1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

What's up with KB900485?

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Christer, 2006/04/26.

  1. 2006/04/26
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Hello all!

    The KB article is dated January 6, 2006.
    The file is v2, released on April 20, 2006.
    It was offered today, through automatic update. (I get notification but no automatic download and installation.)

    Was there a "v1 "?

    If so, why wasn't I offered that one?

    I have installed it but do honestly not believe that my system needed it.

    Thanks for your time,
    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #1
  2. 2006/04/26
    Whiskeyman Lifetime Subscription

    Whiskeyman Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2005/09/10
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    37
    Whiskeyman,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2006/04/26
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    I agree but it came as a critical update through automatic update. It doesn't seem critical to me, more like on an "as needed" basis.

    Anyone else who got notification of it?

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #3
  5. 2006/04/26
    Welshjim

    Welshjim Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    5,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christer--I was offered it yesterday as a "High Priority" update, which I think is what used to be called a Critical Update.
    It certainly is a little mysterious. I had not gotten any "Stop 0x7E" messages. And now it is probably too late to learn if I had the original KB900485 update .
    Perhaps it was just a "cover" to get everyone to install the new Validation software, which also came yesterday.

    P.S. As far as v1 is concerned, would not the the original KB900485 update fill that role?
     
    Welshjim,
    #4
  6. 2006/04/26
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Yes, thats why I put "v1" within double quotes.

    I was not prompted to install a new version of WGA. I did not install through automatic updates but a download to local hard disk from Windows Update Catalog.

    Christer

    By the way: "High Priority" ... ;) ... my computer speaks swedish and I still have "Critical" deeply buried in my head. Once I've learnt, I don't forget ... :p ... !
     
    Christer,
    #5
  7. 2006/04/26
    surferdude2

    surferdude2 Inactive

    Joined:
    2004/07/04
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    23
    I must say I'm getting very, very, very tired of these MicroSoft tactics. I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time having my system verified and updating it with what appears to be useless items that are presented as "High Priority" updates.

    I'm considering just foregoing any further games with the Update site and run my system as it now stands. It works well and I can handle any security intrusion much easier on my own.

    I resent being strip searched so often. :)
     
    surferdude2,
    #6
  8. 2006/04/27
    iangjones

    iangjones Inactive

    Joined:
    2006/04/27
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could there be something dubious about this patch (I believe that KB908531 resulted in fatal errors on some machines)?

    Raised in posting by twinstonk "Startup problem ".
     
    iangjones,
    #7
  9. 2006/04/27
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    See the post mentioned by iangjones here. I had no problems with neither KB900485 nor any of the other april updates but others do. It seems to me like MS should reconsider their priorities!

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #8
  10. 2006/04/27
    iangjones

    iangjones Inactive

    Joined:
    2006/04/27
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree Christer.

    One observation though - the Microsoft Support page for the patch shows that the driver file aec.sys should have a date of 27-May-2005; but mine (looking from Recovery Console) shows 15-Feb-2006?

    Is that acceptable (ie if the update didn't work, would the old version be more recent than the patch version?)

    [Yes, this is prevarication - I'm putting off the inevitable rebuild]
     
    iangjones,
    #9
  11. 2006/04/27
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    The same here but I have verified the file version and size to be correct. I found versions of the file littered in a few places. It seems like it's not the first substitution.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #10

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...