[Error number: 0x80244016] Unable to Download Windows Updates
Derek
After clicking on either "express" or "custom" it takes a few seconds then
goes to a page that displayes the above error.
I have read through several posts and it seems that an update for the BITS
service is used to fix this problems. Unfortantly i am not able to fine an
update for the x64 bit operating systems. When I try to install the x86
version it stops before the install begins and states that this is
inconpatable with my hardware.
Please help!
Thanks
Derek
Robert Aldwinckle
"Derek" <De...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7386D4A4-6C2A-44F7...@microsoft.com...
Robert Aldwinckle
"Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:u8slC2kS...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> (cross-post added to Windows Server General)
> "Derek" <De...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7386D4A4-6C2A-44F7...@microsoft.com...
>>I am not able to download windows updates on my Windows Server 2003 x64.
>> After clicking on either "express" or "custom" it takes a few seconds then
>> goes to a page that displayes the above error.
>>
>> I have read through several posts and it seems that an update for the BITS
>> service is used to fix this problems.
>
>> Unfortantly i am not able to fine an update for the x64 bit operating systems.
Derek,
This one got sent before I finished writing all that I meant to.
(Darn OE and its Ctrl-Enter! Working Offline again JIC. <w>)
Judging by the DLL Help Database (which doesn't seem to be aware of
64-bit OS) BITS would have been an add-on to the 32-bit server
automatically provided by W2003Ssp1. So, the obvious question is:
what maintenance level of the 64-bit OS do you have and does an equivalent
service pack exist for it? Cross-posting additionally to 64-bit Windows.
http://support.microsoft.com/dllhelp/?dlltype=prodfile&l=55&pid=3198&vid=229707&alpha=qmgr.dll&S=1
HTH
Robert
---
Charlie Russel - MVP
have several Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition servers running, both Standard
and Enterprise. They download updates just fine.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
"Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23zus00n...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Robert Aldwinckle
news:eXeoNDoS...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> ALL x64 Editions are SP1 level. This was the RTM level for x64 Edition. I
> have several Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition servers running, both Standard
> and Enterprise. They download updates just fine.
Thanks, Charlie.
Is bitsadmin /util /version /verbose available on that OS too then?
E.g. that's what I would do to check on the OP's symptom on XPsp2 Pro
if BITS was a suspect there.
Looks like some symptoms are being misinterpreted
which I now realize haven't really been given, e.g. context in log.
Oops. ; }
Oh dear, double oops. I didn't even check if this code was known
before trying to find an answer to OP's question.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa387293.aspx
<quote>
WU_E_PT_HTTP_STATUS_BAD_REQUEST
0x80244016
Same as HTTP status 400 – the server could not process the request due to invalid syntax.
</quote>
So, if the code's context in the log (verbose or otherwise)
wasn't a sufficient clue I would try using netcap to see
if there was some interference on the connection path.
Then, while I have your attention, is netcap available on that OS too? ; )
TIA
Robert
---
Charlie Russel - MVP
easily check.) Not an area I play with. But functionally, all interactions
with Windows Update happen on the 32-bit side of Windows x64 Edition. It
uses 32-bit IE, etc. So if it's there in 32-bit, should be there in x64
Edition.
One known issue: If the OPs chipset is nvidia based, make sure the OP
_installs_ the nvidia firewall software. And then _uninstalls_ it. (and yes,
I know how silly that sounds. Trust me, we've been living with this since
the release of XP x64 Edition. )
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
"Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:ewywsatS...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Stephen Souness
sounds quite similar.
I can download Windows updates just fine, but if I attempt to download
pretty-much anything else from Microsoft i.e. download.microsoft.com
then I receive a generic error page telling me that Internet Explorer or
Firefox/Mozilla was unable to connect to the site.
I have a registered/activated (whatever the term is) version of Windows
XP Pro x64.
Any hints?
--
Stephen Souness
Robert Aldwinckle
FollowUp-To intended to drop WU and Server General)
"Stephen Souness" <sou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u0UETUFZ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure if the problem that I see on my system is related, but it
> sounds quite similar.
Not at all, except perhaps for being a test case for answering my questions
about using netcap on your OS. ; }
Since you have XP64 Pro check to see if you have netcap in its Support
Tools. Then you would also like to know if Ethereal (aka WireShark) also
works on your OS. Alternatively, for this particular symptom (HTTP connectivity
though you haven't yet done anything about ruling out a problem with your DNS)
you could check to see if FiddlerTool works on your OS.
For some DNS conditions Fiddler can help as well.
>
> I can download Windows updates just fine, but if I attempt to download
> pretty-much anything else from Microsoft i.e. download.microsoft.com
> then I receive a generic error page telling me that Internet Explorer or
> Firefox/Mozilla was unable to connect to the site.
Charlie's second reply to me explained that the IE that your OS uses is a 32-bit version.
Therefore, if your symptom was related to IE you could post in the IE General NG.
However, your admission that it is not just IE which gets the symptom
indicates that the problem is more related to your OS Networking,
so I think that it could be the most relevant one to post to.
>
> I have a registered/activated (whatever the term is) version of Windows
> XP Pro x64.
>
> Any hints?
Where are you posting from? I strongly suspect it is no longer related to WU
so perhaps we could drop that NG and Windows Server from the cross-post?
In that case I suggest you follow-up to XP Networking and IE General (the latter
being at least more relevant than WU and happens to be another NG I subscribe to).
Cross-posting to both and dropping the other two on FollowUp-To for your convenience.
But it would really be best to start your own thread with a more relevant Subject
(if you can't find a solution from previous discussions in either of these new newsgroups.)
I notice that you are posting using Thunderbird. Note that if you switched to the web interface
to newsgroups for searching and reading and provided the portal that you are using hosts them,
all you have to do is click on one of the newsgroup names in the header of my reply.
Unfortunately I don't know how well the web interface reacts to the FollowUp-To header. ; }
FYI this portal appears to host all of the newsgroups cross-posted to in my reply:
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windowsupdate&mid=929c1b54-3403-4a53-aade-2214ce315d50&sloc=en-us
HTH
Robert
---
Charlie Russel - MVP
version.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
"Stephen Souness" <sou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0UETUFZ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
PC Pete
> ALL x64 Editions are SP1 level. This was the RTM level for x64 Edition. I
> have several Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition servers running, both Standard
> and Enterprise. They download updates just fine.
>
This is an old thread, but it's a new problem I've been chasing for over 2
months now.
Now that SP2 is available for XP x64, I'm not sure if the comments and
suggestions apply, so I'll re-ask:
I can't connect to the windows update service running as anything but
administrator. This has happened from out of the box - on a brand-new, clean
install from the XP OS CD, creating a user with admin priveleges (even before
adding video drivers, non-standard networking, etc, etc, etc) that user is
unable to connect to the update service.
There are a growing number of "collateral" issues that it would also be good
to get another POV on.
0) I can't validate using any WGA web validation tool, using any version of
IE6 (32, 64 bit) or Firefox (2.0.0.6 x32, x64, FF 3.0b). But every time I run
the manual validator, it works perfectly.
1) I can download updates perfectly if I enable the "download automatically"
setting, even logged on as the (only) non-Administrator user - so the BITS
seems to be working fine
2) MS Support gave some assistance that resulted in all "Windows Update"
links referring inexplicably to the MS Movie Codec installer. No, I'm not
smoking dope, this is real.
3) Somehow during the MS assist, my Defender X64 install "disappeared". I
installed, configured, and ran it the same day I installed XP last (December
1st, 2007), and 4 weeks later it's just... gone. Reinstalling it went OK,
except...
4) I now get error 0x80244016 (WIndows Defender is unable to install
updates) when I try to get the latest updates.
All this SOUNDS like it's a trojan or virus infection, but I'm reasonably
certain it's not. This exact same thing happened during the initial install
of x64 (from May 2007), and the exact same symptoms occurred "out of the box"
on this latest install - before I had even tried to connect to the network.
The rest of these symptoms have steadily grown more bizarre.
The MS support people have given up on helping, and I'm now reduced to
begging in the various forums. So I apologise if this should be posted
elsewhere.
I've been MSCE certified since NT 3.51 days, so generally I know what I'm
doing, but this OS has been just... bizarre.
Any suggestions, comments, would be most welcome.
--
Data is not Information; Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not
Wisdom.
Charlie Russel - MVP
don't install. Then you can pick the ones you want. I have no idea why it
won't, but it would appear to me to be a reasonable solution to simply work
around the problem.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"PC Pete" <PCP...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CB52ECFD-81DE-4446...@microsoft.com...
Pete@discussions.microsoft.com PC Pete
I've been doing for 9 months.
But I would much prefer to solve the puzzle though. Especially since I still
can't seem to work around or find an answer to the Defender download error -
and that's really concerning, because the default update package is dated Jan
2006. (So "Defender" is actually a misnomer... maybe "Out Of Date And Not
Really Useful Network Snooping Software" would be more accurate).
I have a lot of live (customer) data on this system, and it's in use
(working) almost 24x7, so disconnecting from the Internet (which would
definitely negate the need for any firewall software,but which leaves me out
of touch with my customers) or shutting down and restarting every
night/morning (which stops my core business tools from working overnight)
isn't a good answer either.
I'm sure there's someone who's seen this kind of thing and has an answer(s),
I just can't find anyone to help solve the problem instead of working around
it.
PC Pete
Just for fun, I downloaded the MS Common Diagnostic Best Practises Analyser to see what it thought of the place, and it finds two critical problems : the IMS service status is undetermined, and the KDC service status is undetermined. But try finding support or assistance for those services on MS? Ha! "Go Fish". (Maybe if I won Tattslotto and bought a MSDN subscription I could find out WTF they are, and WTF they do, and WhyTF they aren't working, but I don't, so I can't). The rest of the BPA results are the usual TLA "Danger Will Robinson, Danger" flags : LDAP client signing set to negotiate, domain controllers can access this host from the network, the system isn't configured to shut down on Security audit failures, that kind of thing.
This really has gone on for 7 months, and I really have been dumped by the MS support person with no followup or assistance, and no-one wearing a MS hat seems willing to investigate, let alone comment on the smallest of these issues. And from what I see when I look around these and other newsgroups, I'm not the only one suffering.
I really do hope that this big vacuum is the calm before the storm, 'cause if it's not, and nothing continues to happen they way it has for the last month, I'm going to stop being nice and stop being good-natured and just a fun guy to be around, and I'm going to stop being stupid and willing to help solve the problem, and instead I'm going to start insisting that I get some actual GD OS support.
John Barnes
problems, Microsoft provides free support and in my previous experience has
their best technicians to help (at least by email for me)
"PC Pete" <PC Pe...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28FDFDBF-5DD0-4AE9...@microsoft.com...
Colin Barnhorst
have one working now on an issue trying to install SP1 RC on a Vista x86
installation on my test box. It doesn't matter whether your copy is retail,
OEM, MSDN, or TechNet when it comes to WU update issues. The WU team takes
them all.
"John Barnes" <jba...@email.net> wrote in message
news:Oo10NaUT...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
PC Pete
Yes, I've posted to the WU group who ionformed me that because it's also
a WGA problem, I need work with the WGA group, the WGA folks I got in
contact with suggested that it was an IE problem, the IE people thought
it was a Windows Security problem, and the last MS Support engineer
informed me just before he cut me off that it was a Professional Server
group issue, not a WU/WGA/IE/security problem.
Pick a number, any number! At this stage, I wouldn't mind if it was a
PEBKAC problem, at least then the issue could be resolved and I could
get the system working as advertised. That's what's grinding my corn
about all this : hot-potato-ing instead of ownership.
PC Pete
outside the square, he explained why he wanted me to try certain things
a certain way, and he listened to my replies and thought about the
results - but then he redirected me to 'call New Zealand, it's a
professional support issue', and blocked my email address. Up until that
point, I thought we had a chance of fixing the problem!
I'm sure it's not the engineer's fault, he's obviously working to a set
of rules. I was in international PC/Server support for 11 years, so I
know how difficult it can be to take ownership when your manager is
hassling you every week to get your backlog down. But then, my managers
hated me because I didn't then - and don't now - work that way.
Customers loved it, but they didn't participate in PE sessions. So I can
understand his perspective on a problem that wasn't getting solved. I
don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Robert Aldwinckle
Which newsgroup are you posting from? ; )
Doesn't Windows Mail show the cross-post list? <EG>
Yikes! Apparently I was resonsible for this melange... <blush/>
So far, nobody appears to have taken up any of my suggestions for
capturing diagnostics for this code. I suspect it may be bogus and not even
the context of the code in the logs may reveal much...
FYI
Robert
(still in WU <w>)
---
PC Pete
newsgroup and compare and contrast with what I see on this system.
The first thing I noticed is, the day I installed this system (December
1, 2007) the windowsupdate.log shows an 0x800401f3 error, followed by a
number of identical version mismatch errors, which I assume is a) normal
and b) taken care of by the following update, since they don't appear again.
But later in that same initial session, I start seeing strange
0x80070020 errors like :
2007-12-01 10:44:25:897 1980 8e8 Setup WARNING: Could not
move C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll to
C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll.wusetup.1728140.bak due to 0x80070020
- which is an error I haven't seen show up or reported on this system
before I went looking for it, but it is found in the newsgroup. None of
the suggestions in the threads helped, though. And the log file seems to
contain a lot of those error types.
The MS support guy didn't ever ask for any of the update log
information, I'm not sure why. If anyone thinks the log may be useful,
I'm happy to provide any requested sections or look for anything in
particular.
I'm starting to think this may be related to an ACL corruption problem,
since I'm also seeing strange problems (as listed earlier) with
"invisible" exe, msc, and cpl files. Most links in my "Administrative
Tools" folder/menu go to the wrong application - so I click on "Computer
Management" and I get the event viewer, and so on. Which sounds like an
underlying process is either screwing with the link files, or there's a
more fundamental integrity issue in the filesystem. But then, why only
msc and exes in the %systemroot% and %windir% folders?
The steps I've taken so far from the start:
1) Downloaded and installed the latest update agent executable and run
it as C:\WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe /wuforce
2) NET stop WuAuServ, rename SoftwareDistribution, net start WuAuServ.
3) All steps in KB316524 (all methods followed in order, from #1 to #6,
without changing the results.
4) at that stage I reinstalled the system after seeing the link
redirection problems, and I tried installing the KB912945 activex plugin
fix to help with the Validation issues, but that was corrupt and caused
some significant system problems. I raised this as a support issue
#SRX1050666314ID, which as yet has not been resolved as far as I can tell.
5) Since then, I've also tried to see if the following articles could
address some or part of the problem:
- KB316524
- KB914226
- KB836948
- KB896224
- KB931852
- KB942967
- KB910359
- KB836941
- KB900936
- KB319585
- KB836930
- KB883280
.. and that's all I can find in my history and MS exchanges.
If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.
Robert Aldwinckle
news:OQy110lU...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I've had a bit of time to examine some other update issues on this
> newsgroup and compare and contrast with what I see on this system.
>
> The first thing I noticed is, the day I installed this system (December
> 1, 2007) the windowsupdate.log shows an 0x800401f3 error, followed by a
> number of identical version mismatch errors, which I assume is a) normal
> and b) taken care of by the following update, since they don't appear again.
>
> But later in that same initial session, I start seeing strange
> 0x80070020 errors like :
> 2007-12-01 10:44:25:897 1980 8e8 Setup WARNING: Could not
> move C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll to
> C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll.wusetup.1728140.bak due to 0x80070020
<cmd_output OS="XPsp2">
F:\>set /a c = 0x20
32
F:\>net helpmsg %c%
The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process.
</cmd_output>
Was a boot required after that? Check in the Event log for a reference
to that module. Also, verbose logging usually identifies the source of
the conflict, which you could still check if you had that enabled.
Alternatively you could have been inspecting the registry value
PendingFileRenameOperations and finding exactly how such events
were being resolved. Another action which would have to have been
taken at the time of error is using Process Explorer to see how a module
was being used.
>
> - which is an error I haven't seen show up or reported on this system
> before I went looking for it, but it is found in the newsgroup. None of
> the suggestions in the threads helped, though. And the log file seems to
> contain a lot of those error types.
...
MowGreen [MVP]
> 2007-12-01 10:44:25:897 1980 8e8 Setup WARNING: Could not move
> C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll to C:\WINDOWS\SysWow64\wuapi.dll.wusetup.1728140.bak due to
> 0x80070020
Is Spybot installed and is TeaTimer Enabled ? The above entry has been
associated with that scenario as TeaTimer is 'guarding' against .dll
changes.
MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============
PC Pete
cross-posted.
Robert Aldwinckle wrote:
>
> <cmd_output OS="XPsp2">
> F:\>set /a c = 0x20
> 32
> F:\>net helpmsg %c%
>
> The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process.
> </cmd_output>
>
>
Thanks Robert, that's a good shortcut to know. I assume it can be used
on all 0x8000xxxx messages? I'll keep that one, for sure!
> Was a boot required after that? Check in the Event log for a reference
> to that module. Also, verbose logging usually identifies the source of
> the conflict, which you could still check if you had that enabled.
>
Robert, that was taken from the log during the very first login on the
new system. A reboot_was_ required after the 70+ updates were installed.
Although I set the event log size to 8Mb at the time, I no longer have
any system events earlier than Dec 9th. I do still have
application,security, and ACE event logs, but they don't seem to show
any problems or errors. The Application log shows most of the
application-type updates (NET framework, etc) being installed and
started OK, the only "errors" listed are for attempts to run more than
one setup at the time the updates were installing (Winzip, AMD Dual core
optimizer), and the "warnings" are things like IIS not installed or
started, which I don't *think* are relevant (but please correct me if
I'm wrong).
> Alternatively you could have been inspecting the registry value
> PendingFileRenameOperations and finding exactly how such events
> were being resolved. Another action which would have to have been
> taken at the time of error is using Process Explorer to see how a module
> was being used.
>
Yeah, looking back I guess I could have, if I'd installed Process
explorer during the initial login before downloading the MS updates. And
although I'd been having problems, I didn't know there were problems at
the time, because I hadn't yet created the second user account, I
generally don't do that until I'm sure I've got all the current updates
first. So there were no error messages or problems, I got clean install
update messages all the way along, so I didn't think to try and
troubleshoot anything at that point. The first I knew of the problem was
the 4th time I logged in, after rebooting the first time, adding a new
user account, logging out, and logging in as that user to begin
installing my apps and drivers, including Proc Exp.
With hindsight, and given the length of time I'd been trying to find a
resolution, it would have been great to have some expertise helping me
figure out what to watch and what modules, file operations, and so on,
to keep an eye on. But I didn't. I was flying blind here to some extent
- although I'd logged a support call 2 days before the rebuild, I hadn't
heard anything, so I assumed it was lost in the cracks, so I tried to do
it myself. By the time the MS support chap was online, it was 2 days
after the rebuild.
Again, with the perfect crystal clarity of hindsight, I should have at
least done a second clean rebuild with some guidance from the MS guy at
the time, before I installed all my core apps and started running my
business again, but I didn't have the luxury of waiting.
PC Pete
> Is Spybot installed and is TeaTimer Enabled ? The above entry has been
> associated with that scenario as TeaTimer is 'guarding' against .dll
> changes.
>
I'll bear that in mind.
As far as I can tell, I haven't installed any kind of registry or file
monitoring processes. I have a firewall (sort of), and I keep a close
watch on my network activity and processes and filesystem. So far so
good! (Famous last words, I know).
PC Pete
I'm not getting anywhere fast - maybe the question is too hard?
Theo
www.microsoft.com and entering your error code in the search
box. Doing this I found the following:
0x80244016
WU_E_PT_
HTTP_STATUS_BAD_REQUEST
Http status 400 - invalid syntax.
I think "invalid syntax" might imply corruption of data
somewhere in the transmit or receive pipeline.
PC Pete
Theo wrote:
> A great source of information for troubleshooting is www.microsoft.com
> and entering your error code in the search box. Doing this I found
> the following:
>
> 0x80244016
> WU_E_PT_
>
> HTTP_STATUS_BAD_REQUEST
> Http status 400 - invalid syntax.
>
> at:
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/0700bf14-01b0-4d47-abae-e77345ca974f1033.mspx?mfr=true
>
>
> I think "invalid syntax" might imply corruption of data somewhere in
> the transmit or receive pipeline.
>
>
That's another good reference, but unfortunately I'm not getting any
kind of visible error indicator anywhere (not even embedded in the html
source for the "administrators only" page), and the updates work fine
while I'm logged in as myself if I allow them to download and prompt. So
I know beyond any doubt that it's not a link/protocol problem at that level.
The workaround (download updates in the background) works, but the
problem (wherever it lies in reality) still exists. It would be nice to
be able to at least identify the culprit, that way I'd be happy to work
with MS to sort out the problem.
If I'd bought a new car and the car company told me I couldn't open the
car doors because they didn't work for some reason, but instead I have
to get in and out of this one car using the windows, and that they
didn't know why the doors didn't work in this car, and they weren't able
to fix them because everybody else's car worked fine, I'd be in a
similar predicament to where I am now.
And the thing with the wupdate.exe link being broken by the Updater v3
installer is probably just as significant. But I can't explain that
behaviour without generating questions that need answers like "you have
a trojan running on your system" or "your system is fundamentally
broken, nothing should be working". I know I don't have a trojan or
other infection, and apart from this bug my system works fine, so why
such a fundamental part of windows is broken and seems to be unfixable
by MS is inexplicable to me. That's why I'm asking here...
I just noticed that it's now officially 5 calendar months since I
reported the bug to MS originally and it's still not fixed. Happy 5th
bug anniversary!
PC Pete
Just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy.
Thanks to everyone who tried, but right now, I'm starting to seriously
regret the move to a 64-bit OS.
I actually have found a fix - or actually, a workaround. See the last
line of this message to find the fix.
I know from reading the newsgroup that I'm luckier than some, I found
drivers for my scanner, printer, RAID controller, and video card, but of
course there's no support whatsoever for any of the mainstream 32-bit
apps. Preparations be damned, when I asked before the upgrade, all I got
were qualified "yes"es, now all I get is unqualified "not supported".
That INCLUDES Microsoft, Adobe, Canon, Epson, Nero, Nokia, Ericcsson,
HP, and more. The only good news is that ATI still support 64-bit OSes,
(albeit with some caveats like "don't expect it to work", or "only
tested on Vista64"), so I can see my system very clearly - the only
problem is, it's doing less than half the work my P4 used to do, in more
than 4 times the time! That's not a system critique, by the way, it's an
OS support and driver critique.
In fact, the ONLY serious development I'm seeing at all on the 64-bit
horizon are the community-supported builds of things like Firefox and
Thunderbird. But Adobe Audition? Bzzzt. Premiere Pro? Bzzzzt. Windows
Update? Bzzzzt.
I'm seriously considering Linux. Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64
Edition has slowly but surely crippled my business to the point where I
need to cut my losses on this $10k "upgrade".
Disappointed? Yep. Frustrated? Yep. Avoidable? Yep. Workarounds? Yep :
Don't install, use, or attempt to run a business using Microsoft Windows
XP Professional x64 Edition. Period.
In case you think I'm kidding, here's a clue : I'm using Microsoft
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition to run MS Virtual PC 2007 to run my
business from a virtual machine running Windows XP Professional 32-bit
edition.
So what if I can't edit my data files? I'll carve them into sub-4G
chunks, like I did on my P4.
So what if I don't have surround sound? My sound editing suite shows me
where the transients are, I can do it visually.
So what if I can't burn to "standard" (Sony and Pioneer ATAPI) CD/DVD
devices? The VM burning mechanism works.
So what if I have no USB devices available in VM? I only need to use a
keyboard and mouse to work.
But now all of a sudden, in the virtual machine, I have Windows Updates
working properly (for the VM only, of course).
PC Pete
My apologies for posting the x64 castigation in the updates newsgroup...
I'll remember to cross post next time too.
PC Pete
Vista x64 windows Update patches and fixes for update corruption issues
in the past week.
Unfortunately, as anyone can tell by browsing the MS "predefined Windows
versions" dropdown in the MS update sites, it appears that someone left
out any mention of Windows XP Professional x64 edition. I can find XP32,
XP embedded, and Vista x64 and Server 2006/7/8 x64, but no XP Pro x64.
I wonder why? I mentioned this in passing to the last MS support person,
and their response was (and I quote) '...' I should have realised then
where I was headed.
Ah hindsight, where were you when I needed you? :)