Stunned by output of Qfecheck

Just installed and executed Qfecheck.exe, which verifies the Installation of
Windows XP Hotfixes:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282784

I am utterly surprised by the output as I get a whole list of updates that
should be (re)installed.

Now I wonder what is happening when I start Window Update: it says something
like checking and verifying your system and then comes up with Express and
other updates I should install, which I obediently did in the belief that
this way I would remain up-to-date.

Obviously MS does not use Qfecheck when checking my system when I acess the
Windows Update website , because Qfecheck presents me with a whole list of
hotfixes that should be (re)installed whereas the website finds zero updates
to be installed ....
Quite remarkable I daresay ....

Now I have to manually (re)install the updates reported by Qfecheck and
obviously the Windows Update website cannot be trusted to do a good job ....

Any ideas/comments ?

Try something; download AutoPatcher for XP and see what it says -
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showforum=89

"Jan Timmermans" <> wrote in message
news:8946E86F-AD8B-4496-91E5-...
> Just installed and executed Qfecheck.exe, which verifies the Installation
> of
> Windows XP Hotfixes:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282784
>
> I am utterly surprised by the output as I get a whole list of updates that
> should be (re)installed.
>
> Now I wonder what is happening when I start Window Update: it says
> something
> like checking and verifying your system and then comes up with Express and
> other updates I should install, which I obediently did in the belief that
> this way I would remain up-to-date.
>
> Obviously MS does not use Qfecheck when checking my system when I acess
> the
> Windows Update website , because Qfecheck presents me with a whole list of
> hotfixes that should be (re)installed whereas the website finds zero
> updates
> to be installed ....
> Quite remarkable I daresay ....
>
> Now I have to manually (re)install the updates reported by Qfecheck and
> obviously the Windows Update website cannot be trusted to do a good job
> ....
>
> Any ideas/comments ?
>

Always verify in several different ways if the patches you have installed
are not corrupted and need reinstalling. Don't rely just on WU or QFECheck.
Download Belarc Advisor (free) and get the latest definitions and see what
it says. Also use Microsoft Baseline Analyser and I would also use Shavlik
NetChck Protect which is free for a year. See what all these say. If two or
more indicate that you need to reinstall a patch then I would do so. If only
one says you need to reinstall and the others say you are fine, I would
simply make a note to keep an eye on the patch that one checker said was
corrupted but I would not, at this point, reinstall it.

Plus, the best way, but most time consuming, to know if a patch is corrupt
and needs reinstalling is to check the file version. Read the TechNet
Bulletin to see what the file version should be and then check manually on
your computer. If the file version is lower than it should be reinstall the
patch.

QFECheck for me says all patches are current on the system. If you have a
large number that need to be reinstalled that doesn't sound right. One or
maybe two that are corrupt is plausible...but a whole bunch? That would seem
to me something else going on causing a bunch to be corrupt or perhaps
something is wrong with QFECheck on your computer. Check the file versions
on a few of those before reinstalling. I believe I recall reading that
QFECheck doesn't cover all patches nor does WU. Even more reason to use a
variety of methods for checking to see if you have working patches.

http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

http://www.shavlik.com/netchk-protect.aspx


"Jan Timmermans" <> wrote in message
news:8946E86F-AD8B-4496-91E5-...
> Just installed and executed Qfecheck.exe, which verifies the Installation
> of
> Windows XP Hotfixes:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282784
>
> I am utterly surprised by the output as I get a whole list of updates that
> should be (re)installed.
>
> Now I wonder what is happening when I start Window Update: it says
> something
> like checking and verifying your system and then comes up with Express and
> other updates I should install, which I obediently did in the belief that
> this way I would remain up-to-date.
>
> Obviously MS does not use Qfecheck when checking my system when I acess
> the
> Windows Update website , because Qfecheck presents me with a whole list of
> hotfixes that should be (re)installed whereas the website finds zero
> updates
> to be installed ....
> Quite remarkable I daresay ....
>
> Now I have to manually (re)install the updates reported by Qfecheck and
> obviously the Windows Update website cannot be trusted to do a good job
> ....
>
> Any ideas/comments ?
>

"Jan Timmermans" <> schrieb:

> Just installed and executed Qfecheck.exe, which verifies the Installation of
> Windows XP Hotfixes:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282784
>
> I am utterly surprised by the output as I get a whole list of updates that
> should be (re)installed.

Do you have by any chance "cleaned" the $NTuninstallKB......$ folders
in the Windows folder? Manually or via a "cleaning tool"?

Bye,
Freudi

Hi Jerry/Melelina/Ottomar

Thanks for your reactions!

I honestly do not remember but it might be that indeed I did some 'cleaning'
operations in the past, either manually or with a tool.
So that might be a possible source of the inconsistency.

Yet I consider it strange that WU and Qfecheck - both coming from Microsoft
!! - apparently lack the quality to present the same findings, and that some
of you use several additional tools to arrive at even other and different
results.

What happened with QUALITY and Quality Assurance, I wonder ...

In my view it would not to be too hard to write a piece of software that
would inspect and compare the desired file versions with the actual installed
file versions and issue a report ...

Right now my own decision is - as my computer runs without any obvious
hiccups/flaws - to forget about Qfecheck and the other tools: "if it aint
broke don't fix it" is still a valid statement I assume ....

Thanks again !

Jan

Jan,

Not you again !!!
Did you delete the contents of the $hf_mig$ folder located in the
WINDOWS directory ? Each subfolder of $hf_mig$ contains a SP2QFE
folder and that's what Qfecheck is checking.
Suggest you use MBSA to see if any updates should be reinstalled:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...2/default.mspx


MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============


Jan Timmermans wrote:

> Hi Jerry/Melelina/Ottomar
>
> Thanks for your reactions!
>
> I honestly do not remember but it might be that indeed I did some 'cleaning'
> operations in the past, either manually or with a tool.
> So that might be a possible source of the inconsistency.
>
> Yet I consider it strange that WU and Qfecheck - both coming from Microsoft
> !! - apparently lack the quality to present the same findings, and that some
> of you use several additional tools to arrive at even other and different
> results.
>
> What happened with QUALITY and Quality Assurance, I wonder ...
>
> In my view it would not to be too hard to write a piece of software that
> would inspect and compare the desired file versions with the actual installed
> file versions and issue a report ...
>
> Right now my own decision is - as my computer runs without any obvious
> hiccups/flaws - to forget about Qfecheck and the other tools: "if it aint
> broke don't fix it" is still a valid statement I assume ....
>
> Thanks again !
>
> Jan

Hi Mow )

"MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:

> Jan,
>
> Not you again !!!

Hehehe :-)
I am happy that 'the other' problem was solved (and that I did it under my
own steam <grin>)

> Did you delete the contents of the $hf_mig$ folder located in the
> WINDOWS directory ?

Not knowingly ...

> Each subfolder of $hf_mig$ contains a SP2QFE
> folder and that's what Qfecheck is checking.

I feel that's a bit too much on the surface, like checking your own
fingerprints.
I would expect a much deeper investigation which would also be compatible
with the WU website ...

> Suggest you use MBSA to see if any updates should be reinstalled:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...2/default.mspx

I followed your suggestion and all looks very fine indeed.
BTW: A few hours ago I installed and executed Autopatcher )))

Have a nice weekend !!!

Jan

Nice goin', Jan. Pretty soon I'm going to start asking *you* how to get
things straightened out

MG

Jan Timmermans wrote:

> Hi Mow )
>
> "MowGreen [MVP]" wrote:
>
>
>>Jan,
>>
>>Not you again !!!
>
>
> Hehehe :-)
> I am happy that 'the other' problem was solved (and that I did it under my
> own steam <grin>)
>
>
>>Did you delete the contents of the $hf_mig$ folder located in the
>>WINDOWS directory ?
>
>
> Not knowingly ...
>
>
>>Each subfolder of $hf_mig$ contains a SP2QFE
>>folder and that's what Qfecheck is checking.
>
>
> I feel that's a bit too much on the surface, like checking your own
> fingerprints.
> I would expect a much deeper investigation which would also be compatible
> with the WU website ...
>
>
>>Suggest you use MBSA to see if any updates should be reinstalled:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...2/default.mspx
>
>
> I followed your suggestion and all looks very fine indeed.
> BTW: A few hours ago I installed and executed Autopatcher )))
>
> Have a nice weekend !!!
>
> Jan
>