Repair XP SP2 installation with XP SP1 CD-ROM



Stephen
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to say
I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.

THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some of
the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.

I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported that
the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
just threw up error messages.

Winver reported SP1.

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1 CD.
You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to
> say
> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>
> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some
> of
> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>
> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
> that
> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
> just threw up error messages.
>
> Winver reported SP1.
>
>
>

Stephen
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Richard Urban wrote:
>> You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP
>> SP1 CD. You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>

Yes, you are right. Thank you for the reply. But the MVP guy said that the
WinXPSP1 CD-ROM used in a repair would not downgrade WinXPSP2 to WinXPSP1.
I tried it out and found, for myself, that he was incorrect. There was
debate about it in another thread.

Star Fleet Admiral Q
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications. And
yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish to go
back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you just pop
in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said CD and
select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes pertinent to XP
SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair installation always
brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found on the CD. That's
why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable hotfixes and/or Service
Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get involved, on of the
newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the point was Carey said
it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts" said it can, as we do
this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2, and before joining them
to the domain and deploying them to users we repair install the XP OS with
SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.

--

Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!

http://www.google.com
Google is your "Friend"

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1 CD.
> You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to
>> say
>> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>>
>> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some
>> of
>> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>
>> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
>> that
>> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
>> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
>> just threw up error messages.
>>
>> Winver reported SP1.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Sorry. When you do a downgrade, you do a complete downgrade. Otherwise you
may well be left with code from two different SP's. It might not hurt you
immediately but it is almost certain to bite you in the arse sooner or
later. Also, some hotfixes you install are based on the SP2 code. Now the
code is gone so the hotfixes will all have to be reinstalled.

Why would you even bother with such a potential mess?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Star Fleet Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(NO-SPAM)@(SPAM-NOT)hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:eRB1bjXZFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications.
> And yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish
> to go back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you
> just pop in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said
> CD and select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes
> pertinent to XP SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair
> installation always brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found
> on the CD. That's why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable
> hotfixes and/or Service Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get
> involved, on of the newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the
> point was Carey said it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts"
> said it can, as we do this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2,
> and before joining them to the domain and deploying them to users we
> repair install the XP OS with SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>
> --
>
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>
> http://www.google.com
> Google is your "Friend"
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1 CD.
>> You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>
>> If you knew as much as you think you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>
>>
>> "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to
>>> say
>>> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>>>
>>> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some
>>> of
>>> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>>
>>> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
>>> that
>>> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
>>> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
>>> just threw up error messages.
>>>
>>> Winver reported SP1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

R. McCarty
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Just got caught up on today's developments on this thread. This
whole thing started with the statement that you cannot remove
SP2 and revert to an earlier version of XP using a Repair install
with a previous version CD.

Several of us went through the process to verify that you can
take even a SP2 XP instance (Slipstreamed or Embedded) and
use a Repair install to take it back to an earlier revision.

It's probably not a process that many users would require, but
just a case of verifying that it can be done.

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5%23HuoXZFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Sorry. When you do a downgrade, you do a complete downgrade. Otherwise you
> may well be left with code from two different SP's. It might not hurt you
> immediately but it is almost certain to bite you in the arse sooner or
> later. Also, some hotfixes you install are based on the SP2 code. Now the
> code is gone so the hotfixes will all have to be reinstalled.
>
> Why would you even bother with such a potential mess?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Star Fleet Admiral Q"
> <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(NO-SPAM)@(SPAM-NOT)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eRB1bjXZFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications.
>> And yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish
>> to go back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you
>> just pop in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to
>> said CD and select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes
>> pertinent to XP SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair
>> installation always brings the PC's OS back to the base installation
>> found on the CD. That's why MS always tells you to reinstall all
>> applicable hotfixes and/or Service Packs after doing a repair install.
>> Oh don't get involved, on of the newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this
>> issue, but the point was Carey said it "can't" be done, where many of us
>> real "experts" said it can, as we do this daily with new PC/Laptops
>> arriving with XP SP2, and before joining them to the domain and deploying
>> them to users we repair install the XP OS with SP1. This in effect
>> downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>>
>> http://www.google.com
>> Google is your "Friend"
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1
>>> CD. You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban
>>>
>>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>>
>>> If you knew as much as you think you know,
>>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want
>>>> to say
>>>> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>>>>
>>>> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>>>> Some of
>>>> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>>>
>>>> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
>>>> that
>>>> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>>>> started.
>>>> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard
>>>> icons
>>>> just threw up error messages.
>>>>
>>>> Winver reported SP1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Seems like you have mixed code with both probably leading to future
problems.
If SP-2 was truly gone, you would not have what you have.
If SP-2 was installed, you would not have what you have.
You currently have something that can not be relied upon.
Winver does not tell the whole story and clearly in your case is not
reliable.

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


"Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to
> say
> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>
> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some
> of
> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>
> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
> that
> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
> just threw up error messages.
>
> Winver reported SP1.

Stephen
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> Seems like you have mixed code with both probably leading to future
>> problems.
>> If SP-2 was truly gone, you would not have what you have.
>> If SP-2 was installed, you would not have what you have.
>> You currently have something that can not be relied upon.
>> Winver does not tell the whole story and clearly in your case is not
>> reliable.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
>> http://www.dts-l.org
>>
>>
>> "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I
>>> want to say
>>> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1
>>> CD-ROM.
>>>
>>> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>>> Some of
>>> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>>
>>> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but
>>> reported that
>>> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>>> started. Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network
>>> Setup Wizard icons just threw up error messages.
>>>
>>> Winver reported SP1.

Could be. Could be I have the entire set of WinXPSP1 files in my system
folders plus things that were not erased during the fix like extra reg
settings and so on that would have been created with WinXPSP2. Dollars to
donoughts that's the case, but whose is to know unless an inventory is done.
If you know cough it up!

But one thing's for sure is that it is not behaving like SP2, and is not
reporting SP2, which makes the MVPguy mistaken because he said such a
scenario woud result in a WINXPSP2 installation .. which it is not.

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Richard Urban wrote:

> You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1 CD.
> You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>

You can in fact do a repair install over the top of SP2 using an SP1 CD
and the result is an SP1 installation. Three of us proved it two days ago.

Steve

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Yours is not a good example.
Your computer is also not behaving as an SP-1 installation.
If others would had reported what you did, that would prove Carey correct
since SP-2 is clearly not correctly removed in your case.
But your computer seems to be unique.
You do not have an SP-1 or SP-2 installation, you have some sort of
unreliable hybrid.

You can verify the correct data.
But it would take quite some time to check each item by date and version.
At the very least you would have to check each and every item affected by
SP-1 or SP-2.
Considering about 10 seconds each and the large number of data, dedicate a
few weeks solely to this with no other computer use permitted.
Or perform another Repair Installation to correct the problems or a Clean
Installation may be necessary if the integrity of Windows has any importance
to you.

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


"Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message news:%
> Could be. Could be I have the entire set of WinXPSP1 files in my system
> folders plus things that were not erased during the fix like extra reg
> settings and so on that would have been created with WinXPSP2. Dollars to
> donoughts that's the case, but whose is to know unless an inventory is
> done.
> If you know cough it up!
>
> But one thing's for sure is that it is not behaving like SP2, and is not
> reporting SP2, which makes the MVPguy mistaken because he said such a
> scenario woud result in a WINXPSP2 installation .. which it is not.

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Stephen wrote:

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
>>>Seems like you have mixed code with both probably leading to future
>>>problems.
>>>If SP-2 was truly gone, you would not have what you have.
>>>If SP-2 was installed, you would not have what you have.
>>>You currently have something that can not be relied upon.
>>>Winver does not tell the whole story and clearly in your case is not
>>>reliable.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>>>In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
>>>http://www.dts-l.org
>>>
>>>
>>>"Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>>>news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I
>>>>want to say
>>>>I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1
>>>>CD-ROM.
>>>>
>>>>THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>>>>Some of
>>>>the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>>>
>>>>I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but
>>>>reported that
>>>>the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>>>>started. Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network
>>>>Setup Wizard icons just threw up error messages.
>>>>
>>>>Winver reported SP1.
>
>
> Could be. Could be I have the entire set of WinXPSP1 files in my system
> folders plus things that were not erased during the fix like extra reg
> settings and so on that would have been created with WinXPSP2. Dollars to
> donoughts that's the case, but whose is to know unless an inventory is done.
> If you know cough it up!
>
> But one thing's for sure is that it is not behaving like SP2, and is not
> reporting SP2, which makes the MVPguy mistaken because he said such a
> scenario woud result in a WINXPSP2 installation .. which it is not.
>
>

The same thing happened here. The only things I noticed left over from
SP2 was the non functioning Security Center and Firewall control panel.

Steve

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Yours is not a good example.
> Your computer is also not behaving as an SP-1 installation.

How can you determine that it is not behgaving like an SP1 installation?
Have you done it and are you using a machine that you've done it to?
This is pure speculation on your part.

> If others would had reported what you did, that would prove Carey correct
> since SP-2 is clearly not correctly removed in your case.

No, Carey was still wrong. He said it would not work *at* *all*, that
there would be an error and it would fail. There were no errors and
there was no failure. The machines are running SP1. The system files in
use are not SP2 versions they are SP1 versions.

> But your computer seems to be unique.

Nope, the same thing happened here.

> You do not have an SP-1 or SP-2 installation, you have some sort of
> unreliable hybrid.

Nope, the actual system files in use are SP1 versions and any leftover
SP2 additional items are non-functional and non-issues that I can tell
so far. It would be interesting to see Torgeir's report on this, though.

>
> You can verify the correct data.
> But it would take quite some time to check each item by date and version.
> At the very least you would have to check each and every item affected by
> SP-1 or SP-2.
> Considering about 10 seconds each and the large number of data, dedicate a
> few weeks solely to this with no other computer use permitted.
> Or perform another Repair Installation to correct the problems

A subsequent repair install probably won't alter it. 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.


> or a Clean
> Installation may be necessary if the integrity of Windows has any importance
> to you.
>

As another in the original thread stated, they do this on a regular
basis every day. I'm sure if they'd have run into issues due to these
possible unreliabilities you are only guessing at they'd have been
mentioned. They are left-over, inactive, unused and unusable pieces of
SP2 software that are no longer part of the OS. The persistence of the
Security Center, etc. is cosmetic and has no effect on the reliable
operation of the machine that I can determine.

That said, I agree that the very best way to go from a slipstreamed or
pre-installed SP2 installation to SP1 would be a clean SP1 install, but
that does not deter from the fact that it is very much indeed possible
to do it the way we have and that it in fact worked, the result is in
fact an SP1 OS, and everything I've tried on it so far has worked fine.

Steve

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
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."
Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of SP-2.
And that is only what is seen, what about what is not seen?
What assurances do you have?

Have you checked all the files to be sure all are the correct version?
"the actual system files in use are SP1 versions"
How did you verify all of them?

"as I'm sure any SP2 specific registry"
"since they are no longer tied to the OS"
Why are you sure?
What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?
How do you know what is tied to what?

I do not need to attempt this, I have not stated either way whether it will
work or not.
But both your descriptions do little to suggest it was successful.
The listed problems suggest otherwise and I would not accept the
uninstallation with those listed problems as a successful uninstall.
If you do, that is up to you and your computer.
I prefer something more definitive than SP-1 displayed in winver and some
inoperative functions.

--
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@here.now> wrote in message
news:qT3ne.4345$MI4.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
>> Yours is not a good example.
>> Your computer is also not behaving as an SP-1 installation.
>
> How can you determine that it is not behgaving like an SP1 installation?
> Have you done it and are you using a machine that you've done it to? This
> is pure speculation on your part.
>
>> If others would had reported what you did, that would prove Carey correct
>> since SP-2 is clearly not correctly removed in your case.
>
> No, Carey was still wrong. He said it would not work *at* *all*, that
> there would be an error and it would fail. There were no errors and there
> was no failure. The machines are running SP1. The system files in use are
> not SP2 versions they are SP1 versions.
>
>> But your computer seems to be unique.
>
> Nope, the same thing happened here.
>
>> You do not have an SP-1 or SP-2 installation, you have some sort of
>> unreliable hybrid.
>
> Nope, the actual system files in use are SP1 versions and any leftover SP2
> additional items are non-functional and non-issues that I can tell so far.
> It would be interesting to see Torgeir's report on this, though.
>
>>
>> You can verify the correct data.
>> But it would take quite some time to check each item by date and version.
>> At the very least you would have to check each and every item affected by
>> SP-1 or SP-2.
>> Considering about 10 seconds each and the large number of data, dedicate
>> a few weeks solely to this with no other computer use permitted.
>> Or perform another Repair Installation to correct the problems
>
> A subsequent repair install probably won't alter it. 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.
>
>
>> or a Clean Installation may be necessary if the integrity of Windows has
>> any importance
>> to you.
>>
>
> As another in the original thread stated, they do this on a regular basis
> every day. I'm sure if they'd have run into issues due to these possible
> unreliabilities you are only guessing at they'd have been mentioned. They
> are left-over, inactive, unused and unusable pieces of SP2 software that
> are no longer part of the OS. The persistence of the Security Center, etc.
> is cosmetic and has no effect on the reliable operation of the machine
> that I can determine.
>
> That said, I agree that the very best way to go from a slipstreamed or
> pre-installed SP2 installation to SP1 would be a clean SP1 install, but
> that does not deter from the fact that it is very much indeed possible to
> do it the way we have and that it in fact worked, the result is in fact an
> SP1 OS, and everything I've tried on it so far has worked fine.
>
> Steve
>

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
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."
> Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of SP-2.
> And that is only what is seen, what about what is not seen?
> What assurances do you have?
>
> Have you checked all the files to be sure all are the correct version?
> "the actual system files in use are SP1 versions"
> How did you verify all of them?
>
> "as I'm sure any SP2 specific registry"
> "since they are no longer tied to the OS"
> Why are you sure?
> What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?
> How do you know what is tied to what?
>
> I do not need to attempt this, I have not stated either way whether it will
> work or not.
> But both your descriptions do little to suggest it was successful.
> The listed problems suggest otherwise and I would not accept the
> uninstallation with those listed problems as a successful uninstall.
> If you do, that is up to you and your computer.
> I prefer something more definitive than SP-1 displayed in winver and some
> inoperative functions.
>

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
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.

> Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of SP-2.

Possibly, but the operating system functioned perfectly fine as SP1.

> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> "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.

> Why are you sure?
> What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?

The fact that it works.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
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@here.now> wrote in message
news:Ls6ne.3171$s64.684@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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..

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Steve N. wrote:

> 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.
>
>> Those all indicate possible problems related to the uninstall of SP-2.
>
>
> Possibly, but the operating system functioned perfectly fine as SP1.
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> "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.
>
>> Why are you sure?
>> What demonstrates all necessary files are correct?
>
>
> The fact that it works.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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 re-did the experiment and ran Everest Home and SFC /SCANNOW. Here are
the results:

--------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003, 2004 Lavalys, Inc.
]-----------------------------------------------------------

Version EVEREST v1.51.195
Homepage
http://www.lavalys.com/
Report Type Quick Report
Computer KRUSTY
Generator Administrator
Operating System Microsoft Windows
XP Professional 5.1.2600 (WinXP Retail)
Date 2005-05-31
Time 17:53


--------[ Operating System
]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operating System Properties:
OS Name Microsoft
Windows XP Professional
OS Code Name Whistler
OS Language English (United
States)
OS Kernel Type Uniprocessor Free
OS Version 5.1.2600 (WinXP
Retail)
OS Service Pack Service Pack 1
OS Installation Date 6/1/2005
OS Root C:\WINDOWS

License Information:
Registered Owner None of your business
Registered Organization None of your business
Licensed Processors 2
Product ID None of your business
Product Key None of your business

Current Session:
Computer Name None of your business
User Name None of your business
Logon Domain None of your business
UpTime 352 sec (0
days, 0 hours, 5 min, 52 sec)

Components Version:
Common Controls 6.00
Internet Explorer 6.0.2800.1106
(IE 6.0 SP1)
Internet Explorer Updates SP1
Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
(xpsp1.020828-1920)
Windows Media Player 8.00.00.4487
MSN Messenger -
Internet Information Services -
.NET Framework -
Novell Client -
DirectX 4.08.01.0810
(DirectX 8.1)
OpenGL 5.1.2600.1106
(xpsp1.020828-1920)
ASPI -
***********************************************************************

Windows File Protection file scan was started.

Windows File Protection file scan completed successfully.

***********************************************************************

No errors, no file repalecent, no nothing. It's at SP1.

Steve

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:54 PM
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@here.now> wrote in message news:Ls6ne.3171$s64.684@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> 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

CS
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:16:10 GMT, "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote:

>> 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

Give it up Steve. You're trying to reason with the person who most
likely nominated Carey for MVP. JJ marches to the MS band and
everyone else is out of tune! He's totally useless as an MVP, and
like Carey, makes one wonder how they continue to be "MVPs"?

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
Criticism only with nothing to contribute.
Your post tells much about you.

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


"CS" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Give it up Steve. You're trying to reason with the person who most
> likely nominated Carey for MVP. JJ marches to the MS band and
> everyone else is out of tune! He's totally useless as an MVP, and
> like Carey, makes one wonder how they continue to be "MVPs"?

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
CS wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:16:10 GMT, "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote:
>
>
>>>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
>
>
> Give it up Steve.

Not yet. :)

> You're trying to reason with the person who most
> likely nominated Carey for MVP.

Maybe this last time around, but I'm pretty sure Carey was an MVP before
JJ was. I remember when JJ 1st got awarded, while Carey was an MVP
before I started participating here. The odd thing I've noticed is that
before JJ got awarded MVP status he was behaving like a regular guy
here. He's a different person now.

> JJ marches to the MS band and
> everyone else is out of tune! He's totally useless as an MVP, and
> like Carey, makes one wonder how they continue to be "MVPs"?
>

I won't go as far as to say JJ is totally useless, but he does have a
very bad habit of ignoring points of discussion he disagrees with by
snipping the hell out of other people's statements, presenting those
snippets out of context, thereby attempting to divert the subject, and
failing miserably, I might add. All of this since he was awarded MVP status.

Carey, on the other hand, just outright lies and rarely follows up nor
replies when challenged. At least JJ has the decency to reply at all. My
assesment of Carey is the only reason he got and keeps the MVP title is
by being so prolific at pasting KB article links (regarless of whether
or not they apply to the issues) that the odds are in his favor that he
will strike the mark enough times to be noticed.

One thing they both seem to have in common is the arrogance to presume
that they are infallible. Most of the rest of us admit it when we're
wrong, at least I know I do. I don't recall ever seeing either of them
do that.

As concerns them both singing the MS song so loud, long and
relentlessly, that is just disturbing and at least quite annoying. I
have much greater respect for those MVPs that take the time to test and
research their answers and have the guts to voice their criticisms of
MS. Niether of them do that.

Steve

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
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@here.now> wrote in message
news:uyine.594$W77.198@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar In memory of our
>> dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol http://www.dts-l.org "Steve N."
>> <me@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:Ls6ne.3171$s64.684@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>> 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
>

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:56 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Steve;
> We simply have different standards on what is successful in this matter.
> You will accept the leftover components, I would not.

It's not so much that I accept the leftover components, but that I don't
see them causing any problems. I'd also prefer they weren't there and I
am still trying to figure out how to remove them. For example I have
removed what registry entries I can referring to Security Center but the
Icon still persists in Control Panel, still non-functional, of course.

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

I understand. Niether do I, but for all intents an purposes the system
is functioning exactly as a healthy SP1 OS as far as I can tell.

>
> Obviously there is no guarantee of any installation but I would suspect an
> installation that had anomalies especially an uninstallation that left
> obvious components.

I'm not saying your suspicions are unfounded, that is why I am testing
it, I am just reporting that everything is working fine. I am looking
for some utilities to give more concise listings of active system files
and active processes. Everest Home is very good but it's difficult to
get it to display all of these things in a concise report. Plus not
having another machine here running a clean install of XP SP1 it is
difficult to do a complete comparison.

> 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 agree, but the system is functioning, stable and I see no security
problems other than the the lack of security fixes included in SP2.

>
> I apologize if the snipping seemed like it was intended to mislead, that was
> not the case.

I didn't say you were attempting to intentionally mislead, but to divert
from the issues I was adressing. There's a difference.

> 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.

But snipping it and not responding to it made you appear to be ignoring it.

>
> 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."

That is why I called Carey on that statement and set out to prove (as
others have said) that it can be done.

> In the point here, at least two have reported leftover components, is that
> universal or just on some instances?

It has happened the three times I've done it on this machine, so in my
limited experience with this it is consistent, and as I said, it makes
sense to me that things the repair install of SP1 does not recognize as
part of the OS it is installing would not be touched. That is by design
of a repair install as I and others understand it.

> If it is some and not others, that makes the uninstallation questionable.
> The differences can be an indicator, not necessarily proof, of a problem.

Agreed, but I still see no problems with this OS. I am still checking it
out and everything is working correctly.

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

I agree. However on that note and actually related, I can attest that in
my experience of removing SP2 by using add/remove programs from machines
that it was added to there were left-over things from SP2 that effected
many networking functions that necessitated removing SP2 in the
firstplace and a repair install of SP1 was necessary even after
"properly" removing SP2 in order to correct those problems.

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

Sorry that I was wrong about that. Thanks for the correction. I may have
been thinking of someone else. I also guess I've been reading here for
longer than I thought.

BTW, as I said before, I do agree that the very BEST way to go from SP2
to SP1 would be a clean install of SP1. Still, this is an interesting
experiment that appears to be working.

I appreciate your input and clarification on several points. Thanks.

I will continue to test this scenario as I am able and if I find any
left-over SP2 funkiness I will be sure to report it, but so far so good.
The left-overs I've seen so far appear to be cosmetic only, the system
is for all intents and purposes that I can test for so far actually at
SP1, functioning and stable.

Steve

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:10 AM
Steve N. wrote:

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
>> Steve;
>> We simply have different standards on what is successful in this matter.
>> You will accept the leftover components, I would not.
>
>
> It's not so much that I accept the leftover components, but that I don't
> see them causing any problems. I'd also prefer they weren't there and I
> am still trying to figure out how to remove them. For example I have
> removed what registry entries I can referring to Security Center but the
> Icon still persists in Control Panel, still non-functional, of course.
>
>>
>> Windows File Protection and other indicators are great but I do not
>> like starting with the SP-2 left over regardless.
>
>
> I understand. Niether do I, but for all intents an purposes the system
> is functioning exactly as a healthy SP1 OS as far as I can tell.
>
>>
>> Obviously there is no guarantee of any installation but I would
>> suspect an installation that had anomalies especially an
>> uninstallation that left obvious components.
>
>
> I'm not saying your suspicions are unfounded, that is why I am testing
> it, I am just reporting that everything is working fine. I am looking
> for some utilities to give more concise listings of active system files
> and active processes. Everest Home is very good but it's difficult to
> get it to display all of these things in a concise report. Plus not
> having another machine here running a clean install of XP SP1 it is
> difficult to do a complete comparison.
>
>> 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 agree, but the system is functioning, stable and I see no security
> problems other than the the lack of security fixes included in SP2.
>
>>
>> I apologize if the snipping seemed like it was intended to mislead,
>> that was not the case.
>
>
> I didn't say you were attempting to intentionally mislead, but to divert
> from the issues I was adressing. There's a difference.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> But snipping it and not responding to it made you appear to be ignoring it.
>
>>
>> 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."
>
>
> That is why I called Carey on that statement and set out to prove (as
> others have said) that it can be done.
>
>> In the point here, at least two have reported leftover components, is
>> that universal or just on some instances?
>
>
> It has happened the three times I've done it on this machine, so in my
> limited experience with this it is consistent, and as I said, it makes
> sense to me that things the repair install of SP1 does not recognize as
> part of the OS it is installing would not be touched. That is by design
> of a repair install as I and others understand it.
>
>> If it is some and not others, that makes the uninstallation questionable.
>> The differences can be an indicator, not necessarily proof, of a problem.
>
>
> Agreed, but I still see no problems with this OS. I am still checking it
> out and everything is working correctly.
>
>>
>> Any changes can and often do leave anomalies, but I would hold
>> something as important as a Service Pack to a higher standard.
>
>
> I agree. However on that note and actually related, I can attest that in
> my experience of removing SP2 by using add/remove programs from machines
> that it was added to there were left-over things from SP2 that effected
> many networking functions that necessitated removing SP2 in the
> firstplace and a repair install of SP1 was necessary even after
> "properly" removing SP2 in order to correct those problems.
>
>>
>> I have been an MVP longer than Carey, 6 months IIRC.
>>
>
> Sorry that I was wrong about that. Thanks for the correction. I may have
> been thinking of someone else. I also guess I've been reading here for
> longer than I thought.
>
> BTW, as I said before, I do agree that the very BEST way to go from SP2
> to SP1 would be a clean install of SP1. Still, this is an interesting
> experiment that appears to be working.
>
> I appreciate your input and clarification on several points. Thanks.
>
> I will continue to test this scenario as I am able and if I find any
> left-over SP2 funkiness I will be sure to report it, but so far so good.
> The left-overs I've seen so far appear to be cosmetic only, the system
> is for all intents and purposes that I can test for so far actually at
> SP1, functioning and stable.
>
> Steve
>


To recap:

Clean install of XP Pro SP2.
Repair install from XP Pro SP1 CD in effort to remove SP2.
Some elements of SP2 remained (Security Center, Windows Firewall and
Wireless Network Setup Wizard control panel applets), otherwise all
system info and 3rd party tests report SP1, OS is stable and functioning
properly and I can find no other SP2 remnants.

Follow-up:

I have since re-installed SP2, un-installed SP2 and these SP2 leftovers
remain. Then I did another repair install of XP Pro SP1 and the SP2
leftovers in control panel still remain. The system is stable,
functioning properly as XP Pro SP1 and I can find no other SP2 remnants.

I now have done a clean install of XP Pro SP1, upgraded to SP2,
un-installed SP2, and the control panel applets associated with SP2 are
now gone.

Steve

Andy Mac
07-10-2005, 12:20 AM
Q,

What is the reason (or most important couple) that you re-instal SP1 over
SP2 for all machines deployed.

Andy Mac


"Star Fleet Admiral Q" wrote:

> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications. And
> yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish to go
> back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you just pop
> in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said CD and
> select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes pertinent to XP
> SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair installation always
> brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found on the CD. That's
> why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable hotfixes and/or Service
> Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get involved, on of the
> newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the point was Carey said
> it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts" said it can, as we do
> this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2, and before joining them
> to the domain and deploying them to users we repair install the XP OS with
> SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>
> --
>
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>
> http://www.google.com
> Google is your "Friend"
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1 CD.
> > You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard Urban
> >
> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
> >
> > If you knew as much as you think you know,
> > You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
> >
> >
> > "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want to
> >> say
> >> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
> >>
> >> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1. Some
> >> of
> >> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
> >>
> >> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
> >> that
> >> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not started.
> >> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard icons
> >> just threw up error messages.
> >>
> >> Winver reported SP1.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

KrazE
07-10-2005, 12:20 AM
You don't. You enter Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall SP2,
then run an SFC /SCANNOW using your XP SP1 cd to repair the files changed
from SP1 to SP2.
My question is why would you want to go back to SP1? When done properly on a
machine that is properly taken care of, SP2 is shockingly one of the good
additions Microsoft actually made. (ok people hush :P)

--
~*Kim*~

MCP/MCSA/MCSE
The Canadian DOS Prompt: EH?\>



"Andy Mac" <AndyMac@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A2DD3BB9-F420-4CF0-894A-7F380E5D2C8C@microsoft.com...
> Q,
>
> What is the reason (or most important couple) that you re-instal SP1 over
> SP2 for all machines deployed.
>
> Andy Mac
>
>
> "Star Fleet Admiral Q" wrote:
>
>> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications.
>> And
>> yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish to
>> go
>> back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you just
>> pop
>> in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said CD and
>> select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes pertinent to
>> XP
>> SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair installation
>> always
>> brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found on the CD. That's
>> why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable hotfixes and/or
>> Service
>> Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get involved, on of the
>> newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the point was Carey
>> said
>> it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts" said it can, as we do
>> this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2, and before joining
>> them
>> to the domain and deploying them to users we repair install the XP OS
>> with
>> SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>>
>> http://www.google.com
>> Google is your "Friend"
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1
>> > CD.
>> > You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Richard Urban
>> >
>> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>> >
>> > If you knew as much as you think you know,
>> > You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>> >
>> >
>> > "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want
>> >> to
>> >> say
>> >> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>> >>
>> >> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>> >> Some
>> >> of
>> >> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>> >>
>> >> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but reported
>> >> that
>> >> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>> >> started.
>> >> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard
>> >> icons
>> >> just threw up error messages.
>> >>
>> >> Winver reported SP1.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Jone Doe
07-10-2005, 12:20 AM
For the same reason you would want to go back to Windows 95 from XP.
<Tongue firmly in cheek>

"KrazE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23BLo28TdFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You don't. You enter Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall SP2,
> then run an SFC /SCANNOW using your XP SP1 cd to repair the files changed
> from SP1 to SP2.
> My question is why would you want to go back to SP1? When done properly on
> a machine that is properly taken care of, SP2 is shockingly one of the
> good additions Microsoft actually made. (ok people hush :P)
>
> --
> ~*Kim*~
>
> MCP/MCSA/MCSE
> The Canadian DOS Prompt: EH?\>
>
>
>
> "Andy Mac" <AndyMac@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A2DD3BB9-F420-4CF0-894A-7F380E5D2C8C@microsoft.com...
>> Q,
>>
>> What is the reason (or most important couple) that you re-instal SP1 over
>> SP2 for all machines deployed.
>>
>> Andy Mac
>>
>>
>> "Star Fleet Admiral Q" wrote:
>>
>>> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications.
>>> And
>>> yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish to
>>> go
>>> back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you just
>>> pop
>>> in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said CD and
>>> select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes pertinent to
>>> XP
>>> SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair installation
>>> always
>>> brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found on the CD.
>>> That's
>>> why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable hotfixes and/or
>>> Service
>>> Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get involved, on of the
>>> newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the point was Carey
>>> said
>>> it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts" said it can, as we
>>> do
>>> this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2, and before joining
>>> them
>>> to the domain and deploying them to users we repair install the XP OS
>>> with
>>> SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com
>>> Google is your "Friend"
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> > You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1
>>> > CD.
>>> > You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Richard Urban
>>> >
>>> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>> >
>>> > If you knew as much as you think you know,
>>> > You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>>> > news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> >> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I want
>>> >> to
>>> >> say
>>> >> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1 CD-ROM.
>>> >>
>>> >> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>>> >> Some
>>> >> of
>>> >> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>> >>
>>> >> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but
>>> >> reported
>>> >> that
>>> >> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>>> >> started.
>>> >> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard
>>> >> icons
>>> >> just threw up error messages.
>>> >>
>>> >> Winver reported SP1.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

KrazE
07-10-2005, 12:20 AM
oooohhhhhhhhh windows 95... can I have paper & crayons too??

--
~*Kim*~

MCP/MCSA/MCSE
The Canadian DOS Prompt: EH?\>



"Jone Doe" <fake@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:O$aFcAUdFHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> For the same reason you would want to go back to Windows 95 from XP.
> <Tongue firmly in cheek>
>
> "KrazE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23BLo28TdFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> You don't. You enter Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall SP2,
>> then run an SFC /SCANNOW using your XP SP1 cd to repair the files changed
>> from SP1 to SP2.
>> My question is why would you want to go back to SP1? When done properly
>> on a machine that is properly taken care of, SP2 is shockingly one of the
>> good additions Microsoft actually made. (ok people hush :P)
>>
>> --
>> ~*Kim*~
>>
>> MCP/MCSA/MCSE
>> The Canadian DOS Prompt: EH?\>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Andy Mac" <AndyMac@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A2DD3BB9-F420-4CF0-894A-7F380E5D2C8C@microsoft.com...
>>> Q,
>>>
>>> What is the reason (or most important couple) that you re-instal SP1
>>> over
>>> SP2 for all machines deployed.
>>>
>>> Andy Mac
>>>
>>>
>>> "Star Fleet Admiral Q" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if you want to preserve the installation of existing applications.
>>>> And
>>>> yes, you can do it, if you have a WinXP SP2 machine and instead wish to
>>>> go
>>>> back to WinXP SP1 (say this is the company standard right now), you
>>>> just pop
>>>> in a WinXP SP1 CD (Same type as in OEM, retail, VL), boot to said CD
>>>> and
>>>> select a repair install, and afterwards apply all the fixes pertinent
>>>> to XP
>>>> SP1 (except SP2) and you are off and running. A repair installation
>>>> always
>>>> brings the PC's OS back to the base installation found on the CD.
>>>> That's
>>>> why MS always tells you to reinstall all applicable hotfixes and/or
>>>> Service
>>>> Packs after doing a repair install. Oh don't get involved, on of the
>>>> newsgroups has about 100+ posts on this issue, but the point was Carey
>>>> said
>>>> it "can't" be done, where many of us real "experts" said it can, as we
>>>> do
>>>> this daily with new PC/Laptops arriving with XP SP2, and before joining
>>>> them
>>>> to the domain and deploying them to users we repair install the XP OS
>>>> with
>>>> SP1. This in effect downgrades SP2 to SP1.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your Service!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com
>>>> Google is your "Friend"
>>>>
>>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:e7pPzZXZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> > You don't do a repair install of Windows XP SP2 with a windows XP SP1
>>>> > CD.
>>>> > You do a clean format/install if you want to go back to SP1.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > Richard Urban
>>>> >
>>>> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > If you knew as much as you think you know,
>>>> > You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> > news:%23mZjcOXZFHA.3220@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> >> Poor Carey Frishe, God love him, Yup. Chiming in, so to speak, I
>>>> >> want to
>>>> >> say
>>>> >> I did a repair of a clean installed WinXPSP2 using a WinXPSP1
>>>> >> CD-ROM.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> THE result was the Windows installation was downgraded to WinXPSP1.
>>>> >> Some
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> the SP2 icons remained in the Control Panel.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I clicked on the Security Center icon .. the panel opened but
>>>> >> reported
>>>> >> that
>>>> >> the Security Center was unavailable because the service had not
>>>> >> started.
>>>> >> Clicking on the Windows Firewall and Wireless Network Setup Wizard
>>>> >> icons
>>>> >> just threw up error messages.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Winver reported SP1.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Repair XP SP2 installation with XP SP1 CD-ROM