The proper way to upgrading service packs.

[JosephLeo]

So me an my buddy are having a debate on the proper way to install service packs to a Windows OS.

In his method (for Vista) he installs SP1, then immediately installs SP2 then installs any updates from Windows Update and finally runs compcln.exe.

My method is a lot more complex, but I feel it's the proper method. From SP0 I install any updates then I install SP1. After SP1 I install any additional updates then run vsp1cln.exe. Then I install SP2 followed by any additional updates then run compcln.exe.

So- which do you guys think (or know) is the proper method, and please don't comment on the fact that me and my friend was literally debating over service packs.

 

[Techno_Rave850]

Personally I install the latest Service Pack and then any Updates after that.

Why in your method do you feel it's needed to do Base OS + Minor Updates then Major Service pack and then Minor Updates then Major Service Pack?

My understanding Latest Service Pack includes Current + Past Updates from the time service pack was complied.

Unless I didn't quite understand your flow process.

Never used vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe. Guess I can try them out, couldn't hurt to have the clean-up after process.

-- Techno

 

[JosephLeo]

Why in your method do you feel it's needed to do Base OS + Minor Updates then Major Service pack and then Minor Updates then Major Service Pack?

Well, I just feel that it's possible that maybe something is missed, or it might cause compatibility issues if I don't. I had a bad experience in XP with service packs before that caused the system to BSOD without updating before installing SP1 so ever since then I got stuck with the habit of updating before installing any service packs.

Also, did I misread that or do you go from SP0 to SP2 just like that? I thought it was a requirement that SP1 be installed first

vsp1cln.exe & compcln.exe are fantastic, 32-Bit PC's get back about 800MB and 64-Bit PC's about 1.5GB, but just remember that they're permanent meaning you can't roll back to SP1 or SP0.

 

[Techno_Rave850]

Also, did I misread that or do you go from SP0 to SP2 just like that? I thought it was a requirement that SP1 be installed first

Honestly my mind was thinking Windows XP. The system's I've worked on with Vista all been starting with SP1. I havn't worked on a SP0 Vista yet, so you could be correct. I might install a SP0 VMWare and try to upgrade straight to SP2 unless someone recently has experienced this.

Thanks for the Tips on the Cleanup Files.

-- Techno

Edit: You are correct Joseph, this from the Microsoft Website Deployment Guide of SP2 for Vista:

"Perform predeployment tasks
Perform the following tasks before you install Windows Vista SP2. If you are installing Windows Vista SP2 by using Windows Update, be sure to perform these tasks before you accept the Microsoft Software License Terms.

Verify that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) has been installed. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 must be installed before you install Service Pack 2.


Check disk-space requirements. The following table lists the approximate disk-space requirements for the system partition. For more information about each method, see Installation options."

 

[JosephLeo]

Honestly my mind was thinking Windows XP. The system's I've worked on with Vista all been starting with SP1. I havn't worked on a SP0 Vista yet, so you could be correct. I might install a SP0 VMWare and try to upgrade straight to SP2 unless someone recently has experienced this.

Thanks for the Tips on the Cleanup Files.

-- Techno

Edit: You are correct Joseph, this from the Microsoft Website Deployment Guide of SP2 for Vista:

"Perform predeployment tasks
Perform the following tasks before you install Windows Vista SP2. If you are installing Windows Vista SP2 by using Windows Update, be sure to perform these tasks before you accept the Microsoft Software License Terms.

Verify that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) has been installed. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 must be installed before you install Service Pack 2.


Check disk-space requirements. The following table lists the approximate disk-space requirements for the system partition. For more information about each method, see Installation options."

I thought I was going crazy for a second. Thanks for showing me that I'm not

Also, you're welcome. Those programs take about 5 minutes each to run on a Vista system with only 512MB of memory and an Intel Celeron CPU...Believe me, I tested it last week. So they're a very fast way to clear up some free space after installing service packs. I think they just delete some WinSXS folders to tell the truth- but I'm not fully sure on that.

Another thing- I've never upgraded an XP OS from SP0 before, every XP I worked with had SP2 on it- can I just go straight to 3- or do I have to go through 1 and 2 first?

 

[Techno_Rave850]

Just last week, I did a Origianal XP to SP3, so I know it works.

Hope that helps.

 

[sys-eng]

I beleive I have skipped SP2 and gone to SP3 on XP with no problems.

All of Microsoft Windows service packs roll up all the updates between SP's so therre is no need to do incrementals if there is an uninstalled SP.

I always run Windows Update several times after reboots after installing the SP. Look at Event Viewer and make sure there are no errors and at Windows Update for updates that did not install. Sometimes one hangs up or does install but the website does not recognize it.

 

[1101doc]

XPSPs

Simply installing the Service Packs in order has always worked for me. These days I don't often see a XP gold disc, but when I've needed to, installing SP 1/2/3 and then the updates since 3 (from CD) has taken care of it.

I always install Service packs and updates on a 'naked' Windows install. No non-Microsoft processes running at all. Then I disable other unneeded processes to get down to about 16-18. Since I began using that method I've had zero difficulties. One time I did not have my update discs, and did the same with an online service pack 3 install from Windows Update. Smooth and uncomplicated. I do prefer to install updates from disc or flash.

 

[topshelfpc]

Being a technet member I was able to download the full SP3 CD which by itself is over 500mb. I believe that when you go the windows update route you get a different version. Correct me if any of you know differently. This is just my assumption.

 

[1101doc]

SP3 versions

As I understand it, both methods produce the same result: XP SP3. The "offline" SP3 file must contain everything required for full installation, while Windows Update provides content from Microsoft servers.

 

[studiot]

Well, I just feel that it's possible that maybe something is missed, or it might cause compatibility issues if I don't

Technology is not or should not be a question of 'feeling' or 'might be'.

There are reasons for retaining the rollback ability and reasons for clearing the space. A tech should suggest the most appropriate.

Of course if you clear immediately you run the risk of a latent problem showing up a week or so later.

I personally think there is too much emphasis on updating perfectly working systems.

Particularly in the business world, if a system continues to perform the task for which it was purchased why update?
And if it doesn't - you bought or were sold the wrong system.

Business IT departments rarely perform updates until long after they have been released, and then only after they have been tested on non critical pcs.

 

[Techno_Rave850]

For the most part a lot of the updates are security ones, so are we suppose to ignore these?

I agree if the PC is doing what the task at hand is doing it well don't mess with it, but with End Users, and I haven't had a chance to see how a Fortune 500 Company's IT Policy's are, but I know in Small Business's where there is no IT Staff, and maybe they have hired you out to manage there IT. You got End Users who whine and cry because there PC is policy down so much they can't do there work, then we run into opening it up a bit , and then the crap starts to hit the fan. I try and put down strict but workable policy's and some of my customers say" Man you won't let me change my wallpaper ". " Duh, I don't want you messing with the system. ". But it's harding to control them then it seems. Also it sucks' with poorly written Apps that require "Admin Access" to work correctly even after you run it for a while in admin and then go back to Limited User Access.

-- Techno

 

[TLE]

Business IT departments rarely perform updates until long after they have been released, and then only after they have been tested on non critical pcs.

Agreed, it's often weeks or months before many company's approve updates on their windows update servers.

However, for those of us who only deal with End Consumers it's a slightly different story, I would personally prefer that when a PC is returned to a customer, it is up to date with all of the available security updates, unless I have reason to believe that it may cause problems for that user.

When I do clean installs I tend to apply all the available service packs and then run windows update. I can't see the need to install a service pack, and then run windows update, and then install the next service pack, and so on, as all updates are rolled into the next service pack anyway. This method will also be more time consuming, which means less profit or more expense to the customer. I just don’t see any benefits to this method.
What I will say is, it's certainly a thorough way of doing it JosephLeo, and for that I commend you.

Interesting to see everyone’s thoughts on this one though.

Ps. It's not often I have to apply service packs on clean installs, as I generally slipstream them into the install before hand.

 

[TLE]

This article on Technet might be worth a read for those interested.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc750077.aspx#XSLTsection125121120120