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.

yes
"Kevin" <whitek@llnl.gov> wrote in message
news:041b01c35dec$e396ed10$a101280a@phx.gbl...
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.

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" <no@no.net> wrote in message
news:OS0Si6eXDHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...