Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

anything higher than sp2?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
March 20, 2005 4:08:32 AM

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

Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I do
not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this. So,
do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install it
onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty good
in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your help

More about : higher sp2

Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:08:33 AM

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

The last time I saw any figures, SP2 had been installed on over 180 million
computers, and less than 1% sought assistance from Microsoft.

It has been my experience that only poorly maintained computers experience
any problems with SP2.

It seems that those who know how to keep their systems healthy (regular
defrags, proper procedures for installation and removal of software, etc)
have no issues with SP2.

Those that do nothing to maintain a healthy system are the ones having
problems. SP2 only seems to cause problems when there is a pre-existing
problem that will be exacerbated by SP2.

In short, if you are lazy and don't take the steps necessary to maintain
your system, then you should probably avoid installing SP2, as you wouldn't
have a clue to fixing any issues it may or may not cause. If, on the other
hand, you do regular maintenance, know how to make a backup prior to
installation, and have a healthy system to begin with, you'll most certainly
want to install SP2 for it's security enhancements and the added system
stability.



Bobby

"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 5:18:44 AM

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

You read a disproportionate number of problem posts here because the
successful installers don't have to come here for help.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>
>
Related resources
March 20, 2005 12:41:32 PM

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

"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>
>
If you follow basic good housekeeping routines and keep your computer in
good shape there is nothing to fear from installing SP2. One check point
that is often missed is to visit the support web site of your computer
supplier to find if there are any updates to be applied before installing
SP2.

Remember that if your particular configuration does actually run into
conflict with SP2 it can be uninstalled via add remove programs and you will
still have your outdated SP1 version.

For total peace of mind you should have in any case an effective regular
backup system for your data, settings and system. If you do not you should
be afraid, very afraid, every time you use your computer not just when
installing a service pack :-))

Richard H.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 2:11:45 PM

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

In news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
MR <mr@mr.com> typed:

> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now
> because I do not want to have the problems that alot of N'G
> readers/posters have said they have had.EX: programs not
> working,
> installations of sp2 giving problems, etc


With very rare exceptions, nobody comes to a newsgroup to report
his successes. People come here for help with problems. So you
should *expect* to see a lot of problems with SP2 reported here,
just as you should expect to see a lot of problems with
transmissions if you hang around a transmission shop.


> And I know that there have
> been lots of issues with this.


There have been some, but very few, considering how many people
have installed SP2. I've personally installed it a several
machines with no problems on any of them. I know of *many* other
people who have installed it multiple times, and I'm personally
aware of only a single problem, and that was someone with
multiple pieces of spyware installe--a definite no-no.

Prepare properly and your chances of problems are slim. Read
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45



> So, do they have out and sp3 sp4


No, SP2 is the lastest service pack. And when another service
pack comes out it would almost cetrainly include the SP2 fixes;
it wouldn't protect you against any problems you might have with
it.


> or
> other that will give less problems than sp2. I have the sp2 cd
> sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install it onto my 2
> year
> old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty good
> in
> keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.


Good, but although the security fixes in SP2 are what are highly
touted, that's not all that SP2 is about See "List of fixes
included in Windows XP Service Pack 2"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2


> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but,
> honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks
> for
> your help


My advice is to install it, but prepare for it properly (read the
link above) and do a backup first. I can't promise success, but I
can tell you that the chances of problems will be extremely
slight.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 2:32:16 PM

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

My two-pennyworth - having installed SP2 TWICE, on two different OS's (one
Home, one Pro) - it's a piece of cake.
PROVIDED that all the "housekeeping" - AV scan, scans for malware/adware is
done, and the latest drivers for external kit - it's a piece of cake.
In relative terms, "less than 1%" problems" (on 180mm installations) - that
indicates c1 million problems. It's no-where near that, and, as stated
elewhere, it's only those who DON'T take regular (normal) precautions that
get grief. I too was cautious - if I can do it, so can anyone. Go for it!

Sincerely, Len.
"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 5:04:35 PM

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

"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>

Waiting for a later service pack will not help you.
If you are going to have issues with SP2 then you will probably have the
same with SP3.
Each Sp includes al the fixes from the previous packs (they are cumulative)
so what ever is in SP2 is likely to also effect you if you wait for SP3.

You should follow the advice given by all the other posters and get SP2 on
your system as soon as possible then use Windows Update to get the rest of
the patches and fixes you should be running to get a stable and secure
system.


--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"MR" <mr@mr.com> wrote in message
news:e3$KCQSLFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi I have delayed installing sp2(still have sp1) for months now because I
> do
> not want to have the problems that alot of N'G readers/posters have said
> they have had.EX: programs not working, installations of sp2 giving
> problems, etc. And I know that there have been lots of issues with this.
> So,
> do they have out and sp3 sp4 or other that will give less problems than
> sp2. I have the sp2 cd sitting by my pc and cannot get myself to install
> it
> onto my 2 year old pc. I have security programs installed and do pretty
> good
> in keeping my pc safe from viruses/spyware/etc.
> I did lots of reading in the past on the MS web site but, honestly, it
> overwhelmed me to the point of being scared to install. thanks for your
> help
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:28:58 PM

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

Salut/Hi NoNoBadDog!,

le/on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:57:26 -1000, tu disais/you said:-

>The last time I saw any figures, SP2 had been installed on over 180 million
>computers, and less than 1% sought assistance from Microsoft.

Presumably these were figures provided by Microsoft.

Presumably therefore they didn't count those who sought assistance
elsewhere, eg from the OEM supplier, because Microsoft won't help those who
bought OEM versions.

Do they apply to households world wide or in the US?

>In short, if you are lazy and don't take the steps necessary to maintain
>your system,

Here we go .... sympathetic to a fault.


>want to install SP2 for it's security enhancements and the added system
>stability.

Would it be nit picking to suggest that someone who can't apostrophise
correctly might also not be able to maintain his computer to the level that
causes no issues with SP2?

Sorry Bobby, but your kind of response makes me see red. If around 1.8
millon people HAVE contacted Microsoft, (presumably in just the USA) that
demonstrates some serious problems. No one WANTS to under maintain their
system, you know. Windows XP has been deliberately marketed as being self
maintaining, self diagnosing, and perfect for those who AREN'T very computer
literate. So don't criticise someone who isn't and who chooses XP.



--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
March 20, 2005 9:28:59 PM

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

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23PYWIiYLFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Ian Hoare wrote:
> <snip>
>> If around 1.8 millon people HAVE contacted Microsoft, (presumably in
>> just the USA) that demonstrates some serious problems. No one
>> WANTS to under maintain their system, you know. Windows XP has
>> been deliberately marketed as being self maintaining, self diagnosing,
>> and perfect for those who AREN'T very computer literate. So don't
>> criticise someone who isn't and who chooses XP.
>
> I cannot say I agree that it has been marketed (completely) in such a way.
> It is better at self-maintenance than most other Operating Systems - out
> of the box. There are many cars that don't need oil changes as often as
> others.. Air compressors that do not require lubrication.. Easy to clean
> flooring materials.. Self-cleaning ovens.. But all of these objects
> require some knowledge to utilize and maintain. I do not think it is too
> much to expect the same thing from your computer.
>
> I have little sympathy for those who do not bother to learn to properly
> maintain/use something they own. Empathy for not understanding they need
> to learn.. maybe. Windows is more self-maintaining and better for those
> not computer literate than Linux, BeOS, etc.. It may NOT be more so than
> OS X, but in as far as applications and mass market appeal - Windows XP
> does have the bear's share.
>
> It's not a fault of an OS that people install (or allow to be installed)
> malware. It is not the fault of an OS that some hardware manufacturers
> decide not to support their hardware beyond a given point and leave those
> who own said hardware out in the cold. There is no substitute for
> learning to use the equipment you have before it goes south on you.
>
> I will not say that SP2 did not cause issues - I will venture to say most
> of those issues boiled down to some underlying problem that existed before
> SP2 - but SP2 uncovered on the system OR with the support (lack of) given
> by hardware/software manufacturers whose product was installed on machines
> and then caused issues. The number of manufacturers who did not come out
> with patches for 3 months after SP2 was officially released (although the
> beta existed for months before that) or those who did not update drivers
> to allow full functionality in Windows XP SP2 (instead pushing their new
> products, as they would if a new OS was released) is quite high in
> relative terms. They make more selling new products/revisions than giving
> away patches to maintain old versions.
>
> No one may WANT to "under maintain thier system", but since they now have
> requested help, it is an opportunity to make sure they have the proper
> tools to avoid it, is it not?
>
<snipped>

I think you make a good point, but what I get from Ian's posts, is Bobby's
conscending attitude about how others should just about know what he knows.
Though you stress almost the same points as Bobby, you point out the issues
without noting "if you are lazy ", or "you wouldn't have a clue to fixing",
etc. Bobby knows what he's talking about (sometimes), but he is rough when
he replies, and it shows when others reply to him.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:29:00 PM

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

Ian Hoare wrote:
<snip>
> If around 1.8 millon people HAVE contacted Microsoft, (presumably in
> just the USA) that demonstrates some serious problems. No one
> WANTS to under maintain their system, you know. Windows XP has
> been deliberately marketed as being self maintaining, self
> diagnosing, and perfect for those who AREN'T very computer
> literate. So don't criticise someone who isn't and who chooses XP.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> I cannot say I agree that it has been marketed (completely) in such
> a way. It is better at self-maintenance than most other Operating
> Systems - out of the box. There are many cars that don't need oil
> changes as often as others.. Air compressors that do not require
> lubrication.. Easy to clean flooring materials.. Self-cleaning
> ovens.. But all of these objects require some knowledge to utilize
> and maintain. I do not think it is too much to expect the same
> thing from your computer.
> I have little sympathy for those who do not bother to learn to
> properly maintain/use something they own. Empathy for not
> understanding they need to learn.. maybe. Windows is more
> self-maintaining and better for those not computer literate than
> Linux, BeOS, etc.. It may NOT be more so than OS X, but in as far
> as applications and mass market appeal - Windows XP does have the
> bear's share.
> It's not a fault of an OS that people install (or allow to be
> installed) malware. It is not the fault of an OS that some hardware
> manufacturers decide not to support their hardware beyond a given
> point and leave those who own said hardware out in the cold. There
> is no substitute for learning to use the equipment you have before
> it goes south on you.
> I will not say that SP2 did not cause issues - I will venture to say
> most of those issues boiled down to some underlying problem that
> existed before SP2 - but SP2 uncovered on the system OR with the
> support (lack of) given by hardware/software manufacturers whose
> product was installed on machines and then caused issues. The
> number of manufacturers who did not come out with patches for 3
> months after SP2 was officially released (although the beta existed
> for months before that) or those who did not update drivers to allow
> full functionality in Windows XP SP2 (instead pushing their new
> products, as they would if a new OS was released) is quite high in
> relative terms. They make more selling new products/revisions than
> giving away patches to maintain old versions.
> No one may WANT to "under maintain thier system", but since they now
> have requested help, it is an opportunity to make sure they have the
> proper tools to avoid it, is it not?
<snipped>

Tom wrote:
> I think you make a good point, but what I get from Ian's posts, is
> Bobby's conscending attitude about how others should just about know
> what he knows. Though you stress almost the same points as Bobby, you
> point out the issues without noting "if you are lazy ", or "you
> wouldn't have a clue to fixing", etc. Bobby knows what he's talking
> about (sometimes), but he is rough when he replies, and it shows when
> others reply to him.

True. We all have our "blunt" moments - some have more than others.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.
March 20, 2005 9:42:04 PM

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

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvcewcZLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ian Hoare wrote:
> <snip>
>> If around 1.8 millon people HAVE contacted Microsoft, (presumably in
>> just the USA) that demonstrates some serious problems. No one
>> WANTS to under maintain their system, you know. Windows XP has
>> been deliberately marketed as being self maintaining, self
>> diagnosing, and perfect for those who AREN'T very computer
>> literate. So don't criticise someone who isn't and who chooses XP.
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> I cannot say I agree that it has been marketed (completely) in such
>> a way. It is better at self-maintenance than most other Operating
>> Systems - out of the box. There are many cars that don't need oil
>> changes as often as others.. Air compressors that do not require
>> lubrication.. Easy to clean flooring materials.. Self-cleaning
>> ovens.. But all of these objects require some knowledge to utilize
>> and maintain. I do not think it is too much to expect the same
>> thing from your computer.
>> I have little sympathy for those who do not bother to learn to
>> properly maintain/use something they own. Empathy for not
>> understanding they need to learn.. maybe. Windows is more
>> self-maintaining and better for those not computer literate than
>> Linux, BeOS, etc.. It may NOT be more so than OS X, but in as far
>> as applications and mass market appeal - Windows XP does have the
>> bear's share.
>> It's not a fault of an OS that people install (or allow to be
>> installed) malware. It is not the fault of an OS that some hardware
>> manufacturers decide not to support their hardware beyond a given
>> point and leave those who own said hardware out in the cold. There
>> is no substitute for learning to use the equipment you have before
>> it goes south on you.
>> I will not say that SP2 did not cause issues - I will venture to say
>> most of those issues boiled down to some underlying problem that
>> existed before SP2 - but SP2 uncovered on the system OR with the
>> support (lack of) given by hardware/software manufacturers whose
>> product was installed on machines and then caused issues. The
>> number of manufacturers who did not come out with patches for 3
>> months after SP2 was officially released (although the beta existed
>> for months before that) or those who did not update drivers to allow
>> full functionality in Windows XP SP2 (instead pushing their new
>> products, as they would if a new OS was released) is quite high in
>> relative terms. They make more selling new products/revisions than
>> giving away patches to maintain old versions.
>> No one may WANT to "under maintain thier system", but since they now
>> have requested help, it is an opportunity to make sure they have the
>> proper tools to avoid it, is it not?
> <snipped>
>
> Tom wrote:
>> I think you make a good point, but what I get from Ian's posts, is
>> Bobby's conscending attitude about how others should just about know
>> what he knows. Though you stress almost the same points as Bobby, you
>> point out the issues without noting "if you are lazy ", or "you
>> wouldn't have a clue to fixing", etc. Bobby knows what he's talking
>> about (sometimes), but he is rough when he replies, and it shows when
>> others reply to him.
>
> True. We all have our "blunt" moments - some have more than others.
>

Yes, I have that too, but not right off to be a dick about it. Bobby is a
constant when it comes to disrespectful replies; he and MPT are co-virtuals
in these forums.
March 22, 2005 2:18:35 PM

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

I run belarc advisor and lists updates for SP3?
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 2:18:36 PM

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

Hi,

Any critical update released after SP2 will indicate that, as they will
likely be included in SP3 - whenever that occurs. Same thing was true of
updates released after SP1 and prior to SP2.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"norm" <donotreply@here.com> wrote in message
news:423ee529.5279491@news.freeserve.com...
>I run belarc advisor and lists updates for SP3?
March 23, 2005 2:54:36 PM

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

Thanks,

>Hi,
>
>Any critical update released after SP2 will indicate that, as they will
>likely be included in SP3 - whenever that occurs. Same thing was true of
>updates released after SP1 and prior to SP2.
>
>--
>Best of Luck,
>
>Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
>"norm" <donotreply@here.com> wrote in message
>news:423ee529.5279491@news.freeserve.com...
>>I run belarc advisor and lists updates for SP3?
>
>
!