kakii wrote:
> 942763 was a patch released some when in 2007,
> then updated in March 2008.
> The win xp sp3 is newer than March 2008 and it includes this patch
> indeed. Furthermore, all required patches are always applied as
> soon as released. So I don't think I'm missing of the newest
> patches.
> I didn't try to install it once again.
> Why should I do the same work twice ?
> I have had it already installed.
> It is a problem of Microsoft and .NET cause they are not consistent.
> They don't know what the another does.
> No wonder if considering the overall quality of MS products.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> .NET Framework 3.5 was released before SP3. If it changes something that
> causes your system to think it needs the patch - you are better off
> installing it. Of course - you are free not to install it to and fume
> over the fact it is offered to you. -)
kakii wrote:
> Great design/strategy Made by Microsoft 
).
> What then the facility Windows File Protection for ?
> I mean the protected files listed by sfcfiles.dll.
Unlikely that has anything to do with your current issue.
I would imagine that some registry value has changed - either one that was
changed for the purpose of the patch you are being told you need OR one that
lets other things know that the patch is already installed/applied.
Does that suck? Well - that's a matter of opinion. Most people wouldn't
have .NET Framework 3.5 installed - so if they do have it right now, they
are probably a little *more* than your average computer user and can
supposedly handle the work-around of installing (or attempting to install)
an update manually to keep from being annoyed by a message they are fairly
certain they should not be getting.
The world (and everything in it) is not perfect. We either let the small
stuff bother us - or we don't. -)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html