 22.752 spupdsvc.exe.ref
| 25.02.2005 05:34 22.240 spcustom.dll.ref
| 25.02.2005 05:34 727.776 update.exe.ref
| 25.02.2005 05:34 378.080 updspapi.dll.ref
| 6 Datei(en) 1.379.648 Bytes
| 2 Verzeichnis(se), 10.514.202.624 Bytes frei
|
| C:\>filever %windir%\System32\Preinstall\WinSE\wxp_x86_0407_v1
| c:\windows\system32\preinstall\winse\wxp_x86_0407_v1\*.*
| ----- W32i DLL DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 15,584 02-25-2005 spmsg.dll.ref
| ----- W32i APP DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 213,216 02-25-2005 spuninst.exe.ref
| ----- W32i APP ENU 6.1.22.4 shp 22,752 02-25-2005 spupdsvc.exe.ref
| ----- W32i APP ENU 6.1.22.4 shp 22,240 02-25-2005 spcustom.dll.ref
| ----- W32i APP DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 727,776 02-25-2005 update.exe.ref
| ----- W32i DLL DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 378,080 02-25-2005 updspapi.dll.ref

The current version of all these files, as delivered with XP SP3 for
example, are but 6.3.13.0, their timestamps are 2007-08-10 20:4[45]!

WHEN WILL MICROSOFT START TO LIVE TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING?

not amused
Stefan Kanthak
 
Free unlimited installation and compatibility support is available for
Windows XP, but only for Service Pack 3 (SP3), until 14 Apr-09. Chat and
e-mail support is available only in the United States and Canada.

.. US:
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.a...73&gprid=522131

.. CA:
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.a...73&gprid=522131

.. UK:
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.a...73&gprid=522131

.. AU:
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.a...73&gprid=522131

.. Other: http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173 | select
Windows XP | select Windows XP Service Pack 3

WinXP-specific newsgroup: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Hi @ll,
>
> "Microsoft Update" just offered the update 898461 for my (german)
> XP SP3 system.
> According to MSKB 946480 this update has been included in SP3 but
> apparently this is wrong!
>
> Unfortunately this patch REALLY gets installed and writes OUTDATED
> files to my system:
>
>> C:>dir %windir%System32PreinstallWinSEwxp_x86_0407_v1
>> Datenträger in Laufwerk C: ist WINDOWS
>> Volumeseriennummer: 2C36-0AF4
>>
>> Verzeichnis von C:WINDOWSSystem32PreinstallWinSEwxp_x86_0407_v1
>>
>> 27.05.2008 20:38 .
>> 27.05.2008 20:38 ..
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 15.584 spmsg.dll.ref
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 213.216 spuninst.exe.ref
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 22.752 spupdsvc.exe.ref
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 22.240 spcustom.dll.ref
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 727.776 update.exe.ref
>> 25.02.2005 05:34 378.080 updspapi.dll.ref
>> 6 Datei(en) 1.379.648 Bytes
>> 2 Verzeichnis(se), 10.514.202.624 Bytes frei
>>
>> C:>filever %windir%System32PreinstallWinSEwxp_x86_0407_v1
>> c:windowssystem32preinstallwinsewxp_x86_0407_v1*.*
>> ----- W32i DLL DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 15,584 02-25-2005
>> spmsg.dll.ref
>> ----- W32i APP DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 213,216 02-25-2005
>> spuninst.exe.ref
>> ----- W32i APP ENU 6.1.22.4 shp 22,752 02-25-2005
>> spupdsvc.exe.ref
>> ----- W32i APP ENU 6.1.22.4 shp 22,240 02-25-2005
>> spcustom.dll.ref
>> ----- W32i APP DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 727,776 02-25-2005
>> update.exe.ref
>> ----- W32i DLL DEU 6.1.22.4 shp 378,080 02-25-2005
>> updspapi.dll.ref
>
> The current version of all these files, as delivered with XP SP3 for
> example, are but 6.3.13.0, their timestamps are 2007-08-10 20:4[45]!
>
> WHEN WILL MICROSOFT START TO LIVE TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING?
>
> not amused
> Stefan Kanthak
 
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

> Free unlimited installation and compatibility support is available for
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's neither an installation (except I wanted the errors in MSKB 946480
to be the main problem) nor compatibility problem!
SP3 installed without problem, and the system as well as all the
applications run.

> Windows XP, but only for Service Pack 3 (SP3), until 14 Apr-09. Chat and
> e-mail support is available only in the United States and Canada.

> . Other: http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173 | select
> Windows XP | select Windows XP Service Pack 3
>
> WinXP-specific newsgroup: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

It's also no general problem with XP!

The problem is: Why does "Microsoft Update" (I suspect plain "Windows
Update will too) offer an update with OUTDATED files?

The WindowsXP-KB898461-x86-%LCID%.exe available from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en
too has not been updated for XP SP3.

As counter example: 892130 gets updated on regular basis.

Apparently nobody at MSFT really cares about trustworthy computing.

Stefan

PS: Your signature is WAY to long! 4 lines of up to 80 characters are
the acceptable maximum.
 
Net Nanny alert!

:
: PS: Your signature is WAY to long! 4 lines of up to 80 characters are
: the acceptable maximum.
:
 
>> "Microsoft Update" just offered the update 898461 for my (german)
>> XP SP3 system.
>> According to MSKB 946480 this update has been included in SP3 but
>> apparently this is wrong!
>>
>> Unfortunately this patch REALLY gets installed and writes OUTDATED
>> files to my system...

Sure sounds like a compatibility problem to me, Stefan!

> PS: Your signature is WAY to long! 4 lines of up to 80 characters are
> the acceptable maximum.

Who asked you? Who says there's a limit?

PS: *You* neglected to quote my entire post, which is customary in this
newsgroup.

Have a WONDERFUL day!




Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Free unlimited installation and compatibility support is available for
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> It's neither an installation (except I wanted the errors in MSKB 946480
> to be the main problem) nor compatibility problem!
> SP3 installed without problem, and the system as well as all the
> applications run.
>
>> Windows XP, but only for Service Pack 3 (SP3), until 14 Apr-09. Chat and
>> e-mail support is available only in the United States and Canada.
>
>> . Other: http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173 |
>> select
>> Windows XP | select Windows XP Service Pack 3
>>
>> WinXP-specific newsgroup: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>
> It's also no general problem with XP!
>
> The problem is: Why does "Microsoft Update" (I suspect plain "Windows
> Update will too) offer an update with OUTDATED files?
>
> The WindowsXP-KB898461-x86-%LCID%.exe available from
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en
> too has not been updated for XP SP3.
>
> As counter example: 892130 gets updated on regular basis.
>
> Apparently nobody at MSFT really cares about trustworthy computing.
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: Your signature is WAY to long! 4 lines of up to 80 characters are
> the acceptable maximum.
 
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

>>> "Microsoft Update" just offered the update 898461 for my (german)
>>> XP SP3 system.
>>> According to MSKB 946480 this update has been included in SP3 but
>>> apparently this is wrong!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this patch REALLY gets installed and writes OUTDATED
>>> files to my system...
>
> Sure sounds like a compatibility problem to me, Stefan!

YOu should have read further.

>> PS: Your signature is WAY to long! 4 lines of up to 80 characters are
>> the acceptable maximum.
>
> Who asked you? Who says there's a limit?

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

> PS: *You* neglected to quote my entire post, which is customary in this
> newsgroup.

Any RFC-compliant NUA cuts the signature.

Read what your host recommends:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...DENGNetikette

> Have a WONDERFUL day!
>
>

[ another braindead fullquote removed ]

Stefan
 
Entire Conversation:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...10b3ec8ea78c9b2



PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

> Who asked you? Who says there's a limit?


Stefan Kanthak wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt


Given how that whole document (your link) is phrased - it is a suggestion...

Example (first true paragraph):
"This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

Later example - likely what you are referring to in this conversation:
"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than
4 lines."

( *note*: rule of thumb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Rule%20of%20Thumb )

So - a *suggestion* and a way to make things easier for those who pay for
bandwidth by the bit, perhaps. Standard or definite rule - no.

My favorite part to quote of that document...
"October 1995"

I remember 1995. I think they had just started testing cable modems in my
area. No I can get Cable Modem, DSL, Wireless DSL, Satellite, etc... And
many of those at about the same price (slightly more, one actually less in
some cases) as dial-up - some including dial-up as a 'backup'...

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
"Shenan Stanley" wrote:

> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>
>> Who asked you? Who says there's a limit?
>
>
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>
>
> Given how that whole document (your link) is phrased - it is a suggestion...

As most RFCs are.

> Example (first true paragraph):
> "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does
> not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
>
> Later example - likely what you are referring to in this conversation:
> "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than
> 4 lines."
>
> ( *note*: rule of thumb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb and
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Rule%20of%20Thumb )
>
> So - a *suggestion* and a way to make things easier for those who pay for
> bandwidth by the bit, perhaps. Standard or definite rule - no.
~~~~~~~
Did *I* say it's a standard or definite rule?
It's a suggestion or proposition to thinking people.

> My favorite part to quote of that document...
> "October 1995"

If you think that RFC is outdated: I suppose you are very welcome to write
an update and submit it to the RFC editor.

> I remember 1995. I think they had just started testing cable modems in my
> area. No I can get Cable Modem, DSL, Wireless DSL, Satellite, etc... And

*I*, *I*, *I*
*YOU* might get high-speed high-bandwith connections ... at home, at work.
What about abroad?
Not ALL the people on this planet can get or have it anywhere and anytime.

> many of those at about the same price (slightly more, one actually less in
> some cases) as dial-up - some including dial-up as a 'backup'...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...DENGNetikette
explicitly asks to quote only the part you are referencing and to avoid
these horrible full quotes.

Stefan
 
Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
>
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> Who asked you? Who says there's a limit?
>>
>>
>> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>>
>>
>> Given how that whole document (your link) is phrased - it is a
>> suggestion...
>
> As most RFCs are.
>
>> Example (first true paragraph):
>> "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
>> memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
>>
>> Later example - likely what you are referring to in this
>> conversation: "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of
>> thumb is no longer than 4 lines."
>>
>> ( *note*: rule of thumb...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb and
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Rule%20of%20Thumb )
>>
>> So - a *suggestion* and a way to make things easier for those who
>> pay for bandwidth by the bit, perhaps. Standard or definite rule
>> - no.
> ~~~~~~~
> Did *I* say it's a standard or definite rule?
> It's a suggestion or proposition to thinking people.
>
>> My favorite part to quote of that document...
>> "October 1995"
>
> If you think that RFC is outdated: I suppose you are very welcome
> to write an update and submit it to the RFC editor.
>
>> I remember 1995. I think they had just started testing cable
>> modems in my area. No I can get Cable Modem, DSL, Wireless DSL,
>> Satellite, etc... And
>
> *I*, *I*, *I*
> *YOU* might get high-speed high-bandwith connections ... at home,
> at work. What about abroad?
> Not ALL the people on this planet can get or have it anywhere and
> anytime.
>
>> many of those at about the same price (slightly more, one actually
>> less in some cases) as dial-up - some including dial-up as a
>> 'backup'...
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...DENGNetikette
> explicitly asks to quote only the part you are referencing and to
> avoid these horrible full quotes.


Good luck!

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
"Shenan Stanley" wrote:

[ 60 lines quoted, nothing own written ]

> Good luck!

Thanks for demonstrating that moronic attitude once again!

Stefan
 
When are *you* going to start being productive?

"Stefan Kanthak" wrote in message
news:OWvqQYbwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
: "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
:
: [ 60 lines quoted, nothing own written ]
:
: > Good luck!
:
: Thanks for demonstrating that moronic attitude once again!
:
: Stefan
:
 
Back
Top