Re: Patch Q320920 presists on wanting to be installed (even after it has been)

From: George Hester (hesterloli@hotmail.com)
Date: 02/19/03 

From: "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:05:55 -0500

OK you might try this. Go into regedit and look at this key:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows Media Player\wm320920.1

Look at the Name IsInstalled. It should be 1 decimal or HEX doesn't matter. Mine says for Media Player 7.1 but under this key I have a FileList and then under that I have two subkeys File2 which has FileName msdxm.ocx and is for version 6.4.9.1134 and another File6 which has FileName dxmasf.dll and version 6.4.9.1121. The IsInstalled may be where the trouble lies.

The other thing to try is get qfecheck from Microsoft and run that to make sure none of your Hotfixes "Need to be reinstalled."

I don't get this bevavior of which you speak. So just a thought. 

-- 
George Hester
__________________________________
"Wolf Tombe" <Wolf@PresidioTrust.gov> wrote in message news:#twRo$51CHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, there is comfort in know it's not just happening to us here.
> 
> Hopefully if enough people speak up about it Microsoft will resolve it.
> Right now it's a major pain for us as all of our servers are giving false
> update notices and we have to manually check to see if its a "real" update
> or not.
> 
> Wolf
> 
> 
> "Adam Pavelec" <apavelec[no_uce]@benefit-services.com> wrote in message
> news:u3R8Fg41CHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP09...
> > In article <#8Ouic41CHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Wolf Tombe
> > <Wolf@PresidioTrust.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm wondering if other people are having this problem.  We are several
> W2K
> > > servers here.  We are receiving auto-update notifications saying that
> the
> > > following patch "Q320920: Security Update (Windows Media Player 6.4)"
> > > needs to be applied.  The problem is that we HAVE applied it, in some
> > > cases multiple times, and the update tool still insists that "A critical
> > > update is available and needs to be applied"  Our installation log
> > > clearly indicates the patch has been installed, yet the auto-update
> > > doesn't seem to recognize this and continues to indicate that we must
> > > install it (again, and again, and again).  Anybody else having this
> > > problem or know of a work around?
> >
> > I've seen this as well on both W2K workstations and servers.  I have yet
> to
> > see a fix for this issue.  Sorry I can't offer more help other than to
> write
> > that you're not alone.
> >
> > --Adam
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Patch Q320920 presists on wanting to be installed (even after it has been)
    ... The other thing to try is get qfecheck from Microsoft and run that to make sure none of your Hotfixes "Need to be reinstalled." ... > Right now it's a major pain for us as all of our servers are giving false ... >>> update is available and needs to be applied" Our installation log ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • RE: New DC 2003 R2 with SBS2003 replication problem. Need Help !
    ... SBS domain and you get some KCC errors on SBS. ... Step-by-Step Guide to Adding and Managing Additional Servers in a Windows ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... newsgroups so that they can be resolved in an efficient and timely manner. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Multiple copies of the Language Bar
    ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ... Hi, thanks for the response. ... Both the Windows 2003 Standard servers and the SBS2003 are all at ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: 4.4.7 NDRs on sent email - messages remain in STMP queue until expiry
    ... the free email servers seems very hit and miss. ... This issue occurs may because the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition ... Microsoft Exchange Server servers or on Microsoft Windows SMTP servers. ... Please collect the MPS Report for Exchange: ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Security and the User experience
    ... User installs an application that needs to communicate to SQL servers and/or FTP servers and/or web services. ... whenever the user installs any applications they are either presented with a message saying "block/unblock" message and sometimes even messages suggesting the application could be a virus. ... Microsoft do seem to be aware of this user experience problem after my initial look at Beta 2 of Vista and how it grays out everything except the program needing communication. ... I would venture to say though that even the *nix OS' distributors and probably even Apple will still say that it's the users job to make sure their computer is secure. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)