867801 vs. 871260 ??

Hello,
I just installed 867801 from Win Update site. (I have Win 2000 Pro).

Reading some comments from others here, one MVP recommended doing 871260
instead (which says includes 867801).

I don't get offered 871260 when I try the Win Update site (again).

Should 867801 be uninstalled and do 871260 (by hand?) ??

--
Michael Waltrip
San Diego, California

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:21:02 -0700, Michael W
<michaelj_SPAMME_waltrip@hot_NOT_mail.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>I just installed 867801 from Win Update site. (I have Win 2000 Pro).
>
>Reading some comments from others here, one MVP recommended doing 871260
>instead (which says includes 867801).
>
>I don't get offered 871260 when I try the Win Update site (again).
>
>Should 867801 be uninstalled and do 871260 (by hand?) ??
It's my understanding that 871260 can be downloaded and
installed as is; no uninstall of 867801 in necessary.

It's also my understanding that 871260 supercedes
all the files in 867801, and it's really only necessary
to install 871260.

How did WU get in such mess? It seems MS' mechanism to
ensure no files get back leveled and the relationship between
hot fixes and others needs some work!
Dave

Hey Dave,
I was just wondering why 871260 didn't show in WU site.

I haven't checked MBSA since (mssecure.xml - one attempt to define
files/fixes relationship), but it does seem a mess. Still the effort is
admirable (when considering the scope).

Michael

"davexnet02" wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:21:02 -0700, Michael W
> <michaelj_SPAMME_waltrip@hot_NOT_mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >I just installed 867801 from Win Update site. (I have Win 2000 Pro).
> >
> >Reading some comments from others here, one MVP recommended doing 871260
> >instead (which says includes 867801).
> >
> >I don't get offered 871260 when I try the Win Update site (again).
> >
> >Should 867801 be uninstalled and do 871260 (by hand?) ??
> It's my understanding that 871260 can be downloaded and
> installed as is; no uninstall of 867801 in necessary.
>
> It's also my understanding that 871260 supercedes
> all the files in 867801, and it's really only necessary
> to install 871260.
>
> How did WU get in such mess? It seems MS' mechanism to
> ensure no files get back leveled and the relationship between
> hot fixes and others needs some work!
> Dave
>

Michael W wrote:

> Hello,
> I just installed 867801 from Win Update site. (I have Win 2000 Pro).
>
> Reading some comments from others here, one MVP recommended doing 871260
> instead (which says includes 867801).
>
> I don't get offered 871260 when I try the Win Update site (again).
>
> Should 867801 be uninstalled and do 871260 (by hand?) ??
Hi

If you haven't any problems after installing 867801, you do not need
to install 871260.

If you want to install 871260 after 867801 is installed, you do not
need (and should not) uninstall 867801 first.


Note that 871260 does not include any security updates that 867801
does not have, only bug fixes. I would think 871260 is not offered
on Windows Update because some of those fixes in it are very recent,
and Microsoft haven't done enough testing to feel safe to deploy it
in a wide scale.


--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx