d5082875   
   XPost: alt.windows-xp, microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,   
   microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support   
   XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general   
   From: glee29@spamindspring.com   
      
   "Greegor"  wrote in message   
   news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-1d4811947016@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site   
   >and success with downloaded standalone version. ]   
   >   
   >> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?   
   >>   
   >> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone   
   >> > and installing it.   
   >   
   >On Nov 15, 6:16 am, "glee"  wrote:   
   >> Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are   
   >> successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much   
   >> larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had   
   >> a   
   >> non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to   
   >> leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active   
   >> during   
   >> the installation.   
   >>   
   >> For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone   
   >> because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I   
   >> have   
   >> installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.   
   >>   
   >> I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista   
   >> or   
   >> Win Seven.   
   >> YMMV, as always.   
   >   
   >You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?   
      
      
   Yes, I do.  I specifically posted about XP service packs, and rarely   
   seeing issues installing them via automatic updates.  I then mentioned I   
   have also not seen an issue installing Vista and Seven service packs.   
   Again, you seem to be having a problem reading what is written.   
      
      
   >Your argument that it works fine on   
   >MOST computers is weak.   
   >   
   >Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from   
   >the update site because you say it works   
   >on MOST computers is illogical.   
      
      
   That's because I did NOT make such an assertion.  Once again, you can't   
   read.  I did NOT state "SP3 doesn't fail from the update site"  as you   
   claim.... I specifically stated:   
      
   "the majority of installs via auto-update are   
   successful.  Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much   
   larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a   
   non-problem.  That said, many of the failures can be attributed to   
   leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during   
   the installation."   
      
      
   >   
   >I have a small fleet of identical computers   
   >chosen because this exact model sold in the   
   >tens of thousands, maybe more.   
   >   
   >Fresh install and all updates brought current   
   >only a month ago yet some updates   
   >can't install because the ones they replace   
   >refuse to uninstall.   
      
      
   What updates are you referring to, from the past month?  What "refuses   
   to uninstall"?  You don't uninstall updates to "replace" them with   
   others.  If an update supersedes an older one (described as "replacing"   
   it in a KB article), it's installation routine takes care of   
   replacement.  It sounds like you don't know how to install updates in   
   the first place.   
      
      
   >   
   >That's not the kind of thing that should   
   >be machine specific.   
   >   
   >Rebuilding from the OEM install CD   
   >(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates   
   >worked just fine, but building a clean   
   >install with all of the updates should   
   >not be like a game of Jenga.   
   >   
   >Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they   
   >need to be replaced by new ones   
   >should be an embarassment to Microsoft.   
   >   
   >KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870   
   >refused to uninstall, preventing updates to   
   >KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449   
      
      
   You don't uninstall the older updates prior to installing the newer ones   
   listed.  Again, you are installing updates incorrectly, then complaining   
   that the process gives you errors due to your own interference.   
      
   >   
   >errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.   
   >   
   >On my new build with all updates, I WONDER   
   >how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?   
   >   
   >I realize that some are never supposed to be   
   >uninstalled, but how many do you think would   
   >FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?   
      
      
   It depends on what was installed since they were.  Some updates no   
   longer uninstall because they were superseded during a later update's   
   installation.   
      
   >   
   >There are so many Framework updates and   
   >they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a   
   >sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing   
   >updates on a fresh system install is just   
   >Framework, like 2 hours worth...   
      
      
   I install updates, including .NET updates, on client machines all the   
   time.  It takes nowhere near two hours to install the .NET updates.   
      
   >   
   >I may take more copious notes with time   
   >annotations next time.   
   >   
   >WHY does SP3 update fail   
   >so much from MS Update site?   
      
      
   It doesn't "fail so much".... the majority of installations are   
   successful from Microsoft Upodate or via Automatic Updates.   
      
   >   
   >Even on a fresh clean install with no   
   >malware software installed yet!   
      
   --   
   Glen Ventura   
   MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009   
   CompTIA A+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)