[PA Bear]

Fowarded to WinXP General, WinXP Setup and Server General NGs for wider
exposure. IE5 NG removed.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security

ray auchterlounie wrote:
> Yes, fully up to date XP pro and 2003
>
> XP machine iepeers.dll is: 6.0.2900.2627
>
> 2003 machine is: 6.0.3790.1830
>
> If we test a machine starting from retail (msdn) XP pro SP1, we can apply
> the hotfix and the error doesn't happen. Then after updating to SP2 +
> other windows update, the error is back. Also, on IE6 help->about it
> lists the hotfix at the SP1 stage, ie. it says "SP1; Q329919", then
> after updating that line is changed to "SP2" - no hotfix listed. Also,
> the hotfix will not then apply (wrong ie version) and won't apply at all
> on 2003.
>
> ray
>
>
> "PA Bear" wrote:
>
> > Are all machines fully up-to-date at Windows Update?
> >
> > What version of IEPEERS.DLL are running on the problem machines?
> > --
> > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
> >
> > ray auchterlounie wrote:
> > > After getting this error message:
> > >
> > > "The web folder address Internet Explorer was given is too long.
> > > Please use a shorter address"
> > >
> > > we've used the hotfix Q329919 (see
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;329919) to
> > > fix it. However, the hotfix we have won't install on recent XP (sp2)
> > > machines, or 2003 server. Also, if a fixed XP machine gets upgraded
> > > to SP2, the hotfix seems to get overwritten and the error returns,
> > > and the hotfix won't then re-apply.
> > >
> > > The KB article implies that the problem should be fixed in 2003 (and
> > > presumably XP sp2) - but we still get the error in both.
> > >
> > > Anyone know if there is an update to this hotfix or why the problem
> > > seems to still happen on 2003 ?

[Peter Foldes]

2003 machine is: 6.0.3790.1830 as mine

I also found this same kb did the exact same for me. I finally got it to install as a last resort and after losing some hair by going to Safe mode and doing it in there. I have no idea what is causing this and I was not about to test and find out as this is a production machine and cannot afford down time.



--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:up9aPcmYFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Fowarded to WinXP General, WinXP Setup and Server General NGs for wider
> exposure. IE5 NG removed.
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
>
> ray auchterlounie wrote:
>> Yes, fully up to date XP pro and 2003
>>
>> XP machine iepeers.dll is: 6.0.2900.2627
>>
>> 2003 machine is: 6.0.3790.1830
>>
>> If we test a machine starting from retail (msdn) XP pro SP1, we can apply
>> the hotfix and the error doesn't happen. Then after updating to SP2 +
>> other windows update, the error is back. Also, on IE6 help->about it
>> lists the hotfix at the SP1 stage, ie. it says "SP1; Q329919", then
>> after updating that line is changed to "SP2" - no hotfix listed. Also,
>> the hotfix will not then apply (wrong ie version) and won't apply at all
>> on 2003.
>>
>> ray
>>
>>
>> "PA Bear" wrote:
>>
>> > Are all machines fully up-to-date at Windows Update?
>> >
>> > What version of IEPEERS.DLL are running on the problem machines?
>> > --
>> > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
>> >
>> > ray auchterlounie wrote:
>> > > After getting this error message:
>> > >
>> > > "The web folder address Internet Explorer was given is too long.
>> > > Please use a shorter address"
>> > >
>> > > we've used the hotfix Q329919 (see
>> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;329919) to
>> > > fix it. However, the hotfix we have won't install on recent XP (sp2)
>> > > machines, or 2003 server. Also, if a fixed XP machine gets upgraded
>> > > to SP2, the hotfix seems to get overwritten and the error returns,
>> > > and the hotfix won't then re-apply.
>> > >
>> > > The KB article implies that the problem should be fixed in 2003 (and
>> > > presumably XP sp2) - but we still get the error in both.
>> > >
>> > > Anyone know if there is an update to this hotfix or why the problem
>> > > seems to still happen on 2003 ?
>