Differences between Kb951746 and Kb951748?

When I updated my DNS servers on our main system using automatic update some
installed both patches (one 2k server and one 2003) one ( a 2k server) only
installed 95174848

Because of slow access to the internet in the labs we ran the patches from a
CD. Kb951748 installed OK but 46 gave an error.

KB951746-x86 is not a valid win 32 application.

I have reread the KB bulletins but something must not be getting through my
fat head.

Thanks for any help.

What SP level is WS2003 at ? Check the file lists for both KBs and
compare the Version levels. Without knowing what SP level WS2003 is
at it *appears* that KB951746 should have been installed prior
to KB951748.
Which is why you should at least allow the servers to check with WU|MU
for the order in which the updates are offered. You can then manually
install them from the CD in the offered order. <w>

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============


DonP wrote:

> When I updated my DNS servers on our main system using automatic update some
> installed both patches (one 2k server and one 2003) one ( a 2k server) only
> installed 95174848
>
> Because of slow access to the internet in the labs we ran the patches from a
> CD. Kb951748 installed OK but 46 gave an error.
>
> KB951746-x86 is not a valid win 32 application.
>
> I have reread the KB bulletins but something must not be getting through my
> fat head.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>

thanks for the reply. the 2003 server is 5.2 R2 SP2.
the 2K servers are SP4.
I have the tech at the site running WU|MU to check the order offered. Any
thoughts on why only one was installed on the one 2K server using auto update.



"MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:

> What SP level is WS2003 at ? Check the file lists for both KBs and
> compare the Version levels. Without knowing what SP level WS2003 is
> at it *appears* that KB951746 should have been installed prior
> to KB951748.
> Which is why you should at least allow the servers to check with WU|MU
> for the order in which the updates are offered. You can then manually
> install them from the CD in the offered order. <w>
>
> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
> ===============
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ===============
>
>
> DonP wrote:
>
> > When I updated my DNS servers on our main system using automatic update some
> > installed both patches (one 2k server and one 2003) one ( a 2k server) only
> > installed 95174848
> >
> > Because of slow access to the internet in the labs we ran the patches from a
> > CD. Kb951748 installed OK but 46 gave an error.
> >
> > KB951746-x86 is not a valid win 32 application.
> >
> > I have reread the KB bulletins but something must not be getting through my
> > fat head.
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
>

Can't really say without perusing the WindowsUpdate.log from the 2K
server, Don. From your first post I was under the impression that you
had chosen the order and updates to install from the monthly CD release.
It appears I have a 'reading miscomprehension' issue or am suffering
from sleep deprivation.
So, AU offered to install KB951748 before KB954176 ? Just a quick check
of the file Version levels leads me to believe that the order should be
reversed.
Let's see if the tech can read or sleep more than I can. <w>

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============


DonP wrote:

> thanks for the reply. the 2003 server is 5.2 R2 SP2.
> the 2K servers are SP4.
> I have the tech at the site running WU|MU to check the order offered. Any
> thoughts on why only one was installed on the one 2K server using auto update.
>
>
>
> "MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:
>
>
>>What SP level is WS2003 at ? Check the file lists for both KBs and
>>compare the Version levels. Without knowing what SP level WS2003 is
>>at it *appears* that KB951746 should have been installed prior
>>to KB951748.
>>Which is why you should at least allow the servers to check with WU|MU
>>for the order in which the updates are offered. You can then manually
>>install them from the CD in the offered order. <w>
>>
>>MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
>>===============
>> *-343-* FDNY
>>Never Forgotten
>>===============
>>
>>
>>DonP wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I updated my DNS servers on our main system using automatic update some
>>>installed both patches (one 2k server and one 2003) one ( a 2k server) only
>>>installed 95174848
>>>
>>>Because of slow access to the internet in the labs we ran the patches from a
>>>CD. Kb951748 installed OK but 46 gave an error.
>>>
>>> KB951746-x86 is not a valid win 32 application.
>>>
>>>I have reread the KB bulletins but something must not be getting through my
>>>fat head.
>>>
>>>Thanks for any help.
>>>
>>

The CD is one I burned from the download site.
Based on your first post the tech will be using auto update after the
learning lab closes this evening. If this works will go back to the first lab
uninstall and reinstall in the correct order. The DSL line is so slow I was
trying to save some time for the Techs.

I will check the logs of the server that only did one patch maybe ill see
something. Will let you know.

Thanks again


"MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:

> Can't really say without perusing the WindowsUpdate.log from the 2K
> server, Don. From your first post I was under the impression that you
> had chosen the order and updates to install from the monthly CD release.
> It appears I have a 'reading miscomprehension' issue or am suffering
> from sleep deprivation.
> So, AU offered to install KB951748 before KB954176 ? Just a quick check
> of the file Version levels leads me to believe that the order should be
> reversed.
> Let's see if the tech can read or sleep more than I can. <w>
>
> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
> ===============
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ===============
>
>
> DonP wrote:
>
> > thanks for the reply. the 2003 server is 5.2 R2 SP2.
> > the 2K servers are SP4.
> > I have the tech at the site running WU|MU to check the order offered. Any
> > thoughts on why only one was installed on the one 2K server using auto update.
> >
> >
> >
> > "MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What SP level is WS2003 at ? Check the file lists for both KBs and
> >>compare the Version levels. Without knowing what SP level WS2003 is
> >>at it *appears* that KB951746 should have been installed prior
> >>to KB951748.
> >>Which is why you should at least allow the servers to check with WU|MU
> >>for the order in which the updates are offered. You can then manually
> >>install them from the CD in the offered order. <w>
> >>
> >>MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
> >>===============
> >> *-343-* FDNY
> >>Never Forgotten
> >>===============
> >>
> >>
> >>DonP wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>When I updated my DNS servers on our main system using automatic update some
> >>>installed both patches (one 2k server and one 2003) one ( a 2k server) only
> >>>installed 95174848
> >>>
> >>>Because of slow access to the internet in the labs we ran the patches from a
> >>>CD. Kb951748 installed OK but 46 gave an error.
> >>>
> >>> KB951746-x86 is not a valid win 32 application.
> >>>
> >>>I have reread the KB bulletins but something must not be getting through my
> >>>fat head.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for any help.
> >>>
> >>
>