Same Windows Updates

Everytime it scans for updates, it offers the same 12 downloads, even after
i've download and installed them. This has been going on for months. It is a
Windows 2000 platform and when it does the automatic check for updates, it
gives me the same 12:

Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (KB889293)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840315)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB842526)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841873)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841356)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840987)
Security Update for DirectX 9.0 (KB839643)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841533)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841872)
Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB839645)
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 3, English Version

Any suggestions?

The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win 2000,
but the cause may be the same..the installs were not properly registered.
Take a look to see if it helps.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q319109


"ragbaje" <> wrote in message
news:60153E82-4785-4163-B36D-...
> Everytime it scans for updates, it offers the same 12 downloads, even
after
> i've download and installed them. This has been going on for months. It is
a
> Windows 2000 platform and when it does the automatic check for updates, it
> gives me the same 12:
>
> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
(KB889293)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840315)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB842526)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841873)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841356)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840987)
> Security Update for DirectX 9.0 (KB839643)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841533)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841872)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB839645)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 3, English Version
>
> Any suggestions?

Sorry, I found this after I posted...here is the Win2000 update page. Try
the support options.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...ds/default.asp

"ragbaje" <> wrote in message
news:60153E82-4785-4163-B36D-...
> Everytime it scans for updates, it offers the same 12 downloads, even
after
> i've download and installed them. This has been going on for months. It is
a
> Windows 2000 platform and when it does the automatic check for updates, it
> gives me the same 12:
>
> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
(KB889293)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840315)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB842526)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841873)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841356)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840987)
> Security Update for DirectX 9.0 (KB839643)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841533)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841872)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB839645)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 3, English Version
>
> Any suggestions?

lvee wrote:

> The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup,
> not Win 2000, [snip]
Hi

Actually, this newsgroup is for all Microsoft OS versions...


--
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

The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win 2000,
but the cause may be the same..the installs were not properly registered.
Take a look to see if it helps.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q319109
....here is the Win2000 update page. Try
the support options.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...ds/default.asp



"ragbaje" <> wrote in message
news:60153E82-4785-4163-B36D-...
> Everytime it scans for updates, it offers the same 12 downloads, even
after
> i've download and installed them. This has been going on for months. It is
a
> Windows 2000 platform and when it does the automatic check for updates, it
> gives me the same 12:
>
> Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
(KB889293)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840315)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB842526)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841873)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841356)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB840987)
> Security Update for DirectX 9.0 (KB839643)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841533)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB841872)
> Security Update for Windows 2000 (KB839645)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 3, English Version
>
> Any suggestions?

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:33:43 -0600, "lvee" <> wrote:

>The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win 2000,

This newsgroup is "microsoft.public.windowsupdate" which is not
Operating System specific. Checking the headers of both your reply and
the original post the only newsgroup I see listed in either one is this
newsgroup. No evidence of multi- or cross-posting that I can see.
Guess you took a wrong turn somewhere.... )

--
dak

Yup, you're right, sorry. I stand corrected, however, I still tried to
answer the question and I hope it helps.
"dak" <microsoft-public-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:33:43 -0600, "lvee" <> wrote:
>
> >The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win
2000,
>
> This newsgroup is "microsoft.public.windowsupdate" which is not
> Operating System specific. Checking the headers of both your reply and
> the original post the only newsgroup I see listed in either one is this
> newsgroup. No evidence of multi- or cross-posting that I can see.
> Guess you took a wrong turn somewhere.... )
>
> --
> dak

"dak" <microsoft-public-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:33:43 -0600, "lvee" <> wrote:
>
>>The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win 2000,
>
> This newsgroup is "microsoft.public.windowsupdate" which is not
> Operating System specific. Checking the headers of both your reply and
> the original post the only newsgroup I see listed in either one is this
> newsgroup. No evidence of multi- or cross-posting that I can see.
> Guess you took a wrong turn somewhere.... )


Not really. I made the same point to a W2K user this week.
The thing is that there is so much focus in here on WUv5 issues
that WUv4 nuances are overlooked and forgotten about.

Assuming there is some kind of traffic in the win2000.windows_update
newsgroup W2K users are therefore likely to see more relevant
discussions there than here.


Robert Aldwinckle
---

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:59:34 -0500, "Robert Aldwinckle"
<> wrote:

>>>The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win 2000,
>>>
>> This newsgroup is "microsoft.public.windowsupdate" which is not
>> Operating System specific. Checking the headers of both your reply and
>> the original post the only newsgroup I see listed in either one is this
>> newsgroup. No evidence of multi- or cross-posting that I can see.
>> Guess you took a wrong turn somewhere.... )
>>
>Not really. I made the same point to a W2K user this week.
>The thing is that there is so much focus in here on WUv5 issues
>that WUv4 nuances are overlooked and forgotten about.

Okay, "not really" what....
That this newsgroup is "not really" "microsoft.public.windowsupdate?"
That this newsgroup is "not really" not Operating System specific?
That this newsgroup is "not really" not the XP newsgroup?
That there was "not really" no evidence of cross-posting?
That the poster "not really" thought he was in a different newsgroup
than what he actually was? (That's what my "wrong turn" comment WITH
SMILIE was about.)
That I was "not really" right about any of it?

>Assuming there is some kind of traffic in the win2000.windows_update
>newsgroup W2K users are therefore likely to see more relevant
>discussions there than here.

Probably, but the point, of course, was that THIS newsgroup is neither
the XP newsgroup (as was stated) nor an Operating System specific
newsgroup period. That statement stands on its own, regardless of your
"assessment(s)."

And I don't see any references or replies made by you to Torgeir
Bakken's comment "Actually, this newsgroup is for all Microsoft OS
versions..." to the same poster. Singling me out for some particular
reason?

--
dak

Okay, I have a question about this.

And I don't see any references or replies made by you to Torgeir
> Bakken's comment "Actually, this newsgroup is for all Microsoft OS
> versions..." to the same poster. Singling me out for some particular
> reason

and sorry to jump into the middle of someone else's post and change the
subject completely, but I'm using OE for these ng's, and I don't see any
post by Torgier Bakken..I have 'show all messages' selected. I just don't
understand how these things work..

"dak" <microsoft-public-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:59:34 -0500, "Robert Aldwinckle"
> <> wrote:
>
> >>>The link below is for Windows XP, as this is a XP newsgroup, not Win
2000,
> >>>
> >> This newsgroup is "microsoft.public.windowsupdate" which is not
> >> Operating System specific. Checking the headers of both your reply and
> >> the original post the only newsgroup I see listed in either one is this
> >> newsgroup. No evidence of multi- or cross-posting that I can see.
> >> Guess you took a wrong turn somewhere.... )
> >>
> >Not really. I made the same point to a W2K user this week.
> >The thing is that there is so much focus in here on WUv5 issues
> >that WUv4 nuances are overlooked and forgotten about.
>
> Okay, "not really" what....
> That this newsgroup is "not really" "microsoft.public.windowsupdate?"
> That this newsgroup is "not really" not Operating System specific?
> That this newsgroup is "not really" not the XP newsgroup?
> That there was "not really" no evidence of cross-posting?
> That the poster "not really" thought he was in a different newsgroup
> than what he actually was? (That's what my "wrong turn" comment WITH
> SMILIE was about.)
> That I was "not really" right about any of it?
>
> >Assuming there is some kind of traffic in the win2000.windows_update
> >newsgroup W2K users are therefore likely to see more relevant
> >discussions there than here.
>
> Probably, but the point, of course, was that THIS newsgroup is neither
> the XP newsgroup (as was stated) nor an Operating System specific
> newsgroup period. That statement stands on its own, regardless of your
> "assessment(s)."
>
> And I don't see any references or replies made by you to Torgeir
> Bakken's comment "Actually, this newsgroup is for all Microsoft OS
> versions..." to the same poster. Singling me out for some particular
> reason?
>
> --
> dak