Hi All

I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
either SP1 or SP2

I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.

Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.

Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
there is a problem.

Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.

Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.

--
Thanks for your time and attention

ClueLess

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Big

Big
Sun May 11 08:08:13 PDT 2008

ClueLess wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
> either SP1 or SP2
>
> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>
> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>
> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
> there is a problem.
>
> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>
> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it
recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the grain
of logic (to me at least).

But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by PD43

PD43
Sun May 11 08:56:27 PDT 2008

ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.

Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
slipstreamed disc?

There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
recommended.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Sun May 11 09:56:42 PDT 2008

There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread. I'm
sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install a
defective XP.

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>
> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
> slipstreamed disc?
>
> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
> recommended.


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Sun May 11 09:55:03 PDT 2008

Correct. The blocker is programmed into the herald file that starts the
download of the main SP3 file on Windows Update. The standalone does not
contain the herald file and so does display a blocker.

Further, nLite works just fine. It does not know that it is creating a cd
that will install a defective OS. It just does what you tell it too.

The problems do not appear until you use the slipstreamed cd to install the
OS or repair it.

So don't use XP Gold to create an integrated XP SP3 cd. Just don't. The
SP1 and SP2 installers made certain changes to XP Gold kernel files quite
apart from any updates before or since. However, these changes are NOT done
by the SP3 installer. That means critical changes aren't made to XP Gold at
the time SP3 is applied that are made if you upgrade XP Gold to SP1 or SP2
and then use that as a base for slipstreaming with SP3.

I have no idea why MS did not provide for that in SP3 but they did say that
they did not during the SP3 beta program and said not to use XP Gold for
slipsteaming. I suppose it could have something to do with changes to XP's
servicing stack back around SP1 but I am just speculating.

Unfortunately, the SP3 beta newsgroups are no longer on the betanews servers
so I cannot go back and capture the quotes for you.

"ClueLess" <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:3o0e24trdetvk0c4hj0lig70m8aek82dei@4ax.com...
> Hi All
>
> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
> either SP1 or SP2
>
> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>
> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>
> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
> there is a problem.
>
> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>
> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>
> --
> Thanks for your time and attention
>
> ClueLess


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by PD43

PD43
Sun May 11 13:11:43 PDT 2008

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread. I'm
>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install a
>defective XP.

It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
I hadn't stopped).

That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>
>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>
>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>> slipstreamed disc?
>>
>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>> recommended.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Sun May 11 14:23:58 PDT 2008

There is a resistance to advice given in a newsgroup by the old heads. It's
like "if I don't understand it then it must not be true."

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread.
>>I'm
>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install
>>a
>>defective XP.
>
> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
> I hadn't stopped).
>
> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>
>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>> recommended.


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS
Sun May 11 14:46:23 PDT 2008

The article you refer to is all about "INSTALLING Windows XP Service
Pack 3 (SP3)". The operative word is Installing here NOT SLIPSTREAMING
or EMBEDDING.

I have done it and it does install without problems. The only
difference is that you need to provide the product key during
installation procedure rather than have the option to defer entering it
after it is complete.

hth


Big Al wrote:

> ClueLess wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
>> either SP1 or SP2
>>
>> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
>> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>>
>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>
>> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
>> there is a problem.
>>
>> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
>> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>>
>> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
> This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it
> recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the
> grain of logic (to me at least).
>
> But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS
Sun May 11 14:51:54 PDT 2008

Where is your source on the web? It is completely wrong to say it will
produce defective XP. Unless you have tried it you can't write anything
erroneous like you have just done. I have tried it, compared the files
with those produced by SP2 integrated with SP3. There is no difference
what so ever except that dates on files of original XP were 2001.

hth


Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this
> thread. I'm sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the
> team said slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that
> would install a defective XP.
>
> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>
>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>> slipstreamed disc?
>>
>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>> recommended.
>
>

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS
Sun May 11 14:58:37 PDT 2008

Where does it say that "SP1 is required" when slipstreaming or embedding
a windows share? You are all joining the band wagon of Colin Barnhorst
[c.barnhorst@comcast.net] who hasn't tried it or tested it but is quite
happy to give erroneous advise on these newsgroups. One should try it
before giving advice or advise on these public newsgroups or provide
links to their source.

hth





PD43 wrote:

>ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>slipstreamed disc?
>
>There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>recommended.
>
>

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by PD43

PD43
Sun May 11 15:12:33 PDT 2008

ANONYMOUS <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote:

>Where does it say that "SP1 is required" when slipstreaming or embedding
>a windows share? You are all joining the band wagon of Colin Barnhorst
>[c.barnhorst@comcast.net] who hasn't tried it or tested it but is quite
>happy to give erroneous advise on these newsgroups. One should try it
>before giving advice or advise on these public newsgroups or provide
>links to their source.

Just ran an extensive search using Google, and it would appear that
you are entirely correct.

There is nothing in the MS Knowledge Base against it, and there are
enough sites saying it can be done and giving instructions that it
would definitely appear that it can be done.

The only "problems" seems to be related to having to use your
installation key when using the slipstreamed disc. Hardly a problem.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS
Sun May 11 15:22:27 PDT 2008

Thank you very much. You can ignore my last message as you have now
answered it.

Thanks once again.

Regards,


PD43 wrote:

>ANONYMOUS <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Where does it say that "SP1 is required" when slipstreaming or embedding
>>a windows share? You are all joining the band wagon of Colin Barnhorst
>>[c.barnhorst@comcast.net] who hasn't tried it or tested it but is quite
>>happy to give erroneous advise on these newsgroups. One should try it
>>before giving advice or advise on these public newsgroups or provide
>>links to their source.
>>
>>
>
>Just ran an extensive search using Google, and it would appear that
>you are entirely correct.
>
>There is nothing in the MS Knowledge Base against it, and there are
>enough sites saying it can be done and giving instructions that it
>would definitely appear that it can be done.
>
>The only "problems" seems to be related to having to use your
>installation key when using the slipstreamed disc. Hardly a problem.
>
>

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Sun May 11 15:23:25 PDT 2008

Haven't tried it? You're joking. I have been making slipstreamed copies of
XP SP3 since the onset of beta 2 last year. I have installed XP SP3 from
integrated cds in all combinations of Gold, SP1, and SP2 and with Home and
Pro during that time. The subject came up several times in the beta ng and
several of us beta testers tried to argue with the beta team about not being
able to break down where the differences in the kernel files were. The team
stuck to their guns so I am defering to what the folks who make XP said.

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:OCbfrI7sIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Where does it say that "SP1 is required" when slipstreaming or embedding a
> windows share? You are all joining the band wagon of Colin Barnhorst
> [c.barnhorst@comcast.net] who hasn't tried it or tested it but is quite
> happy to give erroneous advise on these newsgroups. One should try it
> before giving advice or advise on these public newsgroups or provide links
> to their source.
>
> hth
>
>
>
>
>
> PD43 wrote:
>
>>ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>slipstreamed disc?
>>
>>There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>recommended.
>>


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS
Sun May 11 15:34:27 PDT 2008



Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> Haven't tried it? You're joking. I have been making slipstreamed
> copies of XP SP3 since the onset of beta 2 last year. I have
> installed XP SP3 from integrated cds in all combinations of Gold, SP1,
> and SP2 and with Home and Pro during that time. The subject came up
> several times in the beta ng and several of us beta testers tried to
> argue with the beta team about not being able to break down where the
> differences in the kernel files were. The team stuck to their guns so
> I am defering to what the folks who make XP said.
>
>
This is where your misunderstanding is exposed. When you embed a
windows share, you are simply copying and replacing the relevant files.
Now if you are talking about kernel files, there is no reason why the
process of embedding cannot copy over the old kernel files. It is like
copying a new word file over old files. If the file isn't in use, it
can be copied and replaced; but if it is in use , it can't. No wonder
you can't install SP3 over GOLD version of XP already running but this
does not mean you can't embed a SP3 on a windows share.

Hope this clarifies my position.




Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Sun May 11 16:51:43 PDT 2008

All of the XP service packs have written changes to kernel files in addition
to removing and replacing files. By far the bulk of the changes are the
replacement of files not already updated by WU, but when you look at the
changes to functionalities in the various release notes you will see that at
least a few modifications were made that were not made by any update before
or after the service pack release and cannot be replicated by simply being
up to date with all the updates released prior to the release of the service
pack. That's one of the reasons a service pack is more than a rollup.

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:%23S4wsc7sIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> Haven't tried it? You're joking. I have been making slipstreamed copies
>> of XP SP3 since the onset of beta 2 last year. I have installed XP SP3
>> from integrated cds in all combinations of Gold, SP1, and SP2 and with
>> Home and Pro during that time. The subject came up several times in the
>> beta ng and several of us beta testers tried to argue with the beta team
>> about not being able to break down where the differences in the kernel
>> files were. The team stuck to their guns so I am defering to what the
>> folks who make XP said.
>>
>>
> This is where your misunderstanding is exposed. When you embed a windows
> share, you are simply copying and replacing the relevant files. Now if
> you are talking about kernel files, there is no reason why the process of
> embedding cannot copy over the old kernel files. It is like copying a
> new word file over old files. If the file isn't in use, it can be copied
> and replaced; but if it is in use , it can't. No wonder you can't
> install SP3 over GOLD version of XP already running but this does not mean
> you can't embed a SP3 on a windows share.
> Hope this clarifies my position.
>
>
>


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by anon

anon
Mon May 12 00:13:31 PDT 2008

Would it be safe and possible to create aslipstreamed disk using XP-Pro Gold
and SP-2 and then slipstream Sp-3 to that?
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:36FBF721-0493-4EBF-9A37-8C4AA5343E7E@microsoft.com...
> All of the XP service packs have written changes to kernel files in
> addition to removing and replacing files. By far the bulk of the changes
> are the replacement of files not already updated by WU, but when you look
> at the changes to functionalities in the various release notes you will
> see that at least a few modifications were made that were not made by any
> update before or after the service pack release and cannot be replicated
> by simply being up to date with all the updates released prior to the
> release of the service pack. That's one of the reasons a service pack is
> more than a rollup.
>
> "ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
> news:%23S4wsc7sIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't tried it? You're joking. I have been making slipstreamed
>>> copies of XP SP3 since the onset of beta 2 last year. I have installed
>>> XP SP3 from integrated cds in all combinations of Gold, SP1, and SP2 and
>>> with Home and Pro during that time. The subject came up several times
>>> in the beta ng and several of us beta testers tried to argue with the
>>> beta team about not being able to break down where the differences in
>>> the kernel files were. The team stuck to their guns so I am defering to
>>> what the folks who make XP said.
>>>
>>>
>> This is where your misunderstanding is exposed. When you embed a windows
>> share, you are simply copying and replacing the relevant files. Now if
>> you are talking about kernel files, there is no reason why the process of
>> embedding cannot copy over the old kernel files. It is like copying a
>> new word file over old files. If the file isn't in use, it can be copied
>> and replaced; but if it is in use , it can't. No wonder you can't
>> install SP3 over GOLD version of XP already running but this does not
>> mean you can't embed a SP3 on a windows share.
>> Hope this clarifies my position.
>>
>>
>>
>



Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Mon May 12 07:39:49 PDT 2008

Absolutely.

"anon" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:OEVO7%23$sIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Would it be safe and possible to create aslipstreamed disk using XP-Pro
> Gold and SP-2 and then slipstream Sp-3 to that?
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:36FBF721-0493-4EBF-9A37-8C4AA5343E7E@microsoft.com...
>> All of the XP service packs have written changes to kernel files in
>> addition to removing and replacing files. By far the bulk of the changes
>> are the replacement of files not already updated by WU, but when you look
>> at the changes to functionalities in the various release notes you will
>> see that at least a few modifications were made that were not made by any
>> update before or after the service pack release and cannot be replicated
>> by simply being up to date with all the updates released prior to the
>> release of the service pack. That's one of the reasons a service pack is
>> more than a rollup.
>>
>> "ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
>> news:%23S4wsc7sIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>
>>>> Haven't tried it? You're joking. I have been making slipstreamed
>>>> copies of XP SP3 since the onset of beta 2 last year. I have installed
>>>> XP SP3 from integrated cds in all combinations of Gold, SP1, and SP2
>>>> and with Home and Pro during that time. The subject came up several
>>>> times in the beta ng and several of us beta testers tried to argue with
>>>> the beta team about not being able to break down where the differences
>>>> in the kernel files were. The team stuck to their guns so I am
>>>> defering to what the folks who make XP said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is where your misunderstanding is exposed. When you embed a
>>> windows share, you are simply copying and replacing the relevant files.
>>> Now if you are talking about kernel files, there is no reason why the
>>> process of embedding cannot copy over the old kernel files. It is like
>>> copying a new word file over old files. If the file isn't in use, it
>>> can be copied and replaced; but if it is in use , it can't. No wonder
>>> you can't install SP3 over GOLD version of XP already running but this
>>> does not mean you can't embed a SP3 on a windows share.
>>> Hope this clarifies my position.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Frank-FL

Frank-FL
Tue May 13 09:30:04 PDT 2008


"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message =
news:xZDVj.3527$5b3.360@trnddc05...
> ClueLess wrote:
>> Hi All
>>=20
>> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after =
applying
>> either SP1 or SP2
>>=20
>> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
>> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>>=20
>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>=20
>> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see =
if
>> there is a problem.
>>=20
>> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get =
a
>> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>>=20
>> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>>=20
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
> This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it=20
> recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the =
grain=20
> of logic (to me at least).
>=20
> But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.

This page says different.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=3D68C48DAD-BC34-=
40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=3Den#filelist

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Frank-FL

Frank-FL
Tue May 13 09:32:14 PDT 2008


"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>=20
>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this =
thread. I'm=20
>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said=20
>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would =
install a=20
>>defective XP.
>=20
> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
> I hadn't stopped). =20
>=20
> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message=20
>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>
>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>> recommended.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=3D68C48DAD-BC34-=
40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=3Den#filelist

System Requirements
a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows =
XP Tablet PC Edition=20
Windows=AE XP

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Bob

Bob
Tue May 13 10:47:44 PDT 2008



Frank-FL wrote:

> "Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:xZDVj.3527$5b3.360@trnddc05...
>
>>ClueLess wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All
>>>
>>>I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
>>>either SP1 or SP2
>>>
>>>I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
>>>fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>>>
>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>>Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
>>>there is a problem.
>>>
>>>Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
>>>new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>>>
>>>Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>>>
>>
>>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
>>This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it
>>recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the grain
>>of logic (to me at least).
>>
>>But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.
>
>
> This page says different.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist

BUT, if you actually read the contents of one the files at the link you
posted, it says:

Fundamentally, deploying Windows XP SP3 works the same as deploying SP1
and SP2 for Windows XP:
- SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1
or SP2.
- Windows XP SP3 supports the same languages as Windows XP did in its
initial release.
- You can run the SP3 update package on any edition 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. The
exceptions are Embedded editions for XP wh
Overview of Windows XP Service Pack 3.


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Bob

Bob
Tue May 13 10:48:54 PDT 2008



Frank-FL wrote:

> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qhke249l6pvanovmgj=
u7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
>=20
>>"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread=
=2E I'm=20
>>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said=20
>>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would ins=
tall a=20
>>>defective XP.
>>
>>It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
>>around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
>>Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
>>I hadn't stopped). =20
>>
>>That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
>>isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message=20
>>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming=

>>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>>>slipstreamed disc?
>>>>
>>>>There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>>>recommended.
>=20
>=20
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=3D68C48DAD-BC3=
4-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=3Den#filelist
>=20
> System Requirements
> a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP Tab=
let PC Edition=20
> Windows=AE XP

Read the actual documentation at the links in that page.


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by DevilsPGD

DevilsPGD
Tue May 13 11:12:05 PDT 2008

In message <eGfYaaRtIHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> "Frank-FL"
<bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:

>This page says different.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist

The deployment section is clear that upgrading from SP1 and SP2 is
supported:

"SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1 or
SP2." and "You can run the SP3 update package on any edition of Windows
XP SP1 or SP2"

I skimmed and didn't see anything about XP RTM, either for or against.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Big

Big
Tue May 13 11:14:07 PDT 2008

Bob I wrote:
>
>
> Frank-FL wrote:
>
>> "Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:xZDVj.3527$5b3.360@trnddc05...
>>
>>> ClueLess wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
>>>> either SP1 or SP2
>>>>
>>>> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
>>>> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>>>>
>>>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>
>>>> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
>>>> there is a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
>>>> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>>>>
>>>> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
>>> This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it
>>> recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the
>>> grain of logic (to me at least).
>>>
>>> But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.
>>
>>
>> This page says different.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>>
>
> BUT, if you actually read the contents of one the files at the link you
> posted, it says:
>
> Fundamentally, deploying Windows XP SP3 works the same as deploying SP1
> and SP2 for Windows XP:
> - SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1
> or SP2.
> - Windows XP SP3 supports the same languages as Windows XP did in its
> initial release.
> - You can run the SP3 update package on any edition 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. The
> exceptions are Embedded editions for XP wh
> Overview of Windows XP Service Pack 3.
>
And the key words are "on top of Windows XP SP1 or SP2".
Not on top of XP.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Tue May 13 11:10:15 PDT 2008

However, more details in the linked documentation exclude anything before XP
SP1.

"Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread.
>>I'm
>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install
>>a
>>defective XP.
>
> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
> I hadn't stopped).
>
> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>
>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>> recommended.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist

System Requirements
a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition
Windows® XP


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Tue May 13 11:12:23 PDT 2008

Nevertheless, when the user attempts to use WU to update anthing before XP
SP1 he is blocked with the error message that the minimum requirement is
SP1.

"Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread.
>>I'm
>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install
>>a
>>defective XP.
>
> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
> I hadn't stopped).
>
> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>
>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>
>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>> recommended.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist

System Requirements
a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition
Windows® XP


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Bob

Bob
Tue May 13 11:54:18 PDT 2008



Big Al wrote:

> Bob I wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank-FL wrote:
>>
>>> "Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xZDVj.3527$5b3.360@trnddc05...
>>>
>>>> ClueLess wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>> I see many posts stating that SP3 can be installed only after applying
>>>>> either SP1 or SP2
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already successfully slipstreamed SP3 on XP-SP2 and made a
>>>>> fresh install which went smoothly, no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I have no spare hard disk I did not try to install it and see if
>>>>> there is a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having slipstreamed I believe there should be no problem. I will get a
>>>>> new hard disk and install this weekend and come back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meantime if anyone has more information please respond.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsxp/cc164204.aspx
>>>> This article says you have to have SP1 at least. And oddly it
>>>> recommends SP2 installed. But that now runs totally against the
>>>> grain of logic (to me at least).
>>>>
>>>> But I'd sure like to see it in more plain English like you said.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This page says different.
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>>>
>>
>>
>> BUT, if you actually read the contents of one the files at the link
>> you posted, it says:
>>
>> Fundamentally, deploying Windows XP SP3 works the same as deploying
>> SP1 and SP2 for Windows XP:
>> - SP3 is cumulative, so users can install SP3 on top of Windows XP SP1
>> or SP2.
>> - Windows XP SP3 supports the same languages as Windows XP did in its
>> initial release.
>> - You can run the SP3 update package on any edition 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. The
>> exceptions are Embedded editions for XP wh
>> Overview of Windows XP Service Pack 3.
>>
> And the key words are "on top of Windows XP SP1 or SP2".
> Not on top of XP.

Correctamundo!!!


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by student

student
Tue May 13 12:47:42 PDT 2008

The overview claims that sp3 is "cumulative"; if sp1 or sp2 is "required" then
sp3 does not do what sp1 or sp2 did; if certain files are changed in sp1/sp2
& not sp3 then sp3 is NOT cumulative.

Therefore m$ lied about sp3 if either sp1 or sp2 is required.


On 2008-05-13, Colin Barnhorst <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
> However, more details in the linked documentation exclude anything before XP
> SP1.
>
> "Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
> news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread.
>>>I'm
>>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would install
>>>a
>>>defective XP.
>>
>> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
>> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
>> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
>> I hadn't stopped).
>>
>> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
>> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>>
>>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>>
>>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>>> recommended.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>
> System Requirements
> a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet PC
> Edition
> Windows® XP
>

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Tue May 13 14:06:54 PDT 2008

The rollup of issued patches and updates is cumulative. Other changes
written only by a service pack installer and not later released in an update
would not be included and would not be part of the cumulative rollup feature
of a later sp. This does not negate the rollup nature of a later sp.

The bottom line to all of this is that we all know that SP3 will not install
on an XP Gold installation of Windows when using Windows Update since MS is
blocking this so something is going on relating to SP3 and XP Gold. So why
take a chance that the same issue would not exist when applying other
methods of integrating SP3? The two-stage creation of a slipstreamed cd is
straight forward and renders the question of doing a single-stage
integration pretty academic so why not just do it that way to be safe?

The discussion on this point in this ng shows very different opinions but
these are academic issues. For the user, the practical approach to creating
an integrated cd should be to use a method guaranteed to avoid the problem
entirely. If you can make one slipstreamed cd you obviously are in a
position to make two so the resolution to the uncertainties is just do it.

"student" <guest@csus__.edu> wrote in message
news:UeWdncpcMvrCbbTVnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> The overview claims that sp3 is "cumulative"; if sp1 or sp2 is "required"
> then
> sp3 does not do what sp1 or sp2 did; if certain files are changed in
> sp1/sp2
> & not sp3 then sp3 is NOT cumulative.
>
> Therefore m$ lied about sp3 if either sp1 or sp2 is required.
>
>
> On 2008-05-13, Colin Barnhorst <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>> However, more details in the linked documentation exclude anything before
>> XP
>> SP1.
>>
>> "Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
>> news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this thread.
>>>>I'm
>>>>sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>>>slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would
>>>>install
>>>>a
>>>>defective XP.
>>>
>>> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
>>> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
>>> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
>>> I hadn't stopped).
>>>
>>> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
>>> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>>>
>>>>"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>>>with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>>>update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>>>
>>>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>>>> recommended.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>>
>> System Requirements
>> a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet
>> PC
>> Edition
>> Windows® XP
>>


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Big

Big
Tue May 13 14:17:55 PDT 2008

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> The rollup of issued patches and updates is cumulative. Other changes
> written only by a service pack installer and not later released in an
> update would not be included and would not be part of the cumulative
> rollup feature of a later sp. This does not negate the rollup nature of
> a later sp.
>
> The bottom line to all of this is that we all know that SP3 will not
> install on an XP Gold installation of Windows when using Windows Update
> since MS is blocking this so something is going on relating to SP3 and
> XP Gold. So why take a chance that the same issue would not exist when
> applying other methods of integrating SP3? The two-stage creation of a
> slipstreamed cd is straight forward and renders the question of doing a
> single-stage integration pretty academic so why not just do it that way
> to be safe?
>
> The discussion on this point in this ng shows very different opinions
> but these are academic issues. For the user, the practical approach to
> creating an integrated cd should be to use a method guaranteed to avoid
> the problem entirely. If you can make one slipstreamed cd you obviously
> are in a position to make two so the resolution to the uncertainties is
> just do it.
>
> "student" <guest@csus__.edu> wrote in message
> news:UeWdncpcMvrCbbTVnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> The overview claims that sp3 is "cumulative"; if sp1 or sp2 is
>> "required" then
>> sp3 does not do what sp1 or sp2 did; if certain files are changed in
>> sp1/sp2
>> & not sp3 then sp3 is NOT cumulative.
>>
>> Therefore m$ lied about sp3 if either sp1 or sp2 is required.
>>
>>
>> On 2008-05-13, Colin Barnhorst <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> However, more details in the linked documentation exclude anything
>>> before XP
>>> SP1.
>>>
>>> "Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>>>> slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would
>>>>> install
>>>>> a
>>>>> defective XP.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
>>>> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
>>>> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
>>>> I hadn't stopped).
>>>>
>>>> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
>>>> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>>>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the slipstreaming
>>>>>>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>>>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>>>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>>>>> recommended.
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>>>
>>>
>>> System Requirements
>>> a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP
>>> Tablet PC
>>> Edition
>>> Windows® XP
>>>
>
I read someplace that there is a piece of software missing in XPGold
that makes slipstream of SP3 impossible, or renders it somewhat broken.
I wish I had bookmarked the link, but it seemed pretty
authoritative. And obviously SP1 or SP2 have put that 'thing' into
the OS making SP3 work.

Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Colin

Colin
Tue May 13 15:14:43 PDT 2008

I hope you find the link because that sounds exactly like what came out of
some discussions in the SP3 beta newsgroup. I wish that the newsgroup was
still on the betanews server so I could retrieve some quotes from the team
but MS took the ng down a couple of months ago. One thing I remember
clearly is that slipstreaming works but the resulting installed OS is broken
someplace.

"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:7AnWj.20195$5b3.5621@trnddc05...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> The rollup of issued patches and updates is cumulative. Other changes
>> written only by a service pack installer and not later released in an
>> update would not be included and would not be part of the cumulative
>> rollup feature of a later sp. This does not negate the rollup nature of
>> a later sp.
>>
>> The bottom line to all of this is that we all know that SP3 will not
>> install on an XP Gold installation of Windows when using Windows Update
>> since MS is blocking this so something is going on relating to SP3 and XP
>> Gold. So why take a chance that the same issue would not exist when
>> applying other methods of integrating SP3? The two-stage creation of a
>> slipstreamed cd is straight forward and renders the question of doing a
>> single-stage integration pretty academic so why not just do it that way
>> to be safe?
>>
>> The discussion on this point in this ng shows very different opinions but
>> these are academic issues. For the user, the practical approach to
>> creating an integrated cd should be to use a method guaranteed to avoid
>> the problem entirely. If you can make one slipstreamed cd you obviously
>> are in a position to make two so the resolution to the uncertainties is
>> just do it.
>>
>> "student" <guest@csus__.edu> wrote in message
>> news:UeWdncpcMvrCbbTVnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> The overview claims that sp3 is "cumulative"; if sp1 or sp2 is
>>> "required" then
>>> sp3 does not do what sp1 or sp2 did; if certain files are changed in
>>> sp1/sp2
>>> & not sp3 then sp3 is NOT cumulative.
>>>
>>> Therefore m$ lied about sp3 if either sp1 or sp2 is required.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2008-05-13, Colin Barnhorst <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> However, more details in the linked documentation exclude anything
>>>> before XP
>>>> SP1.
>>>>
>>>> "Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uZEhpbRtIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:qhke249l6pvanovmgju7ehme8qulthavdk@4ax.com...
>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is, according to the SP3 beta team. See my reply in this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> sure I don't have it 100% correct but I am sure that the team said
>>>>>> slipstreaming on XP Gold would produce an integrated cd that would
>>>>>> install
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> defective XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be a "common sense" thing to me - and I like to play
>>>>> around with my system (just checked my Vista services settings with
>>>>> Black Viper's "tweaked"- I only found three settings I could stop that
>>>>> I hadn't stopped).
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, why anyone would try something when slipstreaming that
>>>>> isn't recommended is beyond my comprehension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cn5e24p8afouv8ickjm3a96nanm8gfisg3@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> ClueLess <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Today I tried with my original XP Pro (Retail) and the
>>>>>>>> slipstreaming
>>>>>>>> with nLite went without any warning or hitch. That means, AFAICS,
>>>>>>>> update.exe did not check whether XP was with either SP1 or SP2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but are you SURE that you now have SP1 and SP2 files on that
>>>>>>> slipstreamed disc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There must be a good reason why SP1 is required and SP2 is
>>>>>>> recommended.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist
>>>>
>>>> System Requirements
>>>> a.. 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 Starter Edition; Windows XP
>>>> Tablet PC
>>>> Edition
>>>> Windows® XP
>>>>
>>
> I read someplace that there is a piece of software missing in XPGold that
> makes slipstream of SP3 impossible, or renders it somewhat broken. I wish
> I had bookmarked the link, but it seemed pretty authoritative. And
> obviously SP1 or SP2 have put that 'thing' into the OS making SP3 work.


Re: XP Pro (Gold?) and SP3 by Big

Big
Tue May 13 15:52:51 PDT 2008

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> I hope you find the link because that sounds exactly like what came out
> of some discussions in the SP3 beta newsgroup. I wish that the
> newsgroup was still on the betanews server so I could retrieve some
> quotes from the team but MS took the ng down a couple of months ago.
> One thing I remember clearly is that slipstreaming works but the
> resulting installed OS is broken someplace.
>
> "Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:7AnWj.20195$5b3.5621@trnddc05...
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> The rollup of issued patches and updates is cumulative. Other
>>> changes written only by a service pack installer and not later
>>> released in an update would not be included and would not be part of
>>> the cumulative rollup feature of a later sp. This does not negate
>>> the rollup nature of a later sp.
>>>
>>> The bottom line to all of this is that we all know that SP3 will not
>>> install on an XP Gold installation of Windows when using Windows
>>> Update since MS is blocking this so something is going on relating to
>>> SP3 and XP Gold. So why take a chance that the same issue would not
>>> exist when applying other methods of integrating SP3? The two-stage
>>> creation of a slipstreamed cd is straight forward and renders the <