Re: ***** sp2 bREAKS eVERYTHING!!!!! *****

From: Nathan McNulty (nospam_at_msn.com)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:45:18 -0700

See inline comments 

----
Nathan McNulty
Papa wrote:
> "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message 
> news:%23$xhzvYkEHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> 
>>First off, where are these posts about SP2 that haven't been explained?
> 
> 
> Well, for example in a post I made in this newsgroup on 8/28/04. After 
> waiting for 2 days without any responses at all, I finally posted again (in 
> that thread) to ask why no MVPs had anything to say about the questions I 
> posed. The only response I got was from one MVP, who stated that "I don't 
> see any questions listed in this post.". Now, that's a really big help!
> 
> Here is a copy of my post, which had a subject heading of "SP2 install delay 
> and other mysteries":
> 
> I just finished installing SP2 on my Gateway laptop, and ran into a few
> interesting events.
> 
> Before doing the install, I was notified by the Automatic Update feature
> that SP2 was available for install. I clicked on that icon and the screen
> told me that I would be downloading a 260 MB file. Having heard that there
> are smaller SP2 files, I cancelled out of that and clicked on the Windows
> Update button, where I was told that the download of SP2 for my Home Edition
> OS would be, if my memory is correct, 73 MB. So I opted to download and
> install SP2 from the WU rather than from the Automatic Update feature. This
> puzzles me. Why is the size of the SP2 file in Automatic Update different
> from the size of the SP2 file in WU? (NOTE FROM OP - THAT WAS QUESTION 
> NUMBER 1)
The original fie size was 266 MB.  If you have no patches on the system 
at all, the file download should still not be that large.  I would 
venture to guess that Automatic Updates was simply specifying the 
largest the file size would be.  Microsoft is actually in the process of 
modifying their update system as we speak.
Microsoft uses different databases for Windows Update, Automatic Update, 
SUS, etc.  This is why they are pushing for Windows Update Services 
which all use one database.  This will provide accurate results.  For 
more information on this, go to 
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sus/default.mspx
> 
> Anyway, after initiating the SP2 download and install in WU, the download
> went off without a hitch. However, the install procedure stalled for at
> least 20 minutes (I use cable broadband) with only 3 tics on the progress
> bar. I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del to see if there was a "Not Responding" message, but
> there wasn't. So I "X"d out of that and waited another 15 minutes. Still no
> more progress on the progress bar. Finally I hit "Cancel" to get out of the
> install.
> 
> Then I clicked on WU again and re-started the SP2 install. I was pleased to
> see that the system is smart enough to not do the download all over again.
> Instead it began immediately to do the install, and this time there were no
> delays and the install was successfully completed. I wonder why there was an
> install delay during my first attempt. The download had already been
> completed, so I don't see how an internet communication delay could have
> been the culprit. (NOTE FROM OP - THAT WAS QUESTION NUMBER 2)
Generally when the download stalls during the downloading from WU, it is 
because a system file (especially atapi.sys) was locked.  I hate to say 
it, but software can install differently each time you install it.  I 
have had completely screwy installs of XP before where notepad wouldn't 
even open.  Another format and install and it worked perfectly.  Don't 
know why, but something tripped up.
Here is where software and hardware meet.  What happens if the 
information stored in your memory was not retrievable and this locked up 
Windows Update.  There are many things involved with hardware that could 
have caused this as well.  It doesn't even have to mean that you have 
bad hardware.  I forget the specific statistic (but I'm sure someone 
will correct me), but the average memory has at least 1 error every 20 
days of running.  Sometimes these errors do not affect anything, but 
sometimes they do.  This is why we have ECC memory on servers.
> 
> Any comments on these events are certainly welcome.
I apologize that no one answered your original post.  Sometimes it is 
that no one even read it, sometimes no one knew the answer, or they 
started but never finished.  I try my best to read every post from the 
hardware newsgroup fully. I spend a couple hours in there every day. 
There are days where I am gone, out of town, etc that prevent me from 
seeing posts and then I try to catch back up.  I have missed very few 
posts in the last three months or so, so I am sorry that I did not reply 
to yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
Loading