KB953297
in [Windows Update]
|
Prev: Anyone know "Browser choice" update number?
Next: ** PLEASE HELP **nVidia - Display - NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GS Installatiestatus:mislukt Foutdetails: Code 80246001 Type update: optioneel nVidia Displaysoftware update released
From: Filterguy on 2 Mar 2010 12:26 I keep getting error Code 0x64C when the automatic update tries to install this. I'm running XP Pro. Does it matter that the update installer indicates that the file size is 0K?
From: PA Bear [MS MVP] on 2 Mar 2010 15:09 See the "How to obtain help" section of http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953297 For home users, no-charge support is available by calling 1-866-PCSAFETY (and/or 1-866-234-6020 and/or 1-800-936-5700) in the United States and in Canada or by contacting your local Microsoft subsidiary. There is no-charge for support calls that are associated with security updates. When you call, clearly state that your problem is related to a Security Update and cite the update's KB number (e.g., KB953297). Or you can... Start a free Windows Update support incident request: https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=6527 The Consumer Security Support home page & Microsoft Update Solution Center also offer support options https://consumersecuritysupport.microsoft.com/ http://support.microsoft.com/ph/6527#tab3 For more information about how to contact your local Microsoft subsidiary for security update support issues, visit the International Support Web site: http://support.microsoft.com/common/international.aspx For enterprise customers, support for security updates is available through your usual support contacts. -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002 Filterguy wrote: > I keep getting error Code 0x64C when the automatic update tries to install > this. I'm running XP Pro. Does it matter that the update installer > indicates that the file size is 0K?
From: MowGreen on 2 Mar 2010 15:20 Error Code 0x64C - Error 1612 Windows Error Message 1612: 'ERROR_INSTALL_SOURCE_ABSENT' The installation source for this product is not available. Verify that the source exists and that you can access it. See: Suggestions for resolving installation errors for .NET Framework security update MS09-061 http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2009/10/23/9912209.aspx MowGreen ================ *-343-* FDNY Never Forgotten ================ banthecheck.com "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked Filterguy wrote: > I keep getting error Code 0x64C when the automatic update tries to install > this. I'm running XP Pro. Does it matter that the update installer > indicates that the file size is 0K?
From: slobrian on 7 Mar 2010 16:16 "MowGreen" wrote: > Bill wrote: > > > With all due respect Mow, if MS are still unaware of the widespread > > problems with the latest suite of updates, they have their heads right > > up their collective arses (or asses, if you prefer). It is unfair to > > users as well as to you guys who assist in these groups day in and day out. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > LOL, Bill. Unfair or not, trust me, MS is *not* aware of how many Users > are experiencing issues installing the latest round of updates unless > said Users contact them. There is no MS presence in this newsgroup. > > In regards to updating, the primary method for MS' data collection > comes from Users' systems sending it to MS. But, that data is skewed > when an update appears to install properly, the info is sent to MS > servers, the User reboots, and the update is offered again. > The User attempts to install it again, the data is again sent as a > succesful installation, the User reboots, the update is offered again. > > After reading a great deal of posts in this NG it appears that a primary > cause of update installation failure this month is that there were just > too many of them being done at once. Then add in a kernel update and an > update for the notoriously brittle .NET Framework. The result is what > we're seeing in NGs and on forums ... a *much* higher number of Users > reporting update installation issues. > And wireless networks break ... and systems don't boot after installing > the updates ... and broken .NET Frameworks that must be uninstalled and > reinstalled. > > It's highly unusual to see the number of posts that show a User manually > downloading the updates, installing them, rebooting, and there are no > installation issues. To me, that's an indication that certain updates > should have installed on their own (known as an exclusive installation) > and NOT in conjunction with the installation of other updates. > > NOTE this change. I added the asterisks - > > Description of Software Update Services and Windows Server Update > Services changes in content for 2009 > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894199 > > > Friday, October 16, 2009 > > Changes to existing Non-Security Content: > > > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB951847) > > o Updating metadata of the following items to mark them for *exclusive install*: > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for .NET > > versions 2.0 through 3.5 (KB951847) x64 > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for .NET > > versions 2.0 through 3.5 (KB951847) x86 > > The .NET update is extremely complex and it needed to be installed by > itself > with no other update installation taking place. It is now thanks to > those who immediately contacted MS to report the installation failures. > You can bet your bottom dollar that those who reported this issue were > Business or Enterprise Users. > *Home Users need to report updating issues* as Business and Enterprise > do so that MS is made aware of them. > > > MowGreen > =============== > *-343-* FDNY > Never Forgotten > =============== > > banthecheck.com > "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked" > > > > > > > > > . >
From: slobrian on 7 Mar 2010 16:23
"MowGreen" wrote: > Bill wrote: > > > With all due respect Mow, if MS are still unaware of the widespread > > problems with the latest suite of updates, they have their heads right > > up their collective arses (or asses, if you prefer). It is unfair to > > users as well as to you guys who assist in these groups day in and day out. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > LOL, Bill. Unfair or not, trust me, MS is *not* aware of how many Users > are experiencing issues installing the latest round of updates unless > said Users contact them. There is no MS presence in this newsgroup. > > In regards to updating, the primary method for MS' data collection > comes from Users' systems sending it to MS. But, that data is skewed > when an update appears to install properly, the info is sent to MS > servers, the User reboots, and the update is offered again. > The User attempts to install it again, the data is again sent as a > succesful installation, the User reboots, the update is offered again. > > After reading a great deal of posts in this NG it appears that a primary > cause of update installation failure this month is that there were just > too many of them being done at once. Then add in a kernel update and an > update for the notoriously brittle .NET Framework. The result is what > we're seeing in NGs and on forums ... a *much* higher number of Users > reporting update installation issues. > And wireless networks break ... and systems don't boot after installing > the updates ... and broken .NET Frameworks that must be uninstalled and > reinstalled. > > It's highly unusual to see the number of posts that show a User manually > downloading the updates, installing them, rebooting, and there are no > installation issues. To me, that's an indication that certain updates > should have installed on their own (known as an exclusive installation) > and NOT in conjunction with the installation of other updates. > > NOTE this change. I added the asterisks - > > Description of Software Update Services and Windows Server Update > Services changes in content for 2009 > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894199 > > > Friday, October 16, 2009 > > Changes to existing Non-Security Content: > > > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB951847) > > o Updating metadata of the following items to mark them for *exclusive install*: > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for .NET > > versions 2.0 through 3.5 (KB951847) x64 > > * Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for .NET > > versions 2.0 through 3.5 (KB951847) x86 > > The .NET update is extremely complex and it needed to be installed by > itself > with no other update installation taking place. It is now thanks to > those who immediately contacted MS to report the installation failures. > You can bet your bottom dollar that those who reported this issue were > Business or Enterprise Users. > *Home Users need to report updating issues* as Business and Enterprise > do so that MS is made aware of them. > > > MowGreen > =============== > *-343-* FDNY > Never Forgotten > =============== > > banthecheck.com > "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked" > > Okay, it is now 3/7/2010 & as far as I can tell Microsoft is just a little behind in solving this issue - I still cannot find a solution. I continue to get the same error message 0x643 with the update KB953297. I would appreciate an actual answer vs sending me all over the place looking for one. > > > > > > > . > |