Install sp1 or sp2 or nothing?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I just upgraded to xp pro version 5.1.2600 build 2600. It seems to be
working fine.
Should I install a service pack? I've heard some of the files can affect
performance negatively.
Is sp2 better than sp1?

 

[Jerry]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

SP2 includes everything from SP1.

Rumors and myths on performance. I'm running Pro with SP2 and all updates
and have not had performance issues.

"Primal Oooze" <primeooze@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tATBe.2688$8y1.100@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>I just upgraded to xp pro version 5.1.2600 build 2600. It seems to be
> working fine.
> Should I install a service pack? I've heard some of the files can affect
> performance negatively.
> Is sp2 better than sp1?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Yes, you need to install SP2 which is considered a major critical
update for Windows XP.

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

Learn About Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx

Top 10 Reasons to Install Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/topten.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Primal Oooze" wrote:

| I just upgraded to xp pro version 5.1.2600 build 2600. It seems to be
| working fine.
| Should I install a service pack? I've heard some of the files can affect
| performance negatively.
| Is sp2 better than sp1?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

In news:tATBe.2688$8y1.100@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com,
Primal Oooze <primeooze@hotmail.com> typed:

> I just upgraded to xp pro version 5.1.2600 build 2600. It seems
> to be
> working fine.
> Should I install a service pack? I've heard some of the files
> can
> affect performance negatively.
> Is sp2 better than sp1?


You should install SP2, if it's not already installed. There's no
reason to expect performance issues, Only a small percentage of
people have had trouble with it, and in my experience almost of
those have installed it on spyware-infested machines.

Be sure you have no viruses or spyware on your system, and read
here first: http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

There are *many* fixes and improvements in SP2, not just its
highly-touted security features, and I highly recommend it. See
"List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2" at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2

I've never had a problem with it on my own machines nor on any of
the others I support.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

> You should install SP2, if it's not already installed. There's no
> reason to expect performance issues, Only a small percentage of
> people have had trouble with it, and in my experience almost of
> those have installed it on spyware-infested machines.
>
> Be sure you have no viruses or spyware on your system, and read
> here first: http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45
>
> There are *many* fixes and improvements in SP2, not just its
> highly-touted security features, and I highly recommend it. See
> "List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2" at
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windo
wsxpsp2
>
> I've never had a problem with it on my own machines nor on any of
> the others I support.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

Thanks for the help. I did everything as instructed and downloaded the 17
separate critical downloads required before downloading sp2. Then sp2
refused to download citing --Error Code: 0x80070057
I'll have to google this one a bit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Then sp2
> refused to download citing --Error Code: 0x80070057
> I'll have to google this one a bit.
>
>

Actually the message said it "was not installed"

 

[Jerry]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I would suggest going as far a making a slipstreamed CD for XP install.
This can be done with a free program called "Nlite" and a CD burner. I have
found using the slipstreamed XP most beneficial. Most installs of sp2 that
caused problems were cause by systems that had a virus(s) and/or spyware.
This eliminates that issue altogether. Also it will install xp with sp2
without all the shutdowns and restarts which in the long run is much faster.

Good luck
"Primal Oooze" <primeooze@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZNeCe.2620$dX5.954@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Then sp2
>> refused to download citing --Error Code: 0x80070057
>> I'll have to google this one a bit.
>>
>>
>
> Actually the message said it "was not installed"
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

The original edition of XP is now obsolete. You cannot get any updates or
security patches released later than September 2004 for the original XP
edition. If you want full mainstream support for your computer you have to
upgrade. The notice on the Windows/Microsoft Update welcome page states,
"Windows XP Users: New security updates are now available for SP1 and SP2
only."

"Primal Oooze" <primeooze@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tATBe.2688$8y1.100@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>I just upgraded to xp pro version 5.1.2600 build 2600. It seems to be
> working fine.
> Should I install a service pack? I've heard some of the files can affect
> performance negatively.
> Is sp2 better than sp1?
>
>