SP3 Will NOT Install on XP 'Gold'

[Alan]

With the soon-expected arrival of SP3 for XP, those people who have early
editions of the XP installation CD might want to be aware of this.

There is a white paper regarding SP3 at
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02b40c12982/Overview%20of%20Windows%20XP%20Service%20Pack%203.pdf

In the "Deploying Windows XP SP3 section on Page 10" there are a couple of
bullet items:

- SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1 or
SP2.

- You can run the SP3 update package on any SKU of Windows XP SP1 or SP2.
For example, you can run the SP3 update package on a
computer running the Windows XP Media Center Edition with SP1.

So, it sounds like if someone ever needs to do a clean install on their
computer -- and all they have is the XP 'Gold' CD and they have not created
a slipstreamed Installation CD with SP1 or SP2 -- they will have to first
install their 'Gold' RTM XP, and then install SP1 OR SP2 before they can
install SP3.

Alan

[Richard in AZ]

"Alan" <some...@nospam.not> wrote in message news:OakaHQ1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Alan

Wrong interpretation Alan. You can simply install the 'Gold' copy and then SP3. You do not need
either the SP1or SP2 installations.

[Colin Barnhorst]

You are reading too much into an apparent omission in the wording. Perhaps
it may have been an oversight on the writer's part in not explicitly
mentioning "XP Gold", but "Gold" doesn't show up in MS whitepapers anyway.
The thrust of the passage is that SP3 supercedes the need to have SP1 or SP2
installed.

If you go to the XP SP3 download details link at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=75ED934C-8423-4386-AD98-36B124A720AA&displaylang=en
and read the system requirements you will find that all editions of XP Gold
are listed AS WELL AS XP SP1 and XP SP2. The System Requirements statement
is deterministic and is what MS Product Support Services commits itself to.

"Supported Operating Systems: Windows XP; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows
XP Home Edition N; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional
Edition ; Windows XP Professional N; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP
Service Pack 2; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition"

When MS uses the term "supported" they mean that MS will give you technical
assistance in resolving issues that arise in the installation of the
software on the listed platforms.

"Alan" <some...@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:OakaHQ1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Alan]

Hi Richard,

Before I posted this information in the XP General group, I had a discussion
with someone in one of the private Microsoft security groups because
Microsoft is usually very explicit in its statements regarding releases of
software and patches, and I wanted to know if my understanding was correct.

This other person -- who I believe is someone really "in the Microsoft
loop" -- stated that my interpretation was accurate.

If you -- or anyone else here -- has good reason to believe that what I
originally posted is NOT accurate, I'd like to know why you feel I'm in
error. (Frankly, I was hoping I WAS wrong.)

Alan

"Richard in AZ" <m...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:OYA5EX1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Daave]

"Alan" <some...@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:OakaHQ1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

<snip>

> - SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1
> or SP2.

<snip>

> So, it sounds like if someone ever needs to do a clean install on
> their computer -- and all they have is the XP 'Gold' CD and they have
> not created a slipstreamed Installation CD with SP1 or SP2 -- they
> will have to first install their 'Gold' RTM XP, and then install SP1
> OR SP2 before they can install SP3.

Your conclusion is probably not correct. Note the word "can" instead of
"must." Furthermore, since SP3 will be cumulative, it is logical that
the presence of other service packs is not necessary.

[SAM-R]

The reason for this is that XP RTM is no longer supported by MSFT.

"Alan" <some...@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:OakaHQ1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Colin Barnhorst]

That is not the reason. XP SP1 is no longer supported either.

"SAM-R" <SA...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:OEktQ$1YIHA...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Alan]

Hi SAM and others,

It's not like I have to do a clean install anytime soon (I hope), but one of
my Dell PCs is over 6 years old and shipped with the plain XP Home 'Gold'
installation CD. The other Dell PC is relatively new -- 8 months old -- and
shipped with the XP Home SP2 installation CD.

So, if all you folks are right -- and MY interpretation is incorrect -- I'll
be happy. :>

Alan

"SAM-R" <SA...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:OEktQ$1YIHA...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

I think you'll find that either WinXP SP1 or WinXP SP2 must be installed
before SP3 can be installed. See conversations here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=2010&SiteID=17

Specifically
http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpost.aspx?postid=2602857&siteid=17
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

[Colin Barnhorst]

Check back in a couple of hours to see if an experiment I am running works.
I already know the answer but you are so stubbornly hanging on to a
misconception that I am using a copy of XP Home Gold OEM to install Windows
on a virtual machine, after which I will block Automatic Updates and install
SP3 Release Candidate (without activation or validation) just to show you
what we are trying to tell you is true. You could have done this for
yourself with VPC but check back in a few hours.

"Alan" <some...@nospam.not> wrote in message

news:ugqwjK2Y...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Alan]

Thanks for that link, PA Bear. I just posted my question -- before I read
your response here -- at
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2768241&SiteID=17

It appears that there is not universal agreement in this group regarding my
question. :>

Alan

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23MVVbn2...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Alan]

Okay, thanks Colin.

This matches the comments that PA Bear has made.

Alan

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.bar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0F7C6D61-5A2F-4264...@microsoft.com...
>I stand corrected. XP Gold will return an error message:
>
> "At minimum, you must have Service Pack 1 installed."
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.bar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:F849A32F-7F68-491B...@microsoft.com...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

No WinXP SP3 RC is supported in this newsgroup, Alan, only here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=2010&SiteID=17

[VanguardLH]

"Alan" wrote in message news:OakaHQ1Y...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Since SP-3 will be released through the Windows Update process, and
since it checks for any required dependencies, then any requirement
that SP-1 or SP-2 already be installed will be handled. If the user
has no service pack installed (your "Gold" version) then WU would have
to install one *if required* before installing SP-3. For example, it
may be possible that a later version of MSI must be installed before
SP-3 can be installed but WU would check for that and require you to
install first the new required MSI version.

You are also basing your presumption on a *PRELIMINARY* draft of that
document. "This is a preliminary document and may be changed
substantially prior to final commercial release of the software
described herein." I'll care when SP-3 is actually released. Don't
bother with conjecture before then. After all, you will get what
Microsoft gives you and you won't have any choice on how to install
SP-3. In the past, service packs have always been cumulative from the
baseline version. I see no reason to expect otherwise and conjecture
contrary based on preliminary documentation on *unreleased* service
packs which does not disprove that history of service packs will be
exempted just for SP-3.

[Colin Barnhorst]

Vista Gold users will have to update to SP2 (SP1 is no longer available) and
then to SP3.

"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:%23LeLC83...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Shenan Stanley]

Alan wrote:
> With the soon-expected arrival of SP3 for XP, those people who have
> early editions of the XP installation CD might want to be aware of
> this.
> There is a white paper regarding SP3 at
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02b40c12982/Overview%20of%20Windows%20XP%20Service%20Pack%203.pdf
>
> In the "Deploying Windows XP SP3 section on Page 10" there are a
> couple of bullet items:
>
> - SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP
> SP1 or SP2.
> - You can run the SP3 update package on any SKU of Windows XP SP1
> or SP2. For example, you can run the SP3 update
> package on a computer running the Windows XP Media Center
> Edition with SP1.
> So, it sounds like if someone ever needs to do a clean install on
> their computer -- and all they have is the XP 'Gold' CD and they
> have not created a slipstreamed Installation CD with SP1 or SP2 --
> they will have to first install their 'Gold' RTM XP, and then
> install SP1 OR SP2 before they can install SP3.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Since SP-3 will be released through the Windows Update process, and
> since it checks for any required dependencies, then any requirement
> that SP-1 or SP-2 already be installed will be handled. If the user
> has no service pack installed (your "Gold" version) then WU would
> have to install one *if required* before installing SP-3. For
> example, it may be possible that a later version of MSI must be
> installed before SP-3 can be installed but WU would check for that
> and require you to install first the new required MSI version.
>
> You are also basing your presumption on a *PRELIMINARY* draft of
> that document. "This is a preliminary document and may be changed
> substantially prior to final commercial release of the software
> described herein." I'll care when SP-3 is actually released. Don't
> bother with conjecture before then. After all, you will get what
> Microsoft gives you and you won't have any choice on how to install
> SP-3. In the past, service packs have always been cumulative from
> the baseline version. I see no reason to expect otherwise and
> conjecture contrary based on preliminary documentation on
> *unreleased* service packs which does not disprove that history of
> service packs will be exempted just for SP-3.

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Vista Gold users will have to update to SP2 (SP1 is no longer
> available) and then to SP3.

Did you mean "XP" instead of "Vista"?

Who told you SP1 is no longer available? It *was* replaced with SP1 shortly
after its initial release - but you can FREELY download SP1a for Windows XP
to this day...

Windows XP Service Pack 1a
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp1/network.mspx

Entire Thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/af748681db3d56e8/f16f4fdc9c70d6f0?lnk=st&q=#f16f4fdc9c70d6f0

The offshoot where Colin tests shows that at this time, you will need SP1/1a
or after installed in order to install SP3 onto a Windows XP system. This
may/may not be the case by the time SP3 is released (my feeling is that it
will be.) However - even if it is the case - SP1a is easy enough to get and
integrating service packs into the installation CD should still be
plausible - even if you have to integrate SP1a and then SP3. I am unsure
how this is an issue of any sort.

Worst case instead of having one huge update to install - a person who still
has the original (late 2001/early 2002 copy) RTM media for Windows XP and is
unwilling/unable to integrate the service packs into said media will have to
install SP1a followed by SP3a followed by whatever patches come out between
the release of Service Pack 3 and the time they decide to do this install.
It still sounds better than Install with SP2 and then install the 90+
post-sp2 patches (although I just keep my copy current by integrated
everything I can.)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

[Colin Barnhorst]

Yes, of course. Thanks.

"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ek6mvj4...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[NoConsequence]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:47:54 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<c.bar...@comcast.net> wrote:

>

Don't post binaries in a text group. I didn't want your crappy
picture on my hard drive.

[Colin Barnhorst]

There is no binaries public ng as there are on the private servers MS hosts
so the acceptible protocol is to advise in the subject line so those wishing
not to download can avoid it. (Rough translation: "Get lost.")

"NoConsequence" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:6o62q3d7gi2ecijp6...@4ax.com...

[student]

Wouldn't it be mostly a matter of any "new" drivers needed that aren't
in the naked winxp? e.g. sata2 & usb drivers added at sp1 or even
when trying to install onto a larger than 137 gig drive as a single
partition without repartitoning later (still a multiple step update).

Any other gotchas that require sp1 or sp2 for "easy" install/update?

Followup-To:

[Colin Barnhorst]

It has to be deeper than that. It wouldn't have anything to do with drivers
since the OS is already installed when the patch is applied.

"student" <guest@csus__.edu> wrote in message
news:0OydnWiSuZCBqjza...@comcast.com...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Feel free to ask your questions here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=2010&SiteID=17

--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/