Installing windows updates offline

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Ali P, Aug 23, 2003.

  1. Ali P

    Ali P Guest

    I'm putting a PC together for my friend. She's bought Windows XP to put on
    it which we're installing next weekend. It already has SP1 included so I'm
    currently downloading all the post-SP1 hotfixes for her which I'll put on a
    CD and install offline as she'll only have a 56K modem and there's 95MB of
    updates!
    My question is, there are 44 updates in all (not including the optional
    downloads) - do these need to be installed individually or is there some
    sort of admin tool out there which can do it as a batch process?
    Thanks in advance,
    AL
    Ali P, Aug 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ali P

    Ali P Guest

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:10:05 +1200, "Ali P"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > Ali, have you thought of taking her machine to your place to upgrade
    > it. Then there will be no worries over the order of installation. IMHO
    > it's risky, because you don't know if you have got all the pre-reqs. I
    > must say 44 seems like a huge number of patches. I'm up to date and I
    > have 22 (including some IE ones).
    >
    > There's a tool called hotfxchk or similar from Microsoft that may do
    > what you want.


    Actually I've just checked through the list I selected and there was a bunch
    of stuff there I didn't need such as international .net framework patches
    which are 6MB each. I was in a rush and just selected everything marked
    'critical'. Oh well, I've already downloaded 85MB of them so I may as well
    let it run its course.
    Updating it from my place means having to throw a NIC in her PC to hook it
    up to my router which is a top-notch idea except for the fact that I don't
    have a spare one (my one is on-board) and I'm a bit loath to go and buy one
    just for this.
    I'll have a hunt around on microsoft.com site for that program you
    mentioned.
    Cheers for that.
    AL
    Ali P, Aug 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ali P

    timmy! Guest

    hmm, i am sure the hotfxchk is only for checking what patches you need and
    it only covers security patches I think. Could be wrong tho, the name is
    consistant with just a checker and not an updater. blah anyway...

    i believe it is possible to install the patches without invoking a gui, ie
    silent. u can just script those using whatever suits...

    hope it helps, just off the top of my head here..


    "Ali P" <> wrote in message
    news:_nB1b.13342$...
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:10:05 +1200, "Ali P"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > Ali, have you thought of taking her machine to your place to upgrade
    > > it. Then there will be no worries over the order of installation. IMHO
    > > it's risky, because you don't know if you have got all the pre-reqs. I
    > > must say 44 seems like a huge number of patches. I'm up to date and I
    > > have 22 (including some IE ones).
    > >
    > > There's a tool called hotfxchk or similar from Microsoft that may do
    > > what you want.

    >
    > Actually I've just checked through the list I selected and there was a

    bunch
    > of stuff there I didn't need such as international .net framework patches
    > which are 6MB each. I was in a rush and just selected everything marked
    > 'critical'. Oh well, I've already downloaded 85MB of them so I may as well
    > let it run its course.
    > Updating it from my place means having to throw a NIC in her PC to hook it
    > up to my router which is a top-notch idea except for the fact that I don't
    > have a spare one (my one is on-board) and I'm a bit loath to go and buy

    one
    > just for this.
    > I'll have a hunt around on microsoft.com site for that program you
    > mentioned.
    > Cheers for that.
    > AL
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    timmy!, Aug 23, 2003
    #3
  4. Ali P

    T-Boy Guest

    In article <bi7681$2l8$>,
    says...
    > What I did was burn them to a CD.
    >
    > If you have a cd writer, what you
    > do, is go to windowsupdate site.
    >
    > Get all updates (u dun need that .net
    > crap update). Dont need messenger.
    > I removed it on here. It was annoying!
    >
    > Or MS Journal viewer.
    >
    > While the updates are downloading
    > it dumps them in a folder called
    > WUTemp (usually on C:).
    >
    > Just before it starts to install the updates
    > go to C:/WUTemp, select all, and copy them to
    > a folder on C: (make a folder called updates
    > or something). and copy the updates to it.
    >
    > After that select all files in the updates
    > folder, and chuck in a blank CD and burn
    > them! That way, if you ever have to reinstall
    > XP, all you have to do is install SP1
    > (if you downloaded it, and the updates
    > from the burned CD)! Heaps quicker


    There's a *much* easier way using Windows Update...

    * Go to Windows Update
    * on the left, choose the "Personalize Windows Update"
    * 'check' the checkbox and save the settings

    you'll now have a new option, called "Windows Update Catalog"

    go into it, and select what yer want, d/l away, burn.

    --
    Duncan
    T-Boy, Aug 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Ali P

    T-Boy Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:10:05 +1200, "Ali P"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I'm putting a PC together for my friend. She's bought Windows XP to put on
    > >it which we're installing next weekend. It already has SP1 included so I'm
    > >currently downloading all the post-SP1 hotfixes for her which I'll put on a
    > >CD and install offline as she'll only have a 56K modem and there's 95MB of
    > >updates!
    > >My question is, there are 44 updates in all (not including the optional
    > >downloads) - do these need to be installed individually or is there some
    > >sort of admin tool out there which can do it as a batch process?
    > >Thanks in advance,
    > >AL
    > >

    >
    >
    > Some of the updates have to reboot the PC before you can carry on..


    Naa... not any more - not if you're running W2K (SP3?) and
    above. Just whack 'em all in.

    The old way to do 'em all without rebooting was to use the MS
    tool, Qchain.exe (per above, not req'd for W2K or above)

    --
    Duncan
    T-Boy, Aug 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Ali P

    T-Boy Guest

    T-Boy, Aug 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Ali P

    Paul Guest

    Nah i just run one after the other
    then reboot they still get installed.

    Did no harm. Went to windowsupdates
    to make sure, it picked nothing up.

    So say no more!

    "T-Boy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:10:05 +1200, "Ali P"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >I'm putting a PC together for my friend. She's bought Windows XP to put

    on
    > > >it which we're installing next weekend. It already has SP1 included so

    I'm
    > > >currently downloading all the post-SP1 hotfixes for her which I'll put

    on a
    > > >CD and install offline as she'll only have a 56K modem and there's 95MB

    of
    > > >updates!
    > > >My question is, there are 44 updates in all (not including the optional
    > > >downloads) - do these need to be installed individually or is there

    some
    > > >sort of admin tool out there which can do it as a batch process?
    > > >Thanks in advance,
    > > >AL
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > > Some of the updates have to reboot the PC before you can carry on..

    >
    > Naa... not any more - not if you're running W2K (SP3?) and
    > above. Just whack 'em all in.
    >
    > The old way to do 'em all without rebooting was to use the MS
    > tool, Qchain.exe (per above, not req'd for W2K or above)
    >
    > --
    > Duncan
    Paul, Aug 25, 2003
    #7
  8. Ali P

    Enkidu Guest

    On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:23:57 +1200, T-Boy <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Some of the updates have to reboot the PC before you can carry on..

    >
    >Naa... not any more - not if you're running W2K (SP3?) and
    >above. Just whack 'em all in.
    >
    >The old way to do 'em all without rebooting was to use the MS
    >tool, Qchain.exe (per above, not req'd for W2K or above)
    >

    Not true. Some still have to be run seperately and some require
    reboots. Not many require reboots these days though.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    --

    Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
    Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
    Enkidu, Aug 25, 2003
    #8
  9. Ali P

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:22:35 +1200, T-Boy wrote:
    >
    > > HfNetChkLT is the free version of HfNetChk

    >
    > And people call Linux cryptic ...


    It's driven by similar imperatives - keeping the filename as short as
    possible to save typing in a command line environment. To a lesser extent
    in the Windows environment influenced by the old 8.3 filename limit still
    perpetuated in CDs.
    Mainlander, Aug 25, 2003
    #9
  10. Ali P

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, alanb+google4
    @digistar.com says...
    > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:02:40 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > > It's driven by similar imperatives - keeping the filename as short as
    > > possible to save typing in a command line environment. To a lesser extent
    > > in the Windows environment influenced by the old 8.3 filename limit still
    > > perpetuated in CDs.

    >
    > Huh? CDs use Joliet format which allows long filenames unless you're in
    > dos mode - and dos mode filenames are only there for compatibility
    > purposes.


    http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-5

    It's important to remember that the most common CD filesystem (ISO-9660
    Level 1) only supports eight-character filenames with a three-character
    extension. Longer filenames are added either as an extension to ISO-9660
    (Joliet, Rock Ridge) or a replacement (UDF, HFS). These are discussed in
    the sections below.

    ....

    Level 1 ISO-9660 defines names to be the familiar 8+3 convention that MS-
    DOS users have suffered through for many years: eight characters for the
    name, a period ("full stop" for those of you in the U.K.), followed by
    three characters for the file type, all in upper case. The only allowed
    characters are A-Z, 0-9, '.', and '_'. There's also a file version
    number, separated from the name by a semicolon, but it's usually ignored.

    Files must occupy a contiguous range of sectors. This allows a file to be
    specified with a start block and a count. (Most disk-based filesystems
    require index blocks that list all the blocks used by a file.) The
    maximum directory depth is 8.

    Level 2 ISO-9660 allows far more flexibility in filenames, but isn't
    usable on some systems, notably MS-DOS.

    Level 3 ISO-9660 allows non-contiguous files, useful if the file was
    written in multiple packets with packet-writing software. Also
    unavailable under MS-DOS. For the Mac, you can add support by installing
    Joliet Volume Access

    Microsoft, being Microsoft, created their own standard called "Joliet".
    This is currently supported by Win95 and WinNT. It's useful when doing
    backups from Win95 onto a CD-R, because the disc is still readable as
    ISO-9660 but shows the long filenames under Win95. The limit on Joliet
    filenames is 64 characters. (Some software reportedly allows up to 110.)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What you can see from the above is that all of the 9660 extensions are
    limited in some way as to compatibility, and may not work on all systems.
    Mainlander, Aug 26, 2003
    #10
  11. "Uncle StoatWarbler" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:02:40 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > > It's driven by similar imperatives - keeping the filename as short as
    > > possible to save typing in a command line environment. To a lesser

    extent
    > > in the Windows environment influenced by the old 8.3 filename limit

    still
    > > perpetuated in CDs.

    >
    > Huh? CDs use Joliet format which allows long filenames unless you're in
    > dos mode - and dos mode filenames are only there for compatibility
    > purposes.
    >
    > Wrt typing, tab expansion has been standard in *nix shells for ~10 years
    > (/bin/sh is for scripts, not people)
    >
    > Dos systems gained it with the 4dos shell replacement and CMD still
    > doesn't have it.


    CMD does so have it, try using M$ stuff before just bagging it for the hell
    of it
    Nathan Mercer, Aug 26, 2003
    #11
  12. Ali P

    T.N.O Guest

    "Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote
    > Dos systems gained it with the 4dos shell replacement and CMD still
    > doesn't have it.


    I have *nix like tab expansion in my XP... downloaded a util from MS.
    T.N.O, Aug 26, 2003
    #12
  13. Ali P

    T-Boy Guest

    In article <>,
    *@*.* says...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:22:35 +1200, T-Boy wrote:
    > >
    > > > HfNetChkLT is the free version of HfNetChk

    > >
    > > And people call Linux cryptic ...

    >
    > It's driven by similar imperatives - keeping the filename as short as
    > possible to save typing in a command line environment. To a lesser extent
    > in the Windows environment influenced by the old 8.3 filename limit still
    > perpetuated in CDs.


    FfNetChkLT is the name of the program, not the name of the file
    :)

    Yes, it's a fuked name, IMO too.

    --
    Duncan
    T-Boy, Aug 26, 2003
    #13
  14. Ali P

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > *@*.* says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:22:35 +1200, T-Boy wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > HfNetChkLT is the free version of HfNetChk
    > > >
    > > > And people call Linux cryptic ...

    > >
    > > It's driven by similar imperatives - keeping the filename as short as
    > > possible to save typing in a command line environment. To a lesser extent
    > > in the Windows environment influenced by the old 8.3 filename limit still
    > > perpetuated in CDs.

    >
    > FfNetChkLT is the name of the program, not the name of the file
    > :)


    the original version HfNetChk - 8 characters. As are most of the Windows
    operating system files, Office etc.
    Mainlander, Aug 26, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvbob
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,440
    zxcvbob
    Aug 2, 2004
  2. Ella

    Virus found in Windows\Offline Web Pages

    Ella, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,743
    Plato
    Sep 29, 2005
  3. Adam Steiner

    Downloading Windows Updates and Installing offline

    Adam Steiner, May 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    4,406
    Adam Steiner
    May 10, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,395
  5. =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=

    checking "Show Updates" doesn't reveal any Windows XP updates

    =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=, May 24, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    661
    Martin S.
    May 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page