PC Review


Reply
 
 
StuNun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005
Have just downloaded and installed 615 upgrade and
experienced the same problem as mentioned in srcoinman`s
threat. Have tried Robin Walkers remedy of clearing the
Temp Internet Files but it is still showing version 614.
Have tried both the upgrade option and a clean install. If
anyone has any other ideas I would be most grateful.

StuNun
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
srcoinman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>Have just downloaded and installed 615 upgrade and
>experienced the same problem as mentioned in srcoinman`s
>threat. Have tried Robin Walkers remedy of clearing the
>Temp Internet Files but it is still showing version 614.
>Have tried both the upgrade option and a clean install.

If
>anyone has any other ideas I would be most grateful.
>
>StuNun
>.
>I had to empty the off line content folder also, for the

upgrade to take.
 
Reply With Quote
 
StuNun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Have just downloaded and installed 615 upgrade and
>>experienced the same problem as mentioned in srcoinman`s
>>threat. Have tried Robin Walkers remedy of clearing the
>>Temp Internet Files but it is still showing version 614.
>>Have tried both the upgrade option and a clean install.

>If
>>anyone has any other ideas I would be most grateful.
>>
>>StuNun
>>.
>>I had to empty the off line content folder also, for the

>upgrade to take.
>.
>I forgot to mention that I already had the option to

empty the off line content folder check marked before
deleting. I also noticed that after installing the defs
reverted to 5725 before upgrading to 5733. Is this correct
or should there be a later set of defs incorporated with
the later version?

StuNun
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robin Walker [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005
StuNun <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I also noticed that after installing the defs
> reverted to 5725 before upgrading to 5733. Is this correct
> or should there be a later set of defs incorporated with
> the later version?


No, it is not correct, because you do not have the Build 615 installer: you
have an outdated version.

615 comes with definitions 5735 built-in.

The installer for Build 615 has a Digital Signature date of 13 July 2005
18:44:35 GMT - adjust the displayed time for your time-zone. Do not use the
installer unless it has this Digital Signature date.

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
(E-Mail Removed)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Have just downloaded and installed 615 upgrade and
>>>experienced the same problem as mentioned in

srcoinman`s
>>>threat. Have tried Robin Walkers remedy of clearing

the
>>>Temp Internet Files but it is still showing version

614.
>>>Have tried both the upgrade option and a clean

install.
>>If
>>>anyone has any other ideas I would be most grateful.
>>>
>>>StuNun
>>>.
>>>I had to empty the off line content folder also, for

the
>>upgrade to take.
>>.
>>I forgot to mention that I already had the option to

>empty the off line content folder check marked before
>deleting. I also noticed that after installing the defs
>reverted to 5725 before upgrading to 5733. Is this

correct
>or should there be a later set of defs incorporated with
>the later version?
>
>StuNun
>.
>Yes 5735 also try this, go into the windows\system32

folder and see what ver of the GcUncompress.dll file is.
If it is older then 614 rename old and try reinstalling
the antispyware after you empty the temp files and the
off line content. Reboot, try the reinstall. Also in the
add remove for antispyware you can click the support and
run repaire
 
Reply With Quote
 
StuNun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>Have just downloaded and installed 615 upgrade and
>>>>experienced the same problem as mentioned in

>srcoinman`s
>>>>threat. Have tried Robin Walkers remedy of clearing

>the
>>>>Temp Internet Files but it is still showing version

>614.
>>>>Have tried both the upgrade option and a clean

>install.
>>>If
>>>>anyone has any other ideas I would be most grateful.
>>>>
>>>>StuNun
>>>>.
>>>>I had to empty the off line content folder also, for

>the
>>>upgrade to take.
>>>.
>>>I forgot to mention that I already had the option to

>>empty the off line content folder check marked before
>>deleting. I also noticed that after installing the defs
>>reverted to 5725 before upgrading to 5733. Is this

>correct
>>or should there be a later set of defs incorporated with
>>the later version?
>>
>>StuNun
>>.
>>Yes 5735 also try this, go into the windows\system32

>folder and see what ver of the GcUncompress.dll file is.
>If it is older then 614 rename old and try reinstalling
>the antispyware after you empty the temp files and the
>off line content. Reboot, try the reinstall. Also in the
>add remove for antispyware you can click the support and
>run repaire
>.
>Thanks for the response. However, while I was waiting for

a solution I tried this:

1. Uninstalled MSASW.
2. Deleated the Temp Internet Files (including off line
content).
3. Deleated the Microsoft AntSpyWare Folder (including sub
folders) which were left after the uninstall but did not
venture to do the same in the registry.
4. Reinstalled.

Shortly after this MSASW told me there was a newer version
available in spite of my install being the latest file
downloaded from the web site. However, went thru the
update process and now all is fine.

Interesting to note the MS site tells me 615 contains
updated defs but mine showed 5725 19 July 2005 after the
install before upgrading to 5735.

StuNun
 
Reply With Quote
 
StuNun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>StuNun <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I also noticed that after installing the defs
>> reverted to 5725 before upgrading to 5733. Is this

correct
>> or should there be a later set of defs incorporated with
>> the later version?

>
>No, it is not correct, because you do not have the Build

615 installer: you
>have an outdated version.
>
>615 comes with definitions 5735 built-in.
>
>The installer for Build 615 has a Digital Signature date

of 13 July 2005
>18:44:35 GMT - adjust the displayed time for your time-

zone. Do not use the
>installer unless it has this Digital Signature date.
>
>--
>Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
>(E-Mail Removed)
>
>
>.Then I must be missing something here. 615 was installed

on this system from the latest file available from the MS
web site. The new version would contain the updated
installer as a matter of course. I don`t see how you can
hope to install 615 using an earlier installer other than
by online upgrading which I did to 614. Anyway, the
installer shows the Digital Signature Figures you indicate
above.

StuNun>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robin Walker [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      20th Jul 2005
Robin Walker [MVP] <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 615 comes with definitions 5735 built-in.


I take this back. On a system which does not contain pre-existing
definitions files, the 615 installer installs some quite out-dated
definitions, which can be manually updated to the latest set.

On a system which has pre-existing definitions files, the 615 installer
leaves them as they are.

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
(E-Mail Removed)


 
Reply With Quote
 
StuNun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      20th Jul 2005

>-----Original Message-----
>Robin Walker [MVP] <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 615 comes with definitions 5735 built-in.

>
>I take this back. On a system which does not contain pre-

existing
>definitions files, the 615 installer installs some quite

out-dated
>definitions, which can be manually updated to the latest

set.
>
>On a system which has pre-existing definitions files, the

615 installer
>leaves them as they are.
>
>--
>Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
>(E-Mail Removed)
>
>Thank you Robin. All is now clearer than before.
>.
>StuNun

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vista Ultimate Upgrade Fails - Freeze at Completing Upgrade(Install) The Primate Windows Vista Installation 2 24th Apr 2008 12:56 AM
Action Pack Subscriber - How do fresh install with upgrade licence? Upgrade from XP is faulty! TransAction Translators Windows Vista Installation 6 1st Aug 2007 07:44 AM
UPGRADE QUESTION: Do you have to have a version of Windows installed in order to install the Vista upgrade? JMI Windows Vista Installation 3 11th Feb 2007 10:30 PM
Re: Vista Upgrade: Clean Install works. Upgrade error 0x80070241 Paul-B Windows Vista Installation 0 6th Feb 2007 06:19 PM
Post Exchange 2003 upgrade Outlook searches looks at pre upgrade dated messages first KingCronos Microsoft Outlook 4 9th Jan 2007 09:53 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 PM.