AutoPatcher Forum

This seems kind of wierd.. I keep my autopatchers fully updated at all times..

I keep XP autopatcher in its own folder, vista, windows 7 and so fourth this way there is no confusion.. anyways....

When ever I run the vista autopatcher on a vista machine (x86 of course w/sp2) it only does a total of like 16 patches.

Then I run windows update and there is like 40 or 50.. Now those upadates are located in the vista autopatcher modules but
they are not being noticed.. I completely re-downloaded the autopatcher for vista sp2 and had the exact same issue and I
tested this on more that 15 machines (fresh vista installs and current installs)
... Any ideas? Thanks all
Edited by frankenberrie, 19 March 2010 - 01:24 PM.

it may be just an issue related to the detection, an missing prereq or something else. can you please post an screen from autopatcher vista, showing the modules that aren't working?

thanks

[]s

Ok... give me a few minutes
Edited by frankenberrie, 19 March 2010 - 02:09 PM.

This is all it shows me... Also look.. There are multiple items selected but on
top it shows selection: 1 item to install...

frankenberrie said:

Something is strange about that screenshot...You say it's a screenshot of Vista SP2, I don't see a module for MSXML 4 SP3 in the Vista
release, XP SP3 yes, or -> WMP - Recommended updates. I'm not sure what you've done but I don't think these are isolated releases, it
seems that you have managed to mix things up somehow. I would like to see a screenshot of the Release Info window. My point being,
as far as I know these modules should not appear on Vista, if you have the releases mixed, any module that is flagged to load on an OS
will load. Even if this is XP, more updates should be showing.

You need to figure out First what release(s) is Unofficial - fire up AutoPatcher - click About - click Release Info, the release that is False
needs fixing - run APUP again, select the script (XP, Vista, etc), and get the release Official. If you could, get a screenshot as I mentioned
above so we could see what all you have mixed, it may simply be an extra .apm file from the wrong release, including the category WMP, this
will cause a release to be Unofficial.

ok, possible reasons for that:
- the modules was edited to load into vista (but they never will install, because those updates only work with xp);
- vistamizer or another skinner that makes xp looks like vista

can you be sure about any of those questions? also, this vista install was made over an previews winxp install? also, if possible, can you run this tool and show us the result?

thanks

[]s

Cristiano said:

Very interesting - a skinned XP, edited modules, or XP upgraded to Vista. But, like I said, regardless - more updates should be showing
up for installation. I just hate that it takes 3 or 4 posts before the important details come out about an OPs machine, clearly there is
something amiss here

> more updates should be showing up for installation
sure. and that is the annoying part

[]s

I re-downloaded everything for autopatcher Vista SP2 into a new folder (updater+updates+dotnet+etc.....)

I did not modify any modules everything thing is straight from the updater..

The screenshot above was taken on a HP system with a fresh install of Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 32bit...


(When I use the XP SP3 updater on XP SP3 systems it shows over 100 available updated just to add.....)

I found the issue and it was my doing..

I been using the same .aaf file and it was corrupt..

I truly apologize for wasting your time.

frankenberrie said:

No need to apologize, though I'm still not sure how an answer file will cause a module to load from a release that isn't present, maybe
it could, I've never tried it.

Anyway, if the release isn't Official you will want to get it so - see post #5

BTW, please don't hesitate to ask for help, I just get frustrated when All the details of an OP's release / setup has to be drug out over
a number of posts - not as bad in your case, others have taken 5 or 6 posts before any meaningful information is given.

> I'm still not sure how an answer file will cause a module to load from a release that isn't present, maybe it could, I've never tried it
neither me

[]s