Anyone know why DISM cannot remove KB2545698 even though it is there when I do /get-packages? I can install it with no errors, but I can't remove it. This is what is listed in my offline image and I wanted to remove the older version: Code: Package_for_KB2545698_BF~31bf3856ad364e35~x86~~6.1.1.3 Uninstall Pending Package_for_KB2545698_BF~31bf3856ad364e35~x86~~6.1.1.5 Install Pending Package_for_KB2545698~31bf3856ad364e35~x86~~6.1.1.3 Uninstall Pending Package_for_KB2545698~31bf3856ad364e35~x86~~6.1.1.5 Install Pending I changed burf'S update command to /remove-package and removal worked on all of the 21 fixes that were replaced in solor's kb000000 01.11 version. The above fix was the only one still in the wim. I then integrated the 30 new fixes from 01.16 and basically ended up with the same wim as if I had done a vanilla_SP1.wim + solor's kb000000 01.16 version except for the Uninstall Pending entries. I wanted to save the time integrating the 255 fixes that were identical in the 01.11 and 01.16 hotpacks. It did make a big difference in the time saved. Code: Deployment Image Servicing and Management tool Version: 6.1.7600.16385 Image Version: 6.1.7601.17514 Processing 1 of 2 - The package Package_for_KB2545698_BF is not present in the image. Processing 2 of 2 - The package Package_for_KB2545698 is not present in the image. Al
Hi Solor, I see the following fixes in KB000000 for 01.16. Looks like 3 2 have been superseded. Code: KB2647401 W32i DLL ENU 6.1.7601.21865 shp 12,873,728 11-23-2011 shell32.dll KB2615128-v3 W32i DLL ENU 6.1.7601.21869 shp 12,873,728 11-30-2011 shell32.dll (should this KB be removed?) KUC reports the above as superseded, but not according to the version numbers. KB2620656-v2 W32i DLL ENU 6.1.7601.21833 shp 769,024 10-06-2011 localspl.dll KB2526028 W32i DLL ENU 6.1.7601.21687 shp 769,024 03-19-2011 localspl.dll (should this KB be removed?) KB2647409 W32i APP ENU 6.1.7601.21866 shp 521,216 11-24-2011 termsrv.dll KB2479710 W32i APP ENU 6.1.7601.21650 shp 521,216 01-28-2011 termsrv.dll (should this KB be removed?) Al
not sure why you get that for that shell32.dll... anyway about localspl.dll update its true KB2526028 for x86 should be moved to LDR placeholders, on x64 you need both however since x64 version of KB2526028 updates one more component... about KB2479710 its true that KB2647409 supersedes it, but since KB2647409 is not available yet for x64 i didnt remove it yet...
For OFFline image you have to remove the oldes version first! before installing the newest version! I posted that some week before!
I thought I did that. Anyway, I reran everything and it looks fine now. I must have lost track of what I was doing before.
2burfadel 3.Remove superseded update file installers Removes the desired update Windows6.1-KB2615128-v3-x64.msu, Windows6.1-KB2615128-v3-x86.msu and in fact should not Sometimes that does not delete files from a folder some updates --------------------------------------------- Automated Superseded Updates Uninstall Script By Burf --------------------------------------------- removing of old updates now complete. The following 3 superseded update(s) were deleted: KB2615128 KB2479710-x86 KB2526028-x86 Press any key to return to the menu... KB2479710-x86 KB2526028-x86 These updates presentedin archive x86-16.1.2012.7z Why are they removed?
no idea tbh, i dont get it as well... i just throw it there since kb request page says its for SP1, even tho im fully aware file version is 6.1.7600...
I received this email (outlined below) yesterday from Mediafire, and the file has indeed been suspended. What reason do you think they'd have for sending it? as there is absolutely no reason I see why it shoudl be a problem.
Actually the only thing I see possibly being an issue, if you stretch the definition, is the Visual C++ Redist installer. Now if that is a problem, wouldn't that make ANY company distributing it NOT in the original VCRedist_x86.exe/VCRedist_x64.exe etc being infringing? Even if its merely exctracted?! Of course, problem is now I can't upload newer dated versions of it until the issue is resolved.
I don't see how there's anything in it that can be remotedly related to being a breach of copyright or piracy. Basically all utilities, especially those you pay for, would have more offending stuff in them if Microsoft thinks this script is a problem! I will continue to updated it locally as required locally though. I have sent a mesage to the email address of Microsoft and dealt with the Mediafire as well, if I don't hear anything back I'll upload the next version in say, a week or whenever the next update comes out, whichever comes later. The only change I might make if I do this is to ackowledge Windows and DISM are copyrights of Microsoft Corporation, as that is the only thing that could be remotedly be a problem.