12 hour update!

My machine (XP Pro) is set to all automatic to keep as up-to-date as
possible. This morning I shut down and was informed of 2 critical updates.
1 of 2 was done in minutes but 2 of 2 is still running 12 hours later.

Will all hell break loose if I pull the plug? What else could I do?

All help appreciated.

James Crosby wrote:
> My machine (XP Pro) is set to all automatic to keep as up-to-date as
> possible. This morning I shut down and was informed of 2 critical
> updates. 1 of 2 was done in minutes but 2 of 2 is still running 12
> hours later.
>
> Will all hell break loose if I pull the plug?

No.

> What else could I do?

Restart the computer, clear the Temp and IE TIF folders. Then check
your Add&Remove Programs list to see if you have the Beta of .NET 2.0
installed --- if so, remove it. Then return to the Microsoft Update
site, do a Custom scan, and select just that one update (.NET 2.0) for
install.

--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt either
was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update only available
from WU/MU.

I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of people
have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as WU/MU.

I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter any issues
installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.


"Sky King" <> wrote in message
news:...
> James Crosby wrote:
>> My machine (XP Pro) is set to all automatic to keep as up-to-date as
>> possible. This morning I shut down and was informed of 2 critical
>> updates. 1 of 2 was done in minutes but 2 of 2 is still running 12
>> hours later.
>>
>> Will all hell break loose if I pull the plug?
>
> No.
>
>> What else could I do?
>
> Restart the computer, clear the Temp and IE TIF folders. Then check your
> Add&Remove Programs list to see if you have the Beta of .NET 2.0
> installed --- if so, remove it. Then return to the Microsoft Update site,
> do a Custom scan, and select just that one update (.NET 2.0) for install.
>
> --
>
> ...Sky
>
> Tom "Sky" King
> =============
>
>

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
> Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt
> either was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update
> only available from WU/MU.

I think the two updates offered this week were these two:
1. Security Update for Windows XP (KB896424)
2. Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)

The one getting the most fail posts here is the second one (the .NET 2.0
update).

> I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of
> people have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as
> WU/MU.

Entirely possible. Yet given that the MSRT has been a monthly event for
many months now, it is more likely that the .NET update was the second
update that James saw.

Of course I gladly agree that my guess was just that...a guess.

> I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter
> any issues installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.

Same for most folks. Yet many had a problem installing the .NET 2.0
update, mostly because they had installed a Beta version some time in
the past. MS nearly made it a requirement to have the Beta of .NET 2.0
installed in order to fix various other issues over the past 2-4 months.

Again, that was just my guess. But a lot of posts here confirm that the
..NET 2.0 push was the one that caused a lot of problems for folks who
had the Beta installed.

Since the OP did not specify what two updates were offered, I made the
guess. If James indeed had some other item as the second update,
following my suggestion to install the .NET 2.0 package manually will
not hurt anything.


--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

Don't forget the Nov-05 version of MCRT.

Sky King wrote:
> Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
> > Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt
> > either was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update
> > only available from WU/MU.
>
> I think the two updates offered this week were these two:
> 1. Security Update for Windows XP (KB896424)
> 2. Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)
>
> The one getting the most fail posts here is the second one (the .NET 2.0
> update).
>
> > I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of
> > people have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as
> > WU/MU.
>
> Entirely possible. Yet given that the MSRT has been a monthly event for
> many months now, it is more likely that the .NET update was the second
> update that James saw.
>
> Of course I gladly agree that my guess was just that...a guess.
>
> > I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter
> > any issues installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.
>
> Same for most folks. Yet many had a problem installing the .NET 2.0
> update, mostly because they had installed a Beta version some time in
> the past. MS nearly made it a requirement to have the Beta of .NET 2.0
> installed in order to fix various other issues over the past 2-4 months.
>
> Again, that was just my guess. But a lot of posts here confirm that the
> .NET 2.0 push was the one that caused a lot of problems for folks who
> had the Beta installed.
>
> Since the OP did not specify what two updates were offered, I made the
> guess. If James indeed had some other item as the second update,
> following my suggestion to install the .NET 2.0 package manually will
> not hurt anything.

"Sky King" <> wrote in message
news:...

> Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:

>> Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt
>> either was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update
>> only available from WU/MU.
>
> I think the two updates offered this week were these two:
> 1. Security Update for Windows XP (KB896424)
> 2. Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)

The .NET Framework would /NOT/ be offered as an update via Automatic Updates,
any more than it is available via SUS or WSUS. The .NET Framework (any
version), is an /optional/ update and requires a visit to Windows Update or
Microsoft Update using Custom mode to access optional updates.

As confirmation, I just dropped into Microsoft Update from this system, and
was offered one update: KB896424. (I've already run the MSRT installation. The
MSRT would be the second "critical" update offered via Express updates with
AU/WU/MU services, as it has been every month in the past half dozen.)

> The one getting the most fail posts here is the second one (the .NET 2.0
> update).

There have been issues with installing the .NET Framework v2.0 (most notably
on users who had the /beta/ package installed and weren't aware of the
requirements to uninstall). However, I've not seen anything which indicates
that update came from "Automatic Updates".

>> I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of
>> people have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as
>> WU/MU.
>
> Entirely possible. Yet given that the MSRT has been a monthly event for
> many months now, it is more likely that the .NET update was the second
> update that James saw.

The two are not related. The .NET Framework will not be offered via Automatic
Updates. The MSRT definitely will.

> Of course I gladly agree that my guess was just that...a guess.

:-)

>> I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter
>> any issues installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.
>
> Same for most folks. Yet many had a problem installing the .NET 2.0 update,
> mostly because they had installed a Beta version some time in the past. MS
> nearly made it a requirement to have the Beta of .NET 2.0 installed in order
> to fix various other issues over the past 2-4 months.

I'm sorry. I don't recall any issues where installing the /beta/ version of
software has ever been a Microsoft-authorized "fix" for anything. However, it
is true that Visual Studio 2005 (Whidbey) and SQL Server 2005 (Yukon) betas
and CTPs were widely spread throughout the world, and both of those packages
installed the .NET Framework v2.0 beta code.

I'd be interested in more information about specific issues that were
suggested to be resolved by installing the beta version of the .NET Framework.

> Again, that was just my guess. But a lot of posts here confirm that the
> .NET 2.0 push was the one that caused a lot of problems for folks who had
> the Beta installed.
>
> Since the OP did not specify what two updates were offered, I made the
> guess. If James indeed had some other item as the second update, following
> my suggestion to install the .NET 2.0 package manually will not hurt
> anything.

Unless he also has problems installing /that/ package. :-)

> --
>
> ...Sky
>
> Tom "Sky" King
> =============
>
>

The 2 critical updates that appeared for me on Tuesday this week were:
1) Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB896424)
2) Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - Nov. 2005 (KB890830)

Then the Software Update (Optional):
1) Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)

I had no problems installing the critical updates. However, so far I have
been unable to install the .NET update. I am running Windows 2000
Professional on an IBM ThinkPad Laptop. I do not have any beta versions of
..net installed. I have Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1 as well as the hotfix
for it - (KB886903). I tried installing it with the critical updates, then
seperate from the critical updates. Both times I got error 0x659; I have no
idea what that error means.

Additionally, as recommended on this forum, I tried going to the Microsoft
..NET Framework developer centerand downloading/installing it directly from
that site
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...s/default.aspx). I
tried installing the Redistributal Package (2.0 x86) as the site says this
must be installed before installing the SDK 2.0 x86 package. It was unable
to install; the error message said that it either could not open the
installation package or a required file.

The only thing I have yet to try is to uninstall the 1.1 version (and
hotfix) before trying to install the 2.0 version. I did not think this was
necessarily causing a problem since all the posts I have read so far said
that only those people with beta versions had to uninstall them first.

I will post again once I have tried uninstalling version 1.1 first.

-tnlindsey

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" wrote:

>
> "Sky King" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
> > Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
>
> >> Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt
> >> either was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update
> >> only available from WU/MU.
> >
> > I think the two updates offered this week were these two:
> > 1. Security Update for Windows XP (KB896424)
> > 2. Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)
>
> The .NET Framework would /NOT/ be offered as an update via Automatic Updates,
> any more than it is available via SUS or WSUS. The .NET Framework (any
> version), is an /optional/ update and requires a visit to Windows Update or
> Microsoft Update using Custom mode to access optional updates.
>
> As confirmation, I just dropped into Microsoft Update from this system, and
> was offered one update: KB896424. (I've already run the MSRT installation. The
> MSRT would be the second "critical" update offered via Express updates with
> AU/WU/MU services, as it has been every month in the past half dozen.)
>
> > The one getting the most fail posts here is the second one (the .NET 2.0
> > update).
>
> There have been issues with installing the .NET Framework v2.0 (most notably
> on users who had the /beta/ package installed and weren't aware of the
> requirements to uninstall). However, I've not seen anything which indicates
> that update came from "Automatic Updates".
>
> >> I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of
> >> people have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as
> >> WU/MU.
> >
> > Entirely possible. Yet given that the MSRT has been a monthly event for
> > many months now, it is more likely that the .NET update was the second
> > update that James saw.
>
> The two are not related. The .NET Framework will not be offered via Automatic
> Updates. The MSRT definitely will.
>
> > Of course I gladly agree that my guess was just that...a guess.
>
> :-)
>
> >> I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter
> >> any issues installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.
> >
> > Same for most folks. Yet many had a problem installing the .NET 2.0 update,
> > mostly because they had installed a Beta version some time in the past. MS
> > nearly made it a requirement to have the Beta of .NET 2.0 installed in order
> > to fix various other issues over the past 2-4 months.
>
> I'm sorry. I don't recall any issues where installing the /beta/ version of
> software has ever been a Microsoft-authorized "fix" for anything. However, it
> is true that Visual Studio 2005 (Whidbey) and SQL Server 2005 (Yukon) betas
> and CTPs were widely spread throughout the world, and both of those packages
> installed the .NET Framework v2.0 beta code.
>
> I'd be interested in more information about specific issues that were
> suggested to be resolved by installing the beta version of the .NET Framework.
>
> > Again, that was just my guess. But a lot of posts here confirm that the
> > .NET 2.0 push was the one that caused a lot of problems for folks who had
> > the Beta installed.
> >
> > Since the OP did not specify what two updates were offered, I made the
> > guess. If James indeed had some other item as the second update, following
> > my suggestion to install the .NET 2.0 package manually will not hurt
> > anything.
>
> Unless he also has problems installing /that/ package. :-)
>
> > --
> >
> > ...Sky
> >
> > Tom "Sky" King
> > =============
> >
> >
>
>
>

Please begin a new thread about /your/ problem and stop "piggybacking" onto
the threads of others, no matter how similar their problem may be to yours.

Thank you.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), AH-VSOP

tnlindsey wrote:
> The 2 critical updates that appeared for me on Tuesday this week were:
> 1) Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB896424)
> 2) Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - Nov. 2005 (KB890830)
>
> Then the Software Update (Optional):
> 1) Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)
>
> I had no problems installing the critical updates. However, so far I have
> been unable to install the .NET update. I am running Windows 2000
> Professional on an IBM ThinkPad Laptop. I do not have any beta versions
> of .net installed. I have Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1 as well as the
> hotfix for it - (KB886903). I tried installing it with the critical
> updates, then seperate from the critical updates. Both times I got error
> 0x659; I have no idea what that error means.
>
> Additionally, as recommended on this forum, I tried going to the Microsoft
> .NET Framework developer centerand downloading/installing it directly from
> that site
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...s/default.aspx).
> I tried installing the Redistributal Package (2.0 x86) as the site says
> this must be installed before installing the SDK 2.0 x86 package. It was
> unable to install; the error message said that it either could not open
> the installation package or a required file.
>
> The only thing I have yet to try is to uninstall the 1.1 version (and
> hotfix) before trying to install the 2.0 version. I did not think this
> was necessarily causing a problem since all the posts I have read so far
> said that only those people with beta versions had to uninstall them
> first.
>
> I will post again once I have tried uninstalling version 1.1 first.
<snip>

PA Bear wrote:
> Don't forget the Nov-05 version of MCRT.

Hi (and to Lawrence);

You're right. I had forgotten about that one, and that the .NET update
wouldn't be offered via AU. Mea culpa. Sorry.

--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

PA Bear,

First please see my reply to you under Microsoft .NET 2.0 update install on
MS Update.

Secondly, note that in this thread there was some confusion as to what two
critical micosoft updates came out and whether or not the .NET 2.0 update
showed up as a critical update.

My reply addressed this confusion, as well as provided additional
information as I stated in my previous reply to you.

"PA Bear" wrote:

> Please begin a new thread about /your/ problem and stop "piggybacking" onto
> the threads of others, no matter how similar their problem may be to yours.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), AH-VSOP
>
> tnlindsey wrote:
> > The 2 critical updates that appeared for me on Tuesday this week were:
> > 1) Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB896424)
> > 2) Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - Nov. 2005 (KB890830)
> >
> > Then the Software Update (Optional):
> > 1) Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)
> >
> > I had no problems installing the critical updates. However, so far I have
> > been unable to install the .NET update. I am running Windows 2000
> > Professional on an IBM ThinkPad Laptop. I do not have any beta versions
> > of .net installed. I have Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1 as well as the
> > hotfix for it - (KB886903). I tried installing it with the critical
> > updates, then seperate from the critical updates. Both times I got error
> > 0x659; I have no idea what that error means.
> >
> > Additionally, as recommended on this forum, I tried going to the Microsoft
> > .NET Framework developer centerand downloading/installing it directly from
> > that site
> > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...s/default.aspx).
> > I tried installing the Redistributal Package (2.0 x86) as the site says
> > this must be installed before installing the SDK 2.0 x86 package. It was
> > unable to install; the error message said that it either could not open
> > the installation package or a required file.
> >
> > The only thing I have yet to try is to uninstall the 1.1 version (and
> > hotfix) before trying to install the 2.0 version. I did not think this
> > was necessarily causing a problem since all the posts I have read so far
> > said that only those people with beta versions had to uninstall them
> > first.
> >
> > I will post again once I have tried uninstalling version 1.1 first.
> <snip>
>
>