# Updated my PC with windows XP service pack 3



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

Ello all, as the title says really, updated it yesterday and now it wont work anybody else has this problem?


----------



## Eliot Ness (Mar 25, 2007)

srmtor said:


> Ello all, as the title says really, updated it yesterday and now it wont work anybody else has this problem?


I had a problem back with SP #2 and finally got back to a restore point, reinstalled it and it went fine.

SP #3 loaded up last week and I held my breath on that one but it went well with no problems.


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

Mine was fine with SP2, ive taken to my local comp shop to let them have a look at it for me bloomin thing, havent got a clue what it could be


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

i noticed this the other day, luckily i manual update so i've ignored that one for now!

knew it wouldn't be long before someone posted bad news about it, lol


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

lol.. just my luck though it would be me, not sayin it would happen to everyone, but just a little word of warning!!lol


----------



## magic919 (Mar 11, 2007)

Had XP Service Pack 3 on a few pcs here for quite a while and no problems at all.


----------



## Neil_S (Oct 26, 2005)

Define "won't work", won't switch on? Won't access internet?


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

When I switch it on all i get is a blank screen and no more, 
My mum has read somewhere that its a conflict with internet explorer 8 or something


----------



## Chris_R (Feb 3, 2008)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950249

Just use the recovery console method step by step described above.

There is an issue with IE8 from what I can see, but unless you specifically installed the beta version then you wouldn't likely have it on your PC.


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

just a quick update, got me comp back from the hsop, theyve had top wipe the hard drive and start again, didnt know what had casued it


----------



## timprice (Aug 24, 2007)

i expect some of the system files got corrupted during the update.

personally, i never "upgrade" to a new service pack, i always start with a clean install with a slipstreamed service pack.

for those that aren't too pc literate, this basically involves creating a new Windows XP CD and integrating the service pack into the original installation, making it an XP with SP3 disk.

Works well, but does involve a complete reinstall, which to be honest is not a bad thing to do every so often to clear the rubbish out.


----------



## petenaud (Feb 17, 2008)

yep killed mine as well

re installed xp and have updated turned off.


----------



## MARKETMAN (Aug 22, 2006)

updated laptop no problems at all ....... yet ................ :thumb:


----------



## Abbo1986 (Jul 14, 2008)

I wasn't im impressed, it made my "completely legitimate"  windows XP say it needs validatiing


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

anyone else had any problems with sp3?

it's been a while now, so i'm thinking of 'upgrading'..... (or should i just go Vista?)


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

srmtor said:


> just a quick update, got me comp back from the hsop, theyve had top wipe the hard drive and start again, didnt know what had casued it


What a bunch of cowboys - if they knew anything about Windows, they would know that it is possible to re-install Windows - a complete, clean re-install - *without* wiping the disk!!!!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315341/en-us

Not much use to you now, but maybe for others.


----------



## m0bov (May 2, 2007)

Its always a quick way out, just re install, it takes a lot of time to backup their data and restore it. In fact, anyone can put a XP disk in and choose the install option.

Anyway, the OP's post was several months ago and he had already taken the PC to the shop (surly he should of waited??).

I've deployed SP3 to hundreds of machines with no issue, but we don't run beta software such as IE8. Always backup the machine using something like Acronis or Ghost.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

m0bov said:


> Its always a quick way out, just re install, it takes a lot of time to backup their data and restore it. In fact, anyone can put a XP disk in and choose the install option.


True, but as I said in my previous post, you can re-install Windows *without* touching any user data (although, as always, a backup is highly recommended).

Also, unless the shop warned when the OP took the machine in that they may have to re-format - or called him before proceeding - I suspect that they could be on a sticky legal wicket (caveat, IANAL) for destroying his data. Even if the system is unbootable the disk could be put in another machine as a data disk and the data pulled off it - unless it was a disk failure that caused the problem of course.


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

I'm with m0bov... various "experts" told my parents that their PC needed rebuilding and I sorted it with no data loss. It is just the "easy" option for whoever is asked to resolve the problem, particularly if they don't know any better, it is a hammer to crack a nut.


----------



## m0bov (May 2, 2007)

yes, you can reinstall XP, but, it will spanner many apps cos all manor of dlls and stuff get over written. But, if you only have office and anti virus installed, its ok. Obviously you would need to reinstall drivers etc... I often find it easier, in the long term, to clone the machine, reload it from scratch, then after loading the apps back on, restore data. Often its docs, profiles, etc...


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

m0bov said:


> yes, you can reinstall XP, but, it will spanner many apps cos all manor of dlls and stuff get over written. But, if you only have office and anti virus installed, its ok.


Well, having used the In-place Upgrade method at least a dozen times, it's never messed anything up, although as soon as I've done it I do Service Pack it and install all the upgrades to the point it was previously at (prior to the last u/d if that's what screwed it).

The only time this has failed me was trying to fix a PC that had some malware on it (couldn't nail down what, hence the need for an IPU) that just resulted in a blank desktop. It was the same after so I'm guessing that the malware had infected a third party driver (video would be my guess).


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

I always backed up users data and reinstalled XP formatting the drive.

Not only did it make sure there weren't any applications left over, even if they were dormant, but it was faster afterwards. It takes more time as you have to do all the drivers etc but I felt it was worth it for the gains in speed.


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

Dave^ said:


> anyone else had any problems with sp3?
> 
> it's been a while now, so i'm thinking of 'upgrading'..... (or should i just go Vista?)


Don't go Vista at all, have you not noticed Microsoft have stopped advertising it  Reason for that, and they know why, just too lazy to fix it.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Pieface876 said:


> Don't go Vista at all, have you not noticed Microsoft have stopped advertising it  Reason for that, and they know why, just too lazy to fix it.


It works fine. Actually use it and find out for yourself.


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

jamest said:


> It works fine. Actually use it and find out for yourself.


I have used it, I bought my PC with an OEM version off it but I hated it so much I went back to Vista. So don't mae claims you don't know


----------



## JasonRS (Aug 8, 2006)

Pieface876 said:


> I have used it, I bought my PC with an OEM version off it but I hated it so much I went back to Vista. So don't mae claims you don't know


Such as this one?



Pieface876 said:


> Don't go Vista at all, have you not noticed Microsoft have stopped advertising it  Reason for that, and they know why, just too lazy to fix it.


Since it is still being advertised, and worked on.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Pieface876 said:


> I have used it, I bought my PC with an OEM version off it but I hated it so much I went back to Vista. So don't mae claims you don't know


So you bought a PC with an OEM copy on it? Would this PC by any chance have poor specifications.


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

jamest said:


> So you bought a PC with an OEM copy on it? Would this PC by any chance have poor specifications.


Why won't you stop being Ignorant for a change. If you have no clear view, you can buy OEM versions on the Internet. I built my PC too play games such as Battlefield on High Spec, 3gb RAM. 2.4 Ghz Dual Core Processor, Nvidia 8600GT.

So stop being ignorant, and get your facts straight before you start making assumptions.


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

JasonRS said:


> Such as this one?
> 
> Since it is still being advertised, and worked on.


Haven't seen it advertised at all. Ive seen Microsoft advertised, but not Vista.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Pieface876 said:


> Why won't you stop being Ignorant for a change. If you have no clear view, you can buy OEM versions on the Internet. I built my PC too play games such as Battlefield on High Spec, 3gb RAM. 2.4 Ghz Dual Core Processor, Nvidia 8600GT.
> 
> So stop being ignorant, and get your facts straight before you start making assumptions.


I phrased it as a question. 

I have many clients who are delighted with Vista, so you shouldn't go round telling people not to use it.

I bought a Ford even when people told me not to and I love it. So stop being ignorant yourself.


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

jamest said:


> I phrased it as a question.
> 
> I have many clients who are delighted with Vista, so you shouldn't go round telling people not to use it.
> 
> I bought a Ford even when people told me not to and I love it. So stop being ignorant yourself.


Many people, infact most people who I have spoken too said they prefer XP. I'd rather reccomend them using something thats more useful and trustworthy than Vista. XP was updated way too soon as it was still on a very strong point.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Pieface876 said:


> Many people, infact most people who I have spoken too said they prefer XP. I'd rather reccomend them using something thats more useful and trustworthy than Vista. XP was updated way too soon as it was still on a very strong point.


Fair enough, but I have heard the complete opposite.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

From everything I've read about Vista vs. XP (in lots of places) it seems that peoples' experiences with Vista are either very good or very bad. The bottom line is that there are hardware-compatibility issues with Vista - much like those with XP (especially for those migrating from 98) - which were exacerbated by a lot of manufacturers labelling their machines 'Vista Ready' when, in fact, they weren't 100% Vista-compatible (or were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista). Also, people with home-built machines seem to have had a lot of compatibility issues.

So, it is pointless keep debating/arguing the point because the opinion of an individual will be influenced to a great extent by *their* experience and someone saying that their brand new, high-spec, Dell laptop runs it fine is not likely to change that view.


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

parish said:


> From everything I've read about Vista vs. XP (in lots of places) it seems that peoples' experiences with Vista are either very good or very bad.
> 
> Also, people with home-built machines seem to have had a lot of compatibility issues.
> 
> So, it is pointless keep debating/arguing the point because the opinion of an individual will be influenced to a great extent by *their* experience and someone saying that their brand new, high-spec, Dell laptop runs it fine is not likely to change that view.


agreed - vista is fine if you're running a nice new laptop at home, stand-alone, with a new printer and a wireless connection. great for the home user with little experience or use of networking.

it's pretty useless in a mixed network with older servers & printers however, something which (IMO) truly holds it back; people won't take to it because it's a pain in the arriss to set up, and no amount of home users saying it's wonderful will change the opinions of network techs who have to support it and put up with the constant 'are you *sure* you want to do that?' vista nanny-state warnings... now THAT is truly infuriating.

but I have to say, at the dawn of XP we saw similar complaints... the golden rule with MS OS launches has always been never touch a release until the first service pack is released. stick to that and you're normally OK!

dunno about the comment on home built pc's mind... never had much of a problem meself.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> From everything I've read about Vista vs. XP (in lots of places) it seems that peoples' experiences with Vista are either very good or very bad. The bottom line is that there are hardware-compatibility issues with Vista - much like those with XP (especially for those migrating from 98) - which were exacerbated by a lot of manufacturers labelling their machines 'Vista Ready' when, in fact, they weren't 100% Vista-compatible (or were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista). Also, people with home-built machines seem to have had a lot of compatibility issues.
> 
> So, it is pointless keep debating/arguing the point because the opinion of an individual will be influenced to a great extent by *their* experience and someone saying that their brand new, high-spec, Dell laptop runs it fine is not likely to change that view.


Intel are in trouble over the "Vista Ready" label. Supposingly some emails were released by Microsoft after the courts told them to which showed that Intel told Microsoft to do it so they could carry on selling their older hardware but still market it with the Vista branding on it.


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

jamest said:


> Intel are in trouble over the "Vista Ready" label. Supposingly some emails were released by Microsoft after the courts told them to which showed that Intel told Microsoft to do it so they could carry on selling their older hardware but still market it with the Vista branding on it.


intel telling microsoft what to do? 

hmmm...

it depends on your point of view of course, but I'd suggest that hardware compatibilty issues are more the concern of microsoft. they release an OS which makes months of production for intel, nvidia, creative etc etc etc obsolete? I'd say they're the ones at fault. they've got a pretty grim history of rolling out upgrades but this one was particularly poorly thought-through.

it's reflected in the uptake of vista too, I'd suggest.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

dantiatto said:


> intel telling microsoft what to do?
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> ...


Seems that I have been told the wrong info. It was Intel complaining about Microsoft.

Link


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

deary me, you really couldn't make it up...

I've never understood the reasons why such a 'revolutionary' change was required when it delivers (in the final analysis) so very little to the consumer. we've been conned...AGAIN.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

dantiatto said:


> dunno about the comment on home built pc's mind... never had much of a problem meself.


Which proves the point - *you* have few problems, but others do. The problem with home-built machines is that they can be a random mix of arbitrary components, not necessarily all of the same state-of-the-artness (i.e. different generations). For example, I only need a fairly basic graphics card as I don't do games or 3D work yet have a fairly high-spec CPU and hardware RAID.



dantiatto said:


> I've never understood the reasons why such a 'revolutionary' change was required when it delivers (in the final analysis) so very little to the consumer. we've been conned...AGAIN.


The reason, IMO of course, is that M$ are a commercial outfit and they need to get people to *buy* the latest and greatest which means that it needs to appear to be different. I firmly believe that if you strip away all the eye-candy that 2K, XP, and Vista aren't really that different - what happened to the new filesystem that was supposed to be in Vista (that now won't appear until Win7) for example?

*Edit:* In fact, Win2K was NT5 and XP is NT5.1, so a point release upgrade, which kind of proves the point. The thing that p155ed me off about that was that those of us who moved to XP from 2K had to pay the same price to upgrade from NT5 to 5.1 as those who upgraded from Win98 - a quantum leap from a 16-bit DOS-based OS to a 32-bit multi-user, multi-tasking OS :devil:

If M$ did evolutionary, rather than revolutionary (or seemingly revolutionary) upgrades - more like the Linux way - then people wouldn't spend their hard-earned.

Apple of course have to do the same thing (as M$) but, because they own the platform and therefore have total control over it, they can do so without breaking peoples' systems - if the new version is not imtended to be installed on certain models they can prevent it doing so.

M$ are trying to control a platform that they don't own and therefore don't have sufficient control over and as such will always be faced with these problems - or rather their customers will.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Profitable business and ethics don't always go hand in hand.


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

parish said:


> those of us who moved to XP from 2K had to pay the same price to upgrade from NT5 to 5.1 as those who upgraded from Win98 - a quantum leap from a 16-bit DOS-based OS to a 32-bit multi-user, multi-tasking OS :devil:


now THAT would be fun eh? upgrading a 98 (non-SE) machine up to vista.

now where did I put those 8Mb EDO ram modules...?


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

dantiatto said:


> now THAT would be fun eh? upgrading a 98 (non-SE) machine up to vista.
> 
> now where did I put those 8Mb EDO ram modules...?


Can't remember what the highend hardware was back then.

They may just hit the minimum specification if they are lucky.


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

so to answer my own question.....

i'll stick with xp sp2......

:wall:


----------



## Pieface876 (Nov 14, 2008)

jamest said:


> Can't remember what the highend hardware was back then.
> 
> They may just hit the minimum specification if they are lucky.


Highly doubt that. Computers move so fast in a year, let alone 10.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Pieface876 said:


> Highly doubt that. Computers move so fast in a year, let alone 10.


8 years, if you are upgrading one of the later 98's.


Dave^ said:


> so to answer my own question.....
> 
> i'll stick with xp sp2......
> 
> :wall:


You can stick with SP2 or upgrade to SP3. Not a whole lot of difference. Just security fixes.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2008)

I haven't seen any problems related to SP3, afterall all it is mainly is a bunch of security updates you would otherwise get through windows update... A bit harsh but as some are saying "if SP3 causes the computer to break... its very likely it was screwed up in the first place"

srmtor - as parish says, the comp. shop are obviously a bunch of cowboys, even a windows reinstallation was probably not required if they knew what they were doing. I would not use them again.

I am a bit of an MS fanboy myself because I never have any problems on all of my machines, 99% of the time the problem is caused and easily preventable by the user.


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

G220 said:


> I am a bit of an MS fanboy myself because I never have any problems on all of my machines, 99% of the time the problem is caused and easily preventable by the user.


agreed, most problems are the product of user error in my experience, I have machines here on the same install of NT4.0 since 2000, no probs whatsoever...

(touch wood obviously!)


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

parish said:


> Also, unless the shop warned when the OP took the machine in that they may have to re-format - or called him before proceeding - I suspect that they could be on a sticky legal wicket QUOTE]
> 
> They warned me when I took it into the shop that it might happen, but when it did they rung me to make sure I wanted it doing 1st


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

jamest said:


> 8 years, if you are upgrading one of the later 98's.
> 
> You can stick with SP2 or upgrade to SP3. Not a whole lot of difference. Just security fixes.


i'll leave sp3 til i do a full reinstall......

is there anyway to find out when xp was last installed?


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

srmtor said:


> They warned me when I took it into the shop that it might happen, but when it did they rung me to make sure I wanted it doing 1st


Ah, OK then. So at least you knew, and agreed :thumb:


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Dave^ said:


> i'll leave sp3 til i do a full reinstall......
> 
> is there anyway to find out when xp was last installed?


Yes, although I can't remember how.


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

jamest said:


> Yes, although I can't remember how.


lol, thanks for that!!

if you remember, please let me know..... would be nice finding out how long it was since i did it last.....


----------



## srmtor (Jul 12, 2008)

parish said:


> Ah, OK then. So at least you knew, and agreed :thumb:


I havent got a clue about anything like that, so they said id lose everything but the only thing i had on that i needed was my pics but id backed them up already


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Dave^ said:


> lol, thanks for that!!
> 
> if you remember, please let me know..... would be nice finding out how long it was since i did it last.....


I was at work at the time so couldn't do any searching :lol:

If you are using WinXP Pro, you can go to Start > Run type CMD then in the command prompt type systeminfo, which will tell you the last install date.

If that doesn't work you could try this: 
http://www.systemtools.com/cgi-bin/download.pl?WinInfo

Not sure if that will work though, otherwise you will just have to look for the oldest file on your computer based on modified date and that should be time you installed XP.


----------



## Dave^ (Mar 22, 2007)

Cheers Pal, both worked :thumb:


----------

