Re: Repair XP SP2 installation with XP SP1 CD-ROM

Comments inline...

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Steve N." <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ls6ne.3171$s64.684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
>> It is easily determined by his own description that it is not behaving as
>> SP-1, not speculating at all :
>> "Some of the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel"
>> "I clicked on the Security Center icon..."
>> "Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
>> just threw up error messages."
>
> I saw the same things in my experiments, except the wireless setup wizard
> (I don't have wireless, perhaps that's why). Those were the only anomolies
> I saw.

Anomolies can be an indicator of problems.
>
>> Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of SP-2.
>
> Possibly, but the operating system functioned perfectly fine as SP1.

Really?
To what degree?
How was the OS thoroughly tested?
>
>> And that is only what is seen, what about what is not seen?
>> What assurances do you have?
>
> The assurance I have is what I know from experience and study about repair
> installations (aka in-place upgrades), what they do and what they don't
> do. They replace operating system files and embedded system components
> relative to the service pack level being used for the repair install. SP1
> doesn't know about the Firewall and Security Center control panel items of
> SP2. Aparently they are more along the lines of applications (applets),
> and they were rendered non-functional because they apparently depend on
> SP2 versions of system files, which were replaced by SP1 versions by the
> SP1 repair install. The errors stated "a file needed was not found"
> indicates that.

Possibly, but can you guarantee this?
>
>>
>> Have you checked all the files to be sure all are the correct version?
>> "the actual system files in use are SP1 versions"
>
> I assumed they were SP1 versions or the system would not function
> correctly and Windows File Protection would have kicked in if a protected
> system file was the wrong version.

Assuming is a good way of believing an insecure computer is secure.
>
>> How did you verify all of them?
>
> I didn't, I admit I made the assumption since the systems worked fine for
> me and others.

Same answer as above.
>
>>
>> "as I'm sure any SP2 specific registry"
>> "since they are no longer tied to the OS"
>
> You're snipping my sentences so they don't make complete sense. I wish you
> wouldn't do that. It's misleading and confusing.

They may have been snipped but the complete sentance from the previous post
was left for reference if necessary.
>
>> Why are you sure?
>> What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?
>
> The fact that it works.

An operating system is very complex.
"it works" leaves a lot of room for a problem caused by a bad uninstall to
show itself when an appropriate feature is needed.

>
>> How do you know what is tied to what?
>
> By paying attention and learning from the experiment, I'm still learning,
> BTW.
>
>>
>> I do not need to attempt this, I have not stated either way whether it
>> will work or not.
>
> I didn't say you should try it or that you said it would or would not
> work, you said his system is not behaving like an sp1 installation:
>
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> Yours is not a good example.
>>> Your computer is also not behaving as an SP-1 installation.
>
> And I asked:
>
> "How can you determine that it is not behaving like an SP1 installation?
> Have you done it and are you using a machine that you've done it to?"
>
> Obviously you haven't. A simple, "No." would have sufficed.

I saw no need to try it at this time.
I saw in the other thread where some said it was successful.
But I also see in this thread where components are left behind.
If components are left behind, is incomplete if not a failure.
It is possible for one to be successfull and another to fail.
Whether I would succeed or fail would not prove whether others can succeed
or fail.
All it would prove is what my computer did.
>
>> But both your descriptions do little to suggest it was successful.
>
> The fact four people (one a highly respected MVP) posted in the original
> thread that it worked and the systems were functional and one stated he
> does it all the time, suggests it was successful. The fact that a few
> program items specific to SP2 that were left over were no longer
> functional is not all that surprising to me.

I have never disputed whether it was possible.
But in the specific instances where there are SP-2 components left behind,
indicates potential problems.
>
>> The listed problems suggest otherwise and I would not accept the
>> uninstallation with those listed problems as a successful uninstall.
>
> Repair installations do not affect installed programs, remember? Only
> system files and embeded components of the SP level used for the repair
> installation.
I was not referring to other programs, this discussion is about Windows.
>
>> If you do, that is up to you and your computer.
>
> I tested it mostly out of curiosity. Many times in the past I and others
> have performed repair installations of various versions of Windows using
> prior service pack level installation CDs, knowing full well that any
> existing hotfixes, patches and service packs not included in that CD would
> not be present afterwards and any software or OS components dependent on
> hotfixes, patches or service packs not included on the install media that
> are left over may not function.
>
>> I prefer something more definitive than SP-1 displayed in winver and some
>> inoperative functions.
>>
>
> Then test it for yourself and you tell us. Saying something is askew
> without your experience for proof is pretty meaningless. I prefer to
> actually test things and find results, not speculate.

If and when I ever do it does not change the facts others have experienced.
You may choose to call it successfull with SP-2 components remaining, I
would not.
Appearing function properly is not an assurance all is OK.
>
> I intend to test this futher and I'll let you know what I find out. I
> apologize, but due to another OS experiment, I reformatted my test machine
> and will need to conduct the experiment again but I will do my best to
> supply as complete and accurate information as I can to satisfy your
> questions and comments.
>
> Steve
>

I may test for myself.
But it seems we have differing views and criteria for success.
For me and my computers, I would consider the OS suspect and do what was
necessary to fix it.
If a Clean Installation was necessary, that is what I would do.
You seem to be satisfied with SP-1 functionality and what is reported by
winver ignoring SP-2 components seen and unseen..


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SP1 Install Error
    ... This indicates that the WMI database consistency checker has run ... It is now safe to press OK in the message box indicating the SP1 ... At the ?Installation did not complete? ... The installation should be successful. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Create SP2 CD
    ... with XP SP1. ... to do a repair installation ... of the system files were not ... insert my XP SP2 CD. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Repair XP SP2 installation with XP SP1 CD-ROM
    ... "Some of the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel" ... "the actual system files in use are SP1 versions" ... > How can you determine that it is not behgaving like an SP1 installation? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Office 2003 SP1 Update Problems
    ... trying to run the SP1 for Office 2003. ... Check for updates - successful ... Hit the 'Agree and Start Installation' button - successful ...
    (microsoft.public.officeupdate)
  • Solaris 10 install
    ... Installation of was successful. ... Reboot client to install driver. ... Installation of <SUNWgnome-component> was successful. ...
    (SunManagers)