I would give a qualified "no". Windows 2000 and up were designed so that the
order in which you install updates (of any kind, including patches and
service packs) should not matter. Some people will answer "yes" to your
question, perhaps because there have been a few cases where an older update
overwrote a newer one. If you encounter a problem like that, please report
it to us, because order is not supposed to make a difference.
--
Jonathan
Windows Update Support
Microsoft
Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup
purposes only.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
"Racing Penguin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> yes
> "Kevin" <> wrote in message
> news:041b01c35dec$e396ed10$...
> If I apply a service pack, example: "Windows 2000 SP4",
> that is older than a security patch I applied ,
> example: "Security Update for Windows 2000 (823980)",
> would I have to reapply the security patch "Security
> Update for Windows 2000 (823980)" after I installed the
> service pack?
>
> I get mixed anwsers from people. People have seen this
> issue on NT but it warns them that a re-install of the
> patch has to be reapplied. I have not seen such a thing
> on windows 2000.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin.
>
>
>
|