Problems with Patch KB839645

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:

First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
it's already installed and an online install fails.

How can I re-establish a consistent state?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
> I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
>
> First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> it's already installed and an online install fails.
>
> How can I re-establish a consistent state?
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
version again?
PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995

It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Lee,

I think you misunderstood: The patch has been installed successfully
offline. The file shell32.dll has been replaced and the patch has also
been correctly registered in the registry. The entry looks consistent
at least. The mystery is Windows Update v3.2 on WinNT doesn't seem to
recognize all that for a reason. What else might WU be checking here?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 27 Jul 2004 04:15:49 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
> key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
> article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
> version again?
> PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995
>
> It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
> inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
> check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
> files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
> Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
>
> > I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> > Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> > and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
> >
> > First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> > It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> > tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> > run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> > it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> > it's already installed and an online install fails.
> >
> > How can I re-establish a consistent state?
> >
> > Heinz Wehner
> > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Do you have a PendingFileRenameOperations key? WU can look for
anything in the registry, how would I know?

Very rare that WU is wrong about this stuff, I would never presume
that the patch has been installed until WU said it was so. Inf files
can fail to do part of a job and never give a hint that anything is
amiss. You could delete your Windows Update folder and empty the TIF
files and revisit WinUP site to see if perhaps some older cached info
was the root cause of the patch being reported as needed? Windows
Update folder will be rebuilt but you might want to move your
history file out of there until it gets rebuilt by WinUP site.

Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b8ncg0podcsc0oqvbs64qit45m3hnosif6@4ax.com>...
> Lee,
>
> I think you misunderstood: The patch has been installed successfully
> offline. The file shell32.dll has been replaced and the patch has also
> been correctly registered in the registry. The entry looks consistent
> at least. The mystery is Windows Update v3.2 on WinNT doesn't seem to
> recognize all that for a reason. What else might WU be checking here?
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2004 04:15:49 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
>
> > Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
> > key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
> > article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
> > version again?
> > PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995
> >
> > It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
> > inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
> > check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
> > files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
> > Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
> >
> >
> > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > <sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> > > Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> > > and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
> > >
> > > First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> > > It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> > > tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> > > run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> > > it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> > > it's already installed and an online install fails.
> > >
> > > How can I re-establish a consistent state?
> > >
> > > Heinz Wehner
> > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Heinz,

I wouldn't be overly worried about it - WU is more trouble than it is worth, in
my humble opinion :-(

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Lee,

no, I don't have this PendingFileRenameOperations key.

I think the first question to answer is what prevents WU from being
able to install the patch KB839645? All the other patches in the
latest bulletin installed online under the control of WU without any
problem. What makes it difficult to answer this question is the fact
that an unknown error (0x80004005) is issued and no log file
KB839645.log is written. Does this tell you something?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 27 Jul 2004 22:13:21 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> Do you have a PendingFileRenameOperations key? WU can look for
> anything in the registry, how would I know?
>
> Very rare that WU is wrong about this stuff, I would never presume
> that the patch has been installed until WU said it was so. Inf files
> can fail to do part of a job and never give a hint that anything is
> amiss. You could delete your Windows Update folder and empty the TIF
> files and revisit WinUP site to see if perhaps some older cached info
> was the root cause of the patch being reported as needed? Windows
> Update folder will be rebuilt but you might want to move your
> history file out of there until it gets rebuilt by WinUP site.
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <b8ncg0podcsc0oqvbs64qit45m3hnosif6@4ax.com>...
>
> > Lee,
> >
> > I think you misunderstood: The patch has been installed successfully
> > offline. The file shell32.dll has been replaced and the patch has also
> > been correctly registered in the registry. The entry looks consistent
> > at least. The mystery is Windows Update v3.2 on WinNT doesn't seem to
> > recognize all that for a reason. What else might WU be checking here?
> >
> > Heinz Wehner
> > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2004 04:15:49 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
> >
> > > Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
> > > key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
> > > article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
> > > version again?
> > > PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995
> > >
> > > It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
> > > inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
> > > check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
> > > files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
> > > Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > > <sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > > > I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> > > > Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> > > > and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
> > > >
> > > > First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> > > > It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> > > > tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> > > > run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> > > > it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> > > > it's already installed and an online install fails.
> > > >
> > > > How can I re-establish a consistent state?
> > > >
> > > > Heinz Wehner
> > > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Yes, it tells me what to Google for, here is what I found
from perhaps from a fellow countryman?
<quote>
Posted by Yann St-Germain (1 messages posted)
Hello, I was looking for a definition of the error message 0x80004005
when I encountered your message thread. After searching a bit on
Microsoft's Knowledge base, I found out the following (which helped me
solve my problem I was getting on my side): The error message
0x80004005 is basically an error message saying that a certain
registry key is not accessable. Sometimes this is simply caused by not
having enough priviliges when installing an application. Solution: You
can simply try loging on as the administrator on the machine and then
try installing the application giving you that error. If this does not
work, then the problem is certainly related to the registry key access
(key non-existing or don't have access rights)... Hope this works!!!
Good luck!! Yann Programmer - Analyst
<end quote>

Although from http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1058542099
which is an XP forum, NT would have the same permissions hurdles to
jump. Be sure to seek out all three or more
PendingFileRenameOperations
keys also and be sure that they do not exist either.

I agree, why WinUP won't do this is paramount, if you have any pending
key pre-existing, that would be a very good reason WinUP isn't
working.
That's why I started there. According to this
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842289
it could be that your computer is reseting the connection to the
sever.
Scripting time out for this one
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=268364

In the end it appears that 0x80004005 is a generic error, but I do
know
that I've suffered resets during downloading from MS before, perhaps
just your bad luck? You might want to refresh your Windows Scripting
Host package and see if that helps any?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=0A8A18F6-249C-4A72-BFCF-FC6AF26DC390&displaylang=en



Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2q7fg01ohtmhd9bo4jgcd6nlrogppqqo7f@4ax.com>...
> Lee,
>
> no, I don't have this PendingFileRenameOperations key.
>
> I think the first question to answer is what prevents WU from being
> able to install the patch KB839645? All the other patches in the
> latest bulletin installed online under the control of WU without any
> problem. What makes it difficult to answer this question is the fact
> that an unknown error (0x80004005) is issued and no log file
> KB839645.log is written. Does this tell you something?
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2004 22:13:21 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
>
> > Do you have a PendingFileRenameOperations key? WU can look for
> > anything in the registry, how would I know?
> >
> > Very rare that WU is wrong about this stuff, I would never presume
> > that the patch has been installed until WU said it was so. Inf files
> > can fail to do part of a job and never give a hint that anything is
> > amiss. You could delete your Windows Update folder and empty the TIF
> > files and revisit WinUP site to see if perhaps some older cached info
> > was the root cause of the patch being reported as needed? Windows
> > Update folder will be rebuilt but you might want to move your
> > history file out of there until it gets rebuilt by WinUP site.
> >
> >
> > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > <b8ncg0podcsc0oqvbs64qit45m3hnosif6@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > Lee,
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstood: The patch has been installed successfully
> > > offline. The file shell32.dll has been replaced and the patch has also
> > > been correctly registered in the registry. The entry looks consistent
> > > at least. The mystery is Windows Update v3.2 on WinNT doesn't seem to
> > > recognize all that for a reason. What else might WU be checking here?
> > >
> > > Heinz Wehner
> > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 Jul 2004 04:15:49 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
> > > > key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
> > > > article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
> > > > version again?
> > > > PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995
> > > >
> > > > It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
> > > > inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
> > > > check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
> > > > files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
> > > > Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > > > <sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
> > > >
> > > > > I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> > > > > Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> > > > > and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
> > > > >
> > > > > First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> > > > > It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> > > > > tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> > > > > run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> > > > > it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> > > > > it's already installed and an online install fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can I re-establish a consistent state?
> > > > >
> > > > > Heinz Wehner
> > > > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Lee,

thank you for the time spent on trying to help with this minor issue.

I've checked all the causes you've listed:
1. Permissions: I aways logon as an administrator.
2. PendingFileRenameOperations: no such keys found.
3. KB842289: SUS is not installed and I have a fast and reliable
connection to the internet i.e. all other updates get installed.
Still, this indicates that a bug in WU 3.2 may well be the cause.
4. KB268364: It's not a scripting timeout problem because it's not a
large download. Also, larger online updates are working and the
the offline update worked.
5. Windows Script 5.6: Refreshed it but has had no effect.

The strange thing is that the online update downloads the patch
KB839645 completely and the progress bar for the installation also
starts to fill up. Only then a failure is reported where a success
message would be expected.

I've noticed that there are 2 updates for WinNT 4.0 SP6a Workstation:
one with ActiveDesktop and one without. I've used the latter one when
installing the patch offline. ActiveDesktop is currently not installed
but it was years ago. Is that something worth to be checked further?

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 29 Jul 2004 02:14:15 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> Yes, it tells me what to Google for, here is what I found
> from perhaps from a fellow countryman?
> <quote>
> Posted by Yann St-Germain (1 messages posted)
> Hello, I was looking for a definition of the error message 0x80004005
> when I encountered your message thread. After searching a bit on
> Microsoft's Knowledge base, I found out the following (which helped me
> solve my problem I was getting on my side): The error message
> 0x80004005 is basically an error message saying that a certain
> registry key is not accessable. Sometimes this is simply caused by not
> having enough priviliges when installing an application. Solution: You
> can simply try loging on as the administrator on the machine and then
> try installing the application giving you that error. If this does not
> work, then the problem is certainly related to the registry key access
> (key non-existing or don't have access rights)... Hope this works!!!
> Good luck!! Yann Programmer - Analyst
> <end quote>
>
> Although from http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1058542099
> which is an XP forum, NT would have the same permissions hurdles to
> jump. Be sure to seek out all three or more
> PendingFileRenameOperations
> keys also and be sure that they do not exist either.
>
> I agree, why WinUP won't do this is paramount, if you have any pending
> key pre-existing, that would be a very good reason WinUP isn't
> working.
> That's why I started there. According to this
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842289
> it could be that your computer is reseting the connection to the
> sever.
> Scripting time out for this one
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=268364
>
> In the end it appears that 0x80004005 is a generic error, but I do
> know that I've suffered resets during downloading from MS before,
> perhaps just your bad luck? You might want to refresh your Windows
> Scripting Host package and see if that helps any?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=0A8A18F6-249C-4A72-BFCF-FC6AF26DC390&displaylang=en
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <2q7fg01ohtmhd9bo4jgcd6nlrogppqqo7f@4ax.com>...
>
> > Lee,
> >
> > no, I don't have this PendingFileRenameOperations key.
> >
> > I think the first question to answer is what prevents WU from being
> > able to install the patch KB839645? All the other patches in the
> > latest bulletin installed online under the control of WU without any
> > problem. What makes it difficult to answer this question is the fact
> > that an unknown error (0x80004005) is issued and no log file
> > KB839645.log is written. Does this tell you something?
> >
> > Heinz Wehner
> > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2004 22:13:21 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have a PendingFileRenameOperations key? WU can look for
> > > anything in the registry, how would I know?
> > >
> > > Very rare that WU is wrong about this stuff, I would never presume
> > > that the patch has been installed until WU said it was so. Inf files
> > > can fail to do part of a job and never give a hint that anything is
> > > amiss. You could delete your Windows Update folder and empty the TIF
> > > files and revisit WinUP site to see if perhaps some older cached info
> > > was the root cause of the patch being reported as needed? Windows
> > > Update folder will be rebuilt but you might want to move your
> > > history file out of there until it gets rebuilt by WinUP site.
> > >
> > >
> > > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > > <b8ncg0podcsc0oqvbs64qit45m3hnosif6@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > > > Lee,
> > > >
> > > > I think you misunderstood: The patch has been installed successfully
> > > > offline. The file shell32.dll has been replaced and the patch has also
> > > > been correctly registered in the registry. The entry looks consistent
> > > > at least. The mystery is Windows Update v3.2 on WinNT doesn't seem to
> > > > recognize all that for a reason. What else might WU be checking here?
> > > >
> > > > Heinz Wehner
> > > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Jul 2004 04:15:49 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Failed WinUP attempts probably hosed your Pending File Rename
> > > > > key such that further attempts are a waste of time. See this
> > > > > article to set that right first and then try the stand alone
> > > > > version again?
> > > > > PendingFileRenameOperations key and explaination - note item #3
> > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995
> > > > >
> > > > > It has not yet installed even though the package ran OK. An
> > > > > inf file's info was not copied into the registry or it would
> > > > > check as installed at WinUP site, which means that even if
> > > > > files got copied, registry was not updated to show that.
> > > > > Who knows what else didn't get done right = not installed yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > > > > <sen9g0553l2bg5jp01a26oglob23iaphpr@4ax.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've had problems installing the patch KB839645 on WinNT 4.0 SP6a
> > > > > > Workstation (no issues on Win2K SP4 Professional and WinXP SP1 Home)
> > > > > > and there are still some inconsistencies to be resolved:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First off, the patch could not be installed online via Windows Update.
> > > > > > It failed repeatedly. I've then downloaded the patch manually and
> > > > > > tried to install offline. That worked but still not all is well. If I
> > > > > > run Windows Update again (after at least one reboot of course) ,
> > > > > > it still wants me to apply the patch KB839645. This is nonsense since
> > > > > > it's already installed and an online install fails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can I re-establish a consistent state?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Heinz Wehner
> > > > > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5g3og0hhnmkhu7g79p03ht6tehjpm6lhgt@4ax.com>...
> Lee,
>
> thank you for the time spent on trying to help with this minor issue.
>
> I've checked all the causes you've listed:
> 1. Permissions: I aways logon as an administrator.
> 2. PendingFileRenameOperations: no such keys found.
> 3. KB842289: SUS is not installed and I have a fast and reliable
> connection to the internet i.e. all other updates get installed.
> Still, this indicates that a bug in WU 3.2 may well be the cause.
> 4. KB268364: It's not a scripting timeout problem because it's not a
> large download. Also, larger online updates are working and the
> the offline update worked.
> 5. Windows Script 5.6: Refreshed it but has had no effect.
>
> The strange thing is that the online update downloads the patch
> KB839645 completely and the progress bar for the installation also
> starts to fill up. Only then a failure is reported where a success
> message would be expected.
>
> I've noticed that there are 2 updates for WinNT 4.0 SP6a Workstation:
> one with ActiveDesktop and one without. I've used the latter one when
> installing the patch offline. ActiveDesktop is currently not installed
> but it was years ago. Is that something worth to be checked further?
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>
>

You are welcome, you've got my curiosity piqued at this point.
Yes, WinUP might be trying to read the version of Shell32.dll
file and it's the wrong one? Officially, your Active Desktop
status should be viewable under this key.
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
Components\{89820200-ECBD-11cf-8B85-00AA005B4395}]
@="Windows Desktop Update"

Look for IsInstalled value to be 1 if it is currently installed.
Even an entry under this CLSID number may mean that you should
install the Active Desktop version of the 839645 update? I
question how it was installed years ago and now is not? Please
explain how the Desktop Update came to be uninstalled? I always
assumed it was kind of like getting pregnant - either you are or
you are not. Does your NT exihibt any of the features of the
active desktop, like the ability to left click and move shortcuts
on the Start Menu|Programs lists? Do you have a quick launch bar?
Are there shortcuts in C:\WINNT\Profiles\Administrator\Application
Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch folder and yet you
don't see them on the quick launch bar?

I don't see it listed under the Uninstall key even in hidden form
which some ie enhancements will at least have a token entry there.
Do you want the Desktop Update with it's features to work or do
you prefer to do without it? Calvin suggests that it's the main
cause for any of NT's instability, but I'm so new to NT that I
can't claim any such knowledge or bias as of yet. I just did
archive both updates last night and something about the active
update bothered me but I couldn't place my finger on what it was.
I also downloaded some updates for 98 at the same time which
diverted my full attention from your issue or the possiblity that
you were applying the wrong update offline - or perhaps WinUP is
reading the left over key and sending you the wrong update? MS
is notorious about leaving old keys in the registry, everybody
else does it too.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Lee,

no, I cannot spot any signs or remainders indicating that Active
Desktop is installed or has ever been installed. I'm also not sure of
the latter. May be I'm mixing it up with another system. All I know is
that I've once installed Active Desktop on an NT4 system but later
removed it due to performance and stability issues. Also, on the only
remaining NT4 system, I don't want to have Active Desktop back.

So the bottom line is that it was just an idea if that could be
something that confuses WU 3.2. Meanwhile, I don't think it is a good
idea to try the patch that is designed for NT4 with Active Desktop.

Any other idea? It looks as if I will have to live with this little
inconsistency of WU for the time being. After all, it's only a minor
issue. Thanks again for your assistance.

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 1 Aug 2004 02:22:03 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> You are welcome, you've got my curiosity piqued at this point.
> Yes, WinUP might be trying to read the version of Shell32.dll
> file and it's the wrong one? Officially, your Active Desktop
> status should be viewable under this key.
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
> Components\{89820200-ECBD-11cf-8B85-00AA005B4395}]
> @="Windows Desktop Update"
>
> Look for IsInstalled value to be 1 if it is currently installed.
> Even an entry under this CLSID number may mean that you should
> install the Active Desktop version of the 839645 update? I
> question how it was installed years ago and now is not? Please
> explain how the Desktop Update came to be uninstalled? I always
> assumed it was kind of like getting pregnant - either you are or
> you are not. Does your NT exihibt any of the features of the
> active desktop, like the ability to left click and move shortcuts
> on the Start Menu|Programs lists? Do you have a quick launch bar?
> Are there shortcuts in C:\WINNT\Profiles\Administrator\Application
> Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch folder and yet you
> don't see them on the quick launch bar?
>
> I don't see it listed under the Uninstall key even in hidden form
> which some ie enhancements will at least have a token entry there.
> Do you want the Desktop Update with it's features to work or do
> you prefer to do without it? Calvin suggests that it's the main
> cause for any of NT's instability, but I'm so new to NT that I
> can't claim any such knowledge or bias as of yet. I just did
> archive both updates last night and something about the active
> update bothered me but I couldn't place my finger on what it was.
> I also downloaded some updates for 98 at the same time which
> diverted my full attention from your issue or the possiblity that
> you were applying the wrong update offline - or perhaps WinUP is
> reading the left over key and sending you the wrong update? MS
> is notorious about leaving old keys in the registry, everybody
> else does it too.
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5g3og0hhnmkhu7g79p03ht6tehjpm6lhgt@4ax.com>...
> > Lee,
> >
> > thank you for the time spent on trying to help with this minor issue.
> >
> > I've checked all the causes you've listed:
> > 1. Permissions: I aways logon as an administrator.
> > 2. PendingFileRenameOperations: no such keys found.
> > 3. KB842289: SUS is not installed and I have a fast and reliable
> > connection to the internet i.e. all other updates get installed.
> > Still, this indicates that a bug in WU 3.2 may well be the cause.
> > 4. KB268364: It's not a scripting timeout problem because it's not a
> > large download. Also, larger online updates are working and the
> > the offline update worked.
> > 5. Windows Script 5.6: Refreshed it but has had no effect.
> >
> > The strange thing is that the online update downloads the patch
> > KB839645 completely and the progress bar for the installation also
> > starts to fill up. Only then a failure is reported where a success
> > message would be expected.
> >
> > I've noticed that there are 2 updates for WinNT 4.0 SP6a Workstation:
> > one with ActiveDesktop and one without. I've used the latter one when
> > installing the patch offline. ActiveDesktop is currently not installed
> > but it was years ago. Is that something worth to be checked further?
> >
> > Heinz Wehner
> > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

You are welcome again. Perhaps there is an error in the update's
registry entries.
HKLM,SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows
NT\CurrentVersion\Hotfix\KB839645,"Installed",0x10001,1

Typically the Name value for this key would be IsInstalled not
simply Installed as shown from the non-active desktop update.
Perhaps WU is looking for IsInstalled which would be the normal
Name value for this key? It should be a binary value of one as
well.

Oddly, this is where the info is stored for the active desktop
update.
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
Components\{7ac88637-e78a-4036-a333-f65808b791bc}","IsInstalled",0x10001,01,00,00,00

Note that here IsInstalled text is correct. Agreed it is a minor
issue provided your shell32.dll file is version 4.00 as in the
839645 update for non-active desktop update. You could fool WinUP
site by placing the above (corrected?) entries into the registry
as a workaround.

Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kcfvg0d9n2fvigjpm3lagc3lpotoccs6cv@4ax.com>...
> Lee,
>
> no, I cannot spot any signs or remainders indicating that Active
> Desktop is installed or has ever been installed. I'm also not sure of
> the latter. May be I'm mixing it up with another system. All I know is
> that I've once installed Active Desktop on an NT4 system but later
> removed it due to performance and stability issues. Also, on the only
> remaining NT4 system, I don't want to have Active Desktop back.
>
> So the bottom line is that it was just an idea if that could be
> something that confuses WU 3.2. Meanwhile, I don't think it is a good
> idea to try the patch that is designed for NT4 with Active Desktop.
>
> Any other idea? It looks as if I will have to live with this little
> inconsistency of WU for the time being. After all, it's only a minor
> issue. Thanks again for your assistance.
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>
>
> On 1 Aug 2004 02:22:03 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
>
> > You are welcome, you've got my curiosity piqued at this point.
> > Yes, WinUP might be trying to read the version of Shell32.dll
> > file and it's the wrong one? Officially, your Active Desktop
> > status should be viewable under this key.
> > [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
> > Components\{89820200-ECBD-11cf-8B85-00AA005B4395}]
> > @="Windows Desktop Update"
> >
> > Look for IsInstalled value to be 1 if it is currently installed.
> > Even an entry under this CLSID number may mean that you should
> > install the Active Desktop version of the 839645 update? I
> > question how it was installed years ago and now is not? Please
> > explain how the Desktop Update came to be uninstalled? I always
> > assumed it was kind of like getting pregnant - either you are or
> > you are not. Does your NT exihibt any of the features of the
> > active desktop, like the ability to left click and move shortcuts
> > on the Start Menu|Programs lists? Do you have a quick launch bar?
> > Are there shortcuts in C:\WINNT\Profiles\Administrator\Application
> > Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch folder and yet you
> > don't see them on the quick launch bar?
> >
> > I don't see it listed under the Uninstall key even in hidden form
> > which some ie enhancements will at least have a token entry there.
> > Do you want the Desktop Update with it's features to work or do
> > you prefer to do without it? Calvin suggests that it's the main
> > cause for any of NT's instability, but I'm so new to NT that I
> > can't claim any such knowledge or bias as of yet. I just did
> > archive both updates last night and something about the active
> > update bothered me but I couldn't place my finger on what it was.
> > I also downloaded some updates for 98 at the same time which
> > diverted my full attention from your issue or the possiblity that
> > you were applying the wrong update offline - or perhaps WinUP is
> > reading the left over key and sending you the wrong update? MS
> > is notorious about leaving old keys in the registry, everybody
> > else does it too.
> >
> >
> > Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5g3og0hhnmkhu7g79p03ht6tehjpm6lhgt@4ax.com>...
> > > Lee,
> > >
> > > thank you for the time spent on trying to help with this minor issue.
> > >
> > > I've checked all the causes you've listed:
> > > 1. Permissions: I aways logon as an administrator.
> > > 2. PendingFileRenameOperations: no such keys found.
> > > 3. KB842289: SUS is not installed and I have a fast and reliable
> > > connection to the internet i.e. all other updates get installed.
> > > Still, this indicates that a bug in WU 3.2 may well be the cause.
> > > 4. KB268364: It's not a scripting timeout problem because it's not a
> > > large download. Also, larger online updates are working and the
> > > the offline update worked.
> > > 5. Windows Script 5.6: Refreshed it but has had no effect.
> > >
> > > The strange thing is that the online update downloads the patch
> > > KB839645 completely and the progress bar for the installation also
> > > starts to fill up. Only then a failure is reported where a success
> > > message would be expected.
> > >
> > > I've noticed that there are 2 updates for WinNT 4.0 SP6a Workstation:
> > > one with ActiveDesktop and one without. I've used the latter one when
> > > installing the patch offline. ActiveDesktop is currently not installed
> > > but it was years ago. Is that something worth to be checked further?
> > >
> > > Heinz Wehner
> > > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

1. The entry for hotfix KB839645 looks exactly like all the other
KBnnnnnn hotfixes: "Installed"=dword:00000001
2. The Active Desktop entry does not exist.
3. The Shell32.dll file has version 4.00 like the replaced file does.
The old file is dated Feb 12, 2002 while the new file is dated
May 20, 2004. These are the German versions.

Because all this is really like it should be, I'm hesitating to
retrofit an entry for Active Setup that has likely never been there.

So why WU doesn't recognize the patch as being installed remains still
a mystery. May be we approach the issue from another angle and ask why
WU cannot install the path. May be it's because the shell32.dll cannot
be replaced because it's in use somehow? There's also no explanation
for the error message 0x80004005. I've seen several postings here with
this error code but nobody was able to explain the meaning.

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 3 Aug 2004 22:19:23 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> You are welcome again. Perhaps there is an error in the update's
> registry entries.
> HKLM,SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion
> \Hotfix\KB839645,"Installed",0x10001,1
>
> Typically the Name value for this key would be IsInstalled not
> simply Installed as shown from the non-active desktop update.
> Perhaps WU is looking for IsInstalled which would be the normal
> Name value for this key? It should be a binary value of one as
> well.
>
> Oddly, this is where the info is stored for the active desktop
> update.
> HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components
> \{7ac88637-e78a-4036-a333-f65808b791bc}","IsInstalled",
> 0x10001,01,00,00,00
>
> Note that here IsInstalled text is correct. Agreed it is a minor
> issue provided your shell32.dll file is version 4.00 as in the
> 839645 update for non-active desktop update. You could fool
> WinUP site by placing the above (corrected?) entries into the
> registry as a workaround.
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <kcfvg0d9n2fvigjpm3lagc3lpotoccs6cv@4ax.com>...
>
>> Lee,
>>
>> no, I cannot spot any signs or remainders indicating that Active
>> Desktop is installed or has ever been installed. I'm also not sure of
>> the latter. May be I'm mixing it up with another system. All I know is
>> that I've once installed Active Desktop on an NT4 system but later
>> removed it due to performance and stability issues. Also, on the only
>> remaining NT4 system, I don't want to have Active Desktop back.
>>
>> So the bottom line is that it was just an idea if that could be
>> something that confuses WU 3.2. Meanwhile, I don't think it is a good
>> idea to try the patch that is designed for NT4 with Active Desktop.
>>
>> Any other idea? It looks as if I will have to live with this little
>> inconsistency of WU for the time being. After all, it's only a minor
>> issue. Thanks again for your assistance.
>>
>> Heinz Wehner
>> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>>
>>
>> On 1 Aug 2004 02:22:03 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:
>>
>>> You are welcome, you've got my curiosity piqued at this point.
>>> Yes, WinUP might be trying to read the version of Shell32.dll
>>> file and it's the wrong one? Officially, your Active Desktop
>>> status should be viewable under this key.
>>> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
>>> Components\{89820200-ECBD-11cf-8B85-00AA005B4395}]
>>> @="Windows Desktop Update"
>>>
>>> Look for IsInstalled value to be 1 if it is currently installed.
>>> Even an entry under this CLSID number may mean that you should
>>> install the Active Desktop version of the 839645 update? I
>>> question how it was installed years ago and now is not? Please
>>> explain how the Desktop Update came to be uninstalled? I always
>>> assumed it was kind of like getting pregnant - either you are or
>>> you are not. Does your NT exihibt any of the features of the
>>> active desktop, like the ability to left click and move shortcuts
>>> on the Start Menu|Programs lists? Do you have a quick launch bar?
>>> Are there shortcuts in C:\WINNT\Profiles\Administrator\Application
>>> Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch folder and yet you
>>> don't see them on the quick launch bar?
>>>
>>> I don't see it listed under the Uninstall key even in hidden form
>>> which some ie enhancements will at least have a token entry there.
>>> Do you want the Desktop Update with it's features to work or do
>>> you prefer to do without it? Calvin suggests that it's the main
>>> cause for any of NT's instability, but I'm so new to NT that I
>>> can't claim any such knowledge or bias as of yet. I just did
>>> archive both updates last night and something about the active
>>> update bothered me but I couldn't place my finger on what it was.
>>> I also downloaded some updates for 98 at the same time which
>>> diverted my full attention from your issue or the possiblity that
>>> you were applying the wrong update offline - or perhaps WinUP is
>>> reading the left over key and sending you the wrong update? MS
>>> is notorious about leaving old keys in the registry, everybody
>>> else does it too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>>> <5g3og0hhnmkhu7g79p03ht6tehjpm6lhgt@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>> Lee,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for the time spent on trying to help with this minor issue.
>>>>
>>>> I've checked all the causes you've listed:
>>>> 1. Permissions: I aways logon as an administrator.
>>>> 2. PendingFileRenameOperations: no such keys found.
>>>> 3. KB842289: SUS is not installed and I have a fast and reliable
>>>> connection to the internet i.e. all other updates get installed.
>>>> Still, this indicates that a bug in WU 3.2 may well be the cause.
>>>> 4. KB268364: It's not a scripting timeout problem because it's not a
>>>> large download. Also, larger online updates are working and the
>>>> the offline update worked.
>>>> 5. Windows Script 5.6: Refreshed it but has had no effect.
>>>>
>>>> The strange thing is that the online update downloads the patch
>>>> KB839645 completely and the progress bar for the installation also
>>>> starts to fill up. Only then a failure is reported where a success
>>>> message would be expected.
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed that there are 2 updates for WinNT 4.0 SP6a Workstation:
>>>> one with ActiveDesktop and one without. I've used the latter one when
>>>> installing the patch offline. ActiveDesktop is currently not installed
>>>> but it was years ago. Is that something worth to be checked further?
>>>>
>>>> Heinz Wehner
>>>> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

lee

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
635
0
18,980
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qf05h0dooggpkbus0nr9ced6e1r4sgoqnm@4ax.com>...
> 1. The entry for hotfix KB839645 looks exactly like all the other
> KBnnnnnn hotfixes: "Installed"=dword:00000001
> 2. The Active Desktop entry does not exist.
> 3. The Shell32.dll file has version 4.00 like the replaced file does.
> The old file is dated Feb 12, 2002 while the new file is dated
> May 20, 2004. These are the German versions.
>
> Because all this is really like it should be, I'm hesitating to
> retrofit an entry for Active Setup that has likely never been there.
>
> So why WU doesn't recognize the patch as being installed remains still
> a mystery. May be we approach the issue from another angle and ask why
> WU cannot install the path. May be it's because the shell32.dll cannot
> be replaced because it's in use somehow? There's also no explanation
> for the error message 0x80004005. I've seen several postings here with
> this error code but nobody was able to explain the meaning.
>
> Heinz Wehner
> (Karlsruhe, Germany)
>

1 ) Good leave it alone then, or add IsInstalled line also for WinUP
test?

2) Good, as it should be then. Only add ActiveX string if you want
to further test WinUP and what it is looking at. I understand your
reluctance to do this but many have done similar keys for same
problems with WinUP site and updates that don't even apply to them.
WinUP is NOT perfect, they may have a defective script to detect
updates and it has happened before. Being NT they may not be
motivatated to do anything about it soon. As the update downloads
from WinUP look for folders in WindowsUpdate folder and same named
..cif file in WindowsUpdate folder itself. The .cif file is a text
file and will list various aspects, install engines, switches etc.,
used for that update. Maybe you can learn more by grabbing those?
They will self delete once the update runs successfully so don't
count on them unless you copy them to a work folder for viewing
asap.

In use replacement covered by Pending file rename operations so
that's not it. Error code is too generic to be of any use unless
you can pin it down to the exact process that generates it - I
don't know how to do that. I agree that perhaps this whole issue
is involved with why WinUP fails to install the package online.
Reason for that well beyond me at this point. Only thing I can
offer is ways to avoid being prompted to re-install it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Lee,

sorry for the delay but I had to focus on other things for some time.
Thanks again for your assistance and the many suggestions.

I have decided to leave the issue as is. It doesn't make much sense
for me to change or add things that look perfectly consistent. The
best approach to resolve the issue is to start out from the error
message. Because it's generic, only Microsoft can help here. But
support for NT is no longer available and I've been already requested
by an MS guy to update the OS. So I'm giving up at this point.

Heinz Wehner
(Karlsruhe, Germany)


On 8 Aug 2004 04:52:24 -0700, melee5@my-deja.com (Lee) wrote:

> 1 ) Good leave it alone then, or add IsInstalled line also for WinUP
> test?
>
> 2) Good, as it should be then. Only add ActiveX string if you want
> to further test WinUP and what it is looking at. I understand your
> reluctance to do this but many have done similar keys for same
> problems with WinUP site and updates that don't even apply to them.
> WinUP is NOT perfect, they may have a defective script to detect
> updates and it has happened before. Being NT they may not be
> motivatated to do anything about it soon. As the update downloads
> from WinUP look for folders in WindowsUpdate folder and same named
> .cif file in WindowsUpdate folder itself. The .cif file is a text
> file and will list various aspects, install engines, switches etc.,
> used for that update. Maybe you can learn more by grabbing those?
> They will self delete once the update runs successfully so don't
> count on them unless you copy them to a work folder for viewing
> asap.
>
> In use replacement covered by Pending file rename operations so
> that's not it. Error code is too generic to be of any use unless
> you can pin it down to the exact process that generates it - I
> don't know how to do that. I agree that perhaps this whole issue
> is involved with why WinUP fails to install the package online.
> Reason for that well beyond me at this point. Only thing I can
> offer is ways to avoid being prompted to re-install it.
>
>
> Heinz Wehner <hwehner@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <qf05h0dooggpkbus0nr9ced6e1r4sgoqnm@4ax.com>...
>
> > 1. The entry for hotfix KB839645 looks exactly like all the other
> > KBnnnnnn hotfixes: "Installed"=dword:00000001
> > 2. The Active Desktop entry does not exist.
> > 3. The Shell32.dll file has version 4.00 like the replaced file does.
> > The old file is dated Feb 12, 2002 while the new file is dated
> > May 20, 2004. These are the German versions.
> >
> > Because all this is really like it should be, I'm hesitating to
> > retrofit an entry for Active Setup that has likely never been there.
> >
> > So why WU doesn't recognize the patch as being installed remains still
> > a mystery. May be we approach the issue from another angle and ask why
> > WU cannot install the path. May be it's because the shell32.dll cannot
> > be replaced because it's in use somehow? There's also no explanation
> > for the error message 0x80004005. I've seen several postings here with
> > this error code but nobody was able to explain the meaning.
> >
> > Heinz Wehner
> > (Karlsruhe, Germany)
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Heinz Wehner Said:

> But support for NT is no longer available and I've been already requested
> by an MS guy to update the OS.

Actually, my understanding was that for security related issues on NT 4.0 Server
(which this patch is), support ends on 31 Dec 2004. Check the Windows Life-cycle
page if you don't believe me.

Sounds like Microsoft continuing their standard mantra of 'upgrade, upgrade...'

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Calvin,

thanks for this information. I'm going to repost the issue in the
Windows Update newsgroup. Let's see if I get some assistance.

Heinz


On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:54:45 +1000, Calvin <nospam@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Heinz Wehner Said:
>
> > But support for NT is no longer available and I've been already requested
> > by an MS guy to update the OS.
>
> Actually, my understanding was that for security related issues on NT 4.0 Server
> (which this patch is), support ends on 31 Dec 2004. Check the Windows Life-cycle
> page if you don't believe me.
>
> Sounds like Microsoft continuing their standard mantra of 'upgrade, upgrade...'
>
> Calvin.