FAQ / Common Problems & Solutions

[Angelico_Payne]

Concerning the trust issue... TRUST NO ONE :D :laughing my ass off:

Not such a bad idea on slipstreaming AP into XP, but alas there are some copyright and digital rights to be taken into account when considering such ideas. :yes:

What I learned is that it is easy for us to make demands, but if some of those demands violate the digirights acts, it will be these guys, fullfilling our demands, taking the fall. So before, asking them to do it for you, try to do it by yourself first... ;)

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

uhm, how would that be violating 'digital rights'?

Microsoft have implemented unattended installations into the XP install procedure to allow people to install custom applications during the WinXP install - This is all you'd be doing.

As far as making an unattended install to automatically download and install the latest version of AutoPatcher, the main idea is that you can be fully up to date before you connect to the Internet, because un-patched, you're vulnerable.

[+theblazingangel MVC]

FAQ & common problems & solutions threads merged.

Edited January 12, 2006 by TheBlazingAngel

[mercatoros]

Hello to everyone

I recently reinstalled winxp and windows update does not work anymore.

After some investigation I discovered and downloaded Autopatcher.

I don't have an icon on the desktop. When I double click the Autopatcher icon from c/autopatcher... nothing happens :cry:

I don't have an c/autopatcher/tools nor bin folder as suggested in the tips above.

I don't have the comdlg32.ocx in c/windows32 but I have a comdlg32.dll

Can anyone help?

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

All I can suggest is to re-download AutoPatcher.

[+theblazingangel MVC]

@mercatoros

*re-written*

1) check your autopatcher download isnt corrupt like M2Ys4U suggested.

2) find out the solution to fixing winupdate, i've heard of it before, and im sure theres a solution.

3) even if you dont want to reinstall windows to try and solve issues your your seeing, consider doing it because your new installaiton could already be compromsed, in the time youve spent online downloading autopatcher.

if you go for a reinstall again:

1) backup autopatcher so your not exposed while downloading it

2) if your xp install disk does not have sp2 included, download it from here and back that up along with autopatcher.

3) backup your programs and data

3) re-install windows properly (recreating partitions*), install sp2 if not integrated in you install disk, install and run autopatcher.

* some people end up just reinstalling windows over the previus version rather than wiping the current verison and starting afresh because they dont follow the correct procedure. if you delete and recreate the partitions in the partition table before the formatting and installing stage, you make sure this doesnt happen!

Edited February 25, 2006 by TheBlazingAngel

[perspectivism]

In the italian release (full) for an user with original XP SP2 unfortunately is given following runtime error n. 5 (routine calling or argument not valid):

http://www.calio.it/errore5.jpg

The folder of autopatcher is in c:\programmi\autopatcher (default folder).

What is it possible to do?

[+theblazingangel MVC]

@Massimiliano2

could you translate that error to english for me?

im really not sure wht it could be. it might be specific to a particular module, you might have to do some experimenting with selections to find it if it is.

[perspectivism]

runtime error n. 5 (routine calling or argument not valid)

This error happens when my friend click on update button.

Before he has selected "critical updates"

But this is a case, other users, no problem.

[+theblazingangel MVC]

i really havent got a clue...

[Blimey]

Hi,

Is it possible to copy the installed veriosn of AP onto a CD or USB stick and run directly from there rather than installing on each machine?

Also can I create a new default selection list that will only include what I want to be installed by default? If so will it ignore updates that I have selected but is already installed on the machine?

I think AP is awesome, saves so much time, reliable and always to hand. It put windows updates to shame, Keep up the excellent work!

Thx!

-Blimey

[+theblazingangel MVC]

^ yes, just copy the contents of c:\program files\autopatcher to the cd/dvd or flash drive.

yes, saving lists are detailed here.

if a module is already installed then it will be deselected and not installed i believe. but i cant be 100% certain. you'd have to check for yourself, create a selection file, then run autopatcher with it to see what happens (not in silent mode!!).

[truenorth3410]

Wow...For someone like me who know nothing about AP, I am amazed no one here talks about where do I find this damn thing? Where do I download AP 5.1 from? I reads this entire thread and no such info. What the?

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

There a some stickied posts in the forum - one for AP XP, one for AP 2000 and one for AP 2003

[truenorth3410]

Thanks for the info, bud, found it!

[enmane]

OK, here's my question(s) about autopatcher and I'm a newb to this utility but not a newb to computers or haxing.

1) Does autopatcher work "just" like the MS update? I personally don't like the way MS updates my system and stores the $uninstall information as it just eats up hard drive space with no benefit to me.

2) What is the difference between using autopatcher vs something like nlite that merges the information into the install CD for a smaller installation? Please don't reply with the obvious - well, one requires 2 steps and the other requires 1 ;D. I'd like to know what the difference is when the installs are complete in terms of HD space and registry entries. I'm partial to nlite because it removes the obsolete exe and dll files and replaces them with new ones without taking any more HD space.

In other words, I like the way nlite works but this is much easier for the end user if the results are the same but I find it hard to believe that the results would be the same since all the PR claims it to be an easier way to do MS Updates - which isn't the best way to do updates to begin with.

Just to be clear - I think the package is AWESOME but I want to use the best tool for the job and I'm trying to see what the difference is between this and slipstreaming the updates to the ISO as a final result.

Edited May 11, 2006 by enmane

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Basically, Autopatcher contains exactly the same files as you'll download from Windows Update, but just executes them all in order.

It's basically just an offline Windows Update (+ some other handy programs and tweaks).

I'd personally suggest doing it the WU/AP way as it's the way MS wants you to patch up.

[enmane]

  M2Ys4U said:

I'd personally suggest doing it the WU/AP way as it's the way MS wants you to patch up.

uh, isn't that a good reason NOT to do it that way, LOL. If MS stands behind it then it CAN'T be right, LOL.

What about the additional files left on the computer after the installation? This irritates the heck out of me.

It's amazing how linux does this so well (w/apt-get & synaptic) without any troubles nor any wasted space - when is MS going to learn?

[+theblazingangel MVC]

^ what files are you refering to?

[enmane]

  theblazingangel said:

^ what files are you refering to?

The $NTuninstall files hiding the C:\windows directory

[gandolas]

^ That allows you to unistall them later. If you don't want that to happen, when using AutoPatcher, choose not to create backups.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

  enmane said:

uh, isn't that a good reason NOT to do it that way, LOL. If MS stands behind it then it CAN'T be right, LOL.

What about the additional files left on the computer after the installation? This irritates the heck out of me.

It's amazing how linux does this so well (w/apt-get & synaptic) without any troubles nor any wasted space - when is MS going to learn?

:sleep: Yes, because if MS designs a way to update their own OS is has to be wrong doesn't it?

Those files are there for a reason - if you wish to uninstall the updates!

You do not have to have the uninstall/backup files there if you do not wish, just unckeck the keep backups box -_-

[enmane]

  M2Ys4U said:

:sleep: Yes, because if MS designs a way to update their own OS is has to be wrong doesn't it?

Those files are there for a reason - if you wish to uninstall the updates!

You do not have to have the uninstall/backup files there if you do not wish, just unckeck the keep backups box -_-

That would only be logical but this is MS we're talking about and when you download an update that says "cannot be uninstalled" there is still an $ntuninstall created.

In fact, I have 6 of these on my system right now and going to add/remove programs shows NOTHING with regards to these updates nor a way to uninstall them.

Either MS is wrong in creating an $NTuninstall folder for things that can't be uninstalled, your knowledge of why they are there is incorrect, or I my knowledge about how to uninstall them is wrong.

On another note, why would anyone uninstall an update that is supposed to fix their system/secure their system/patch their system?

If the answer is "because sometimes the MS updates mess things up" then we've already answered the question about the competency of MS and their updates, ;D

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Yes, and *nix app upgrades never screw anything up...

I'm a fan of apt-get & portage as much as the next man, but Microsoft has chosen to do what they've done, and having a mechanism to uninstall a hotfix in case of conflicts is a wise choice IMO.

[enmane]

  M2Ys4U said:

Yes, and *nix app upgrades never screw anything up...

I'm a fan of apt-get & portage as much as the next man, but Microsoft has chosen to do what they've done, and having a mechanism to uninstall a hotfix in case of conflicts is a wise choice IMO.

Ok, without getting too sidetracked. I'm not saying that *nix is the best out there but that there is a problem with the argument being made

1) that the $ntuninstall files are there to uninstall

2) that they aren't in add/remove so that they _cannot_ be uninstalled

So, can they or can't they and if not, then why have them at all? Are we on the same page now?

Anyhow, why would they hide the ability to uninstall the updates from the user? By default, hidden files are not visible. My issue with MS is that their intentions may be well placed but their execution is pretty poor. If they are there so that we can uninstall them then list it in the add/remove section of the CP. If you think that they shouldn't be removed because it is needed and is therefore "uninstallable" like the download says then don't put it there and test the crap out of it before you send it to me otherwise make it easy for me to remove.

Edited May 11, 2006 by enmane