RE: RE: Windows XP Update possible BUG [ Was: RE: RE: MS01-058 patch ]
From: Jorge Roxo (j.roxo@sotagus.pt)Date: 12/21/01
- Previous message: S.Leyers: "Re: NTLM v2 implementation"
- In reply to: Ken.Williams@ey.com: "Re: Windows XP Update possible BUG [ Was: RE: RE: MS01-058 patch ]"
- Next in thread: Gu1tarb0y@aol.com: "RE: MS01-058 patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Jorge Roxo" <j.roxo@sotagus.pt> To: <Ken.Williams@ey.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:41:32 -0000
<1 mail snip>
One problem with XP and WindowsUpdate is that you need to have the
option "Use http1.1 via proxy" ticked under
tool/options/advanced if you are using a proxy server. So if you are
doing an upgrade, you can tick it before
you start and it will be ok. If it is a clean install, you are prtty
much stuck.
</1 mail snip>
We have that option marked, since we use a proxy server, and in the
proxy's setup the domain admins accouts
all have acess to ftp port etc... so no probs with that. We have a clean
install yes,.. what does stuck mean
in this context?, are you saying that if its a clean install
"out-of-the-box" you cannot upgarde? if so it would
say there are no upgrades available, but we only get a message on the
site saying that an error occurred, in fact
the error number is: 0x8007019B and the KB article it refers to is:
Q174360
<another mail snip>
I thought it was v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com. I can reach that okay.
</anothermail snip>
yeppers you are right.. i typoed that when writting the e-mail. We can
reach it there, but it reports an error ( see
above lines to see which one ).
<Ken.William's email answer ( btw that WAS most helpfull Ken, so thnxs
:) )>
Add another company hit by your problem number 4 but here's some pointer
to a solution for it:
>>"4) WindowsUpdate lists drivers that need to be updated, when those
drivers have in fact already been installed via
download from OEM vendor site rather than from WindowsUpdate site."
We have had the same problem and it is sort of solved in this way(
Nope.. MS canonot incorporate this into the QB ( just kidding :) ) ), we
install the hardware ( in our case a Graphics Adapter Nvidia Tnt2 M64 32
Mb using the Windows XP pro drivers. Then we went to the nvidia site and
got the XP drivers from them. XP crashed repeatedly and reported that
the drivers where not digitally signed as compatible. We ignored that
rolled back the drivers and rebooted. Then we removed the graphics
adapter from the hardware list on the computer, and we then detected new
hardware. XP Pro located the Nvidia card, but when prompted to install
the drivers we selected the option have disk. After pointing to the
folder where the driver
*.exe had been extracted to, XP took the drivers and installed them
without any problems. No further crashes have happened, so I guess the
trick is to install the drivers roll them back and then remove the
hardware etc... I believe it may some problem with the drivers getting
badly registered if they are not digitally signed as compatible. The
main idea I think is that of you do it this way it may include them into
its list of OK Drivers and then after you do what I said it does not
pop-up that window and thus accepts them.
>>"During discussions with MS, they mentioned that several new versions
of the WindowsUpdate site have been rolled out
recently - last windowsupdate code rollout they mentioned to me was on
12/05/01, but I'm sure there have been code
rollouts since then."
Well I dont see where.. I've checked the windowsupdate site every day
since 30/10/2001 and there have been no changes
in it.. it still reports the same thing. Our IE. 6.0 btw also has those
three patches, but we experience no crashes.
The sistem's a mite slow.. but then again its expected for windows to be
slow.. so no probs there ;). One thing that
definetly improves stability is to increase the pagefile.sys size from
the recomended 362 MB to something a bit larger
if you have enough hdd space ( we currently have set it up to 500/1000
Mbs ). It actually makes XP Pro perform better
and it isnt as if the machines running XP pro are low-end type (
machines with processors at 850 Mhz and Ram average
is 256 MB on the low side to 1 GB on the high end ones, plus the server
is also a bit overlarge ;) in its specs ).
Jorge Roxo,
TCSA/Sotagus Computer Systems Administrator.
j.roxo@sotagus.pt
--------------------------------------------
This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept our apologies. Do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance to
its contents, to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it.
Thank you for your co-operation.
--------------------------------------------
- Previous message: S.Leyers: "Re: NTLM v2 implementation"
- In reply to: Ken.Williams@ey.com: "Re: Windows XP Update possible BUG [ Was: RE: RE: MS01-058 patch ]"
- Next in thread: Gu1tarb0y@aol.com: "RE: MS01-058 patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
