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

Steve;
We simply have different standards on what is successful in this matter.
You will accept the leftover components, I would not.

Windows File Protection and other indicators are great but I do not like
starting with the SP-2 left over regardless.

Obviously there is no guarantee of any installation but I would suspect an
installation that had anomalies especially an uninstallation that left
obvious components.
You pretty much have to assume a Clean Installation that reacts properly is
OK.

Secure is important as are stability and functionality.
Lose any of those three and the computer may be. worthless to you.

I apologize if the snipping seemed like it was intended to mislead, that was
not the case.
If I had intended to mislead, I would have also deleted/changed the
appropriate section of your post.
The point I attempted to make was the fact there are leftover registry
entries and other components of SP-2 leave the uninstall process suspect to
me.
I was not ignoring your point "SP1 has no knowledge...", I understand what
you are saying.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I referred to success or
failure on my computer.
What I meant was if I attempt something once and it fails, that is not very
good proof that it will not work ever.
More thorough checks would be required to make a definitive statement such
as "It can not be done."
In the point here, at least two have reported leftover components, is that
universal or just on some instances?
If it is some and not others, that makes the uninstallation questionable.
The differences can be an indicator, not necessarily proof, of a problem.

Any changes can and often do leave anomalies, but I would hold something as
important as a Service Pack to a higher standard.

I have been an MVP longer than Carey, 6 months IIRC.

--
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:uyine.594$W77.198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar In memory of our
>> dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol http://www.dts-l.org "Steve N."
>> <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Ls6ne.3171$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.
>
> Can be doesn't mean there are. No problems noted so far.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of
>>>>>> SP-2.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possibly, but the operating system functioned perfectly fine as SP1.
>>
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
>> To what degree?
>
> To the degree that it works.
>
>> How was the OS thoroughly tested?
>
> It runs every program I throw at it. All networking is functioning
> perfectly. It does everything expected of it. What else is there?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>
> What gaurantee is there that a clean install won't crash? I've seen it
> happen plenty of times.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Do you know how WFP works?
>
> Insecure? I thought we were talking about stability and functionality.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> See my followup post from yesterday. SFC found no incorrect version system
> files.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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.
>
> May have been snipped? Definitely have been snipped. Complete sentences?
> Bah! This is what I wrote:
>
> "SP1 has no knowledge of the additional features of SP2, that is why they
> were ignored and left alone but since they are no longer tied to the OS
> they are inactive, as I'm sure any SP2 specific registry entries and
> services that cannot run under SP1 are. "
>
> You ignored the point I was making.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Why are you sure?
>>>>>> What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it works.
>>
>>
>> An operating system is very complex.
>
> Duh. I've been working with OSes since the 80s.
>
>> "it works" leaves a lot of room for a problem caused by a bad uninstall
>> to show itself when an appropriate feature is needed.
>>
>
> All the appropriate features needed are working. What about "it works"
> don't you understand?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> You just don't pay attention. They were left behind because SP1 didn't
> recognize them, they don't work, they are inactive and pose no problem.
>
>> It is possible for one to be successfull and another to fail.
>
> It is also possible that it just plain works. It is also possible that a
> clean install fails, not only possible, actual, I've seen it.
>
>> Whether I would succeed or fail would not prove whether others can
>> succeed or fail.
>> All it would prove is what my computer did.
>
> By the same token ANYTHING anyone does to their computer is subjective. By
> your logic no one can prove or disprove anything to anyone else.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> There is a logical reason why they were left behind, you just refuse to
> acknoledge it.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I repeat, SP1 has NO KNOWLEDGE of the added features of SP2. As far as it
> is concerned they are just programs and not a part of the SP1 version of
> the OS.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Others have reported that it works. The leftover SP2 features do not
> function, but that is not an issue, one would not expect them too, the SP1
> OS works. Even the SP1 Firewall is functioning fine.
>
>> 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.
>
> Funtioning properly is ALL that matters. Your logic is flawed. The proof
> is in the putting.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> I hope you do.
>
>> But it seems we have differing views and criteria for success.
>
> We have different views on a whole lot of things.
>
>> 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..
>
> I'm not ingnoring ANYTHING, I've addressed what I've seen, and how can one
> ignore what is unseen?
>
> Steve
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Find Entry Problem
    ... The functionality was changed in Word 2002 because it was broken in Word 2000. ... After a successful "Find" you couldn't execute the merge until you performed an ... How about if start Word 2003 in Safe Mode, by holding the CTRL button when it ... This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply ...
    (microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields)
  • 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: ENC28j60 SPI Ethernet controller
    ... But, when i start my platform builder and trying to see my device, i ... how to confirm my OEMEthGetFrame and OEMEthSendFrame functions are ... I am successful with the OEMthSendFrame functionality. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.platbuilder)
  • GD PIE 3D: Alter Projection Angle
    ... I've been fairly successful at getting all the functionality to work ... for most of the different types of graphs. ... with pie3d I need to change the "attitude" of ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Visual C++ Book
    ... Microsoft really pushes it as being "more cool". ... They get all of the VS functionality for .NET ... What makes C++ successful: ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)