[geeks] Windows XP, and activation

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 @ 16:52 -0500, Bryan Fullerton said:

> On 11/7/06, Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com> wrote:
> > > I believe you need to have relatively current levels of various
> > > Windows components (Windows Update client, Microsoft Installer,
> >
> > I know, that's one reason I used a slipstream install that was current
> > as of September 2006.
> 
> Have you confirmed that other people using the slipstream install are
> getting updates? Maybe the slipstreaming process broke something...

No, I really think it was the date problem right now.

I'll see later.  

I wish I didn't have to dual boot.  It sucks.

> > I picked another option that just backgrounds downloads and asks later,
> > so maybe that won't care what time it is.
> 
> You can manually kick off a background Windows Update check using
> 'wuauclt /detectnow' at the command line. Windows Update logs to
> %windir%\Windowsupdate.log, and the log is surprisingly useful.

Thanks, I was looking for a way to fire it off manually.

> (I find myself in the unfortunate position of supporting far too many
> Windows desktops and servers at current $WORK, as well as many Linux
> servers)

That's OK. I've had to work with Windows for many years too. I've also
taken care of Macs for a long time, and the old MacOS wasn't always a
joy to support either.

Fortunately I've mostly been a programmer or UNIX admin, and didn't have
to do tons of desktop support except in terms of server support for them
and some networking.

Of course, when you are a programmer, everyone assumes that you can do
anything with a computer, even if you are totally clueless.

At one shop a woman got really mad at me because I would not help her
with an add-on package for AutoCAD that required a huge amount of
strength of materials knowledge.

Evidently if you are a "computer person", you are supposed to just know
that stuff.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["There are nowadays professors of
philosophy, but not philosophers." ]