"Only way to be certain would be to go back to Windows Update and see if update kb912812 is presented for you to download again."

Only way? Not hardly, and that is NOT certain at all, considering that we already know that the update has not been installed correctly. It IS a total waste of the OP's time in fact. Time better spent downloading the stand alone executable from the Catalog and then re-applying it offline.

"I think this is a non-issue." (concerning the lack of an Add/Remove Programs line for Uninstall of 912812 update)

This is THE indicator that the update isn't installed correctly so it IS an issue here, the biggest issue in the entire thread as I see it. MahGawd man, how can you say that?

"In the first instance you'd need to figure out how to remove the files, Registry entries, that were installed so that the Update is offered again, thereby indicating successful removal of partial/corrupted download."

Wrong, all that is totally unnecessary. You go here:
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/
and you download what you want and reapply it.

"The danger with manually installing updates comes in never being certain that the partial/corrupted dowload will be completely overwritten, and may cause problems with manual install."

Even using your questionable 'manual method' suggested with registry tampering, one can always delete the Temporary Internet Files between WinUP site visits and guarantee that new downloads of those updates will occur. You can always be certain of that in direct opposition of your statement(again!). Using the Catalog, I have never downloaded an update that got corrupted during the download - NEVER and I am certain. These files carry digital signatures for a reason you know....

"Also, since not all WU are universal, not required for all systems, you could install an update intended to patch a problem that does not exist on your system."

More nonsense. NONE of the WinUP offerings are of the type that will install on any system that they were not written for explicitly. In days long gone now, maybe a few would (lending credence to that rumor). For hotfixes what you state is quite true, but NEVER at the current WinUP site does that hold any water.

"An example would be the 2 updates (kb908531-kb918165) that have been written so much about on this thread. Unless you system is affected, Windows Update will not offer either of these patches."

98 IS affected, the real reason they are not offered is because MS hasn't written them for 98 yet, and they may never. The very day that they are at the standard WinUP site for 98 they will also be at the Catalog site if past behavior counts for anything here.

"Manual install could lead a number of folks to attempt to install unneeded Patches to their system. Resulting in ???????????"

None of the kb908531-kb918165 updates written for other platforms will install on 98 without overt, intentional actions taken by the user. Double click them to your hearts content, they will not install, not even partially. But I do agree with the ??????? situation, it's one best avoided.

"As for the current thread, there seems to be something else going on with skipc's system. As noted by others, a failed WU should not cause this kind of grief."

Sorry, I disagree totally again. In my opinion (and more than a few MS MVPs), the fastest way to bork up 98 is to do multiple, online WinUP installs, which is exactly what the OP did to get in this thread. Good advice early on might have made a real difference.

And that doesn't mean that something else can't be at fault of course, I echo the sad sentiment that now we won't know what the fix was for this machine after all this typing. I was hoping that manual installations of the 4 updates would get it back. But instead of being the answer man for the OP, I must rebuff far too many statements that you make because it's flat out WRONG. Please visit the Catalog, download something there, see what I'm talking about first hand. These updates can be opened by WinZip and Resource Hacker for viewing of all aspects I've touched upon here, I know well of what I speak. You can also roll your own installation packages similar to these updates (minus the OS, specific file version pre-existance and other pre-launch verification aspects) with the help of IExpress.exe, good luck getting your own custom 'updates' digitally signed however. IExpress comes standard with XP, Google for it otherwise, it's out there.

All the best.
Lee


On Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 7:25 am, bob wells wrote:
>Lee,
>
>Neither method is perfect. The scan, however can be used as a troubleshooter. ie
>you know you need the update and think you don't have it because it doesn't appear
>in ADD/REMove or on IE help, yet it's not offered after scan. The indication is
>that there is an incomplete install, yet enough for the scan to identify.
>
>The flip side; the Update is listed, indicating previous download failed. You get
>an answer either way. In the first instance you'd need to figure out how to remove
>the files, Registry entries, that were installed so that the Update is offered again,
>thereby indicating successful removal of partial/corrupted download.
>
>The danger with manually installing updates comes in never being certain that the
>partial/corrupted dowload will be completely overwritten, and may cause problems
>with manual install.
>
>Also, since not all WU are universal, not required for all systems, you could install
>an update intended to patch a problem that does not exist on your system.
>
>An example would be the 2 updates (kb908531-kb918165) that have been written so much
>about on this thread. Unless you system is affected, Windows Update will not offer
>either of these patches. Manual install could lead a number of folks to attempt to
>install unneeded Patches to their system. Resulting in ???????????
>
>True the Scan is not perfect, it's still on you to check out the patches offered,
>but it does provide a modicum of assurance that the Update is appropriate for your
>system.
>
>I know,I know, this too has failed occasionally but it's better than shooting blind.
>
>As for the current thread, there seems to be something else going on with skipc's
>system. As noted by others, a failed WU should not cause this kind of grief.
>
>bw
>
>
>
>
>

Written in response to: re: Kb912812 Security Update Error (bob wells: Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 7:25 am) There are presently no replies to this message.

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum