Those problems don't seem to be major. I've installed SP1 on my system and it seems to run fine. The main reason I installed SP1 is because Microsoft has supposedly completely revised the security of the OS. Hopefully, SP1 is less holey than WinXP Gold. Besides, in about a month, the version of WinXP you get off the shelf WILL be WinXP SP1.
Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
Notice though the informational document was assembled by Microsoft to identify those known issues and it also offers ways to handle the issue if it happens to you. I've been testing SP1 for months, and only heard of three of all those issues listed actually happening, MS was simply being extensive in listing all the things that have happened and were able to recreate on the same setup. If you were to see a list of known issues for Win2k, etc., it would be quite extensive as well. Overall what I'm trying to demonstrate is all new software and their patches have these lists and how to's.
Yeah, but why should I get SP1?
I already have enough bugs with XP already.
I mean whats the point of including more bugs, I have done beta testing myself before and I wont do it again mainly because I am sick of fixing issues with these things and looking for work arounds, crikey I dont get paid by M$ so why should I do it. I will wait until they are sorted out thankyou, and I will let you boys do all the work and tell us what not to do :wink:
Maybe I'm being a dumbass, but why not install it? Doesn't it at least provide all the critical updates? That alone is worth the install for me so that I can install SP1 instead of downloading them all on dialup before I ghost my new setup.
What is on that list that makes SP1 so bad?
<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
Do you actually want or <i>need</i> all the so-called critical updates? And if you install them, does that mean the system will be error-free?
For example, I recall installing a pre-SP1 cumulative security update for Internet Explorer a couple of months ago that caused the monitor to go into sleep mode at the point when the system was about to restart and/or shutdown. That particular update is something I'd rather avoid in the future.
Right at this moment, there are 271 pre-SP1 hotfixes. These will be included with the service pack, in addition to the other updates that come with SP1.
I have 38 of those pre-SP1 hotfixes installed. That's it. Nothing else was needed to achieve system stability.
Right now, my system is working flawlessly, and as such, I fail to see the point of adding hundreds of additional hotfixes to an OS that is already working well, and has been for many months.
I am capable of sifting through the hotfixes at a later date to look for files needed to enhance security.
But as Mr. Miller says, that's just my opinion (and my personal preference) so I could be wrong. It's your decision in the long run anyway.
Or they just can't handle the code with the few people they have working on it.
Sure they hire the best of the best, but when some 13-year-old can reverse engineer everything that you've spent the past 18 months developing, are they really the best of the best?
In the end, 10,000,000 college kids earning their EE degrees worldwide, hacking out source code in at least 20 different spoken languages, will find/fix bugs long before your crack tiger team of 5000 compsci geeks can even find them.
But then, it's also in msft's best interest to have updates available for their computer as people absolutely have to upgrade to the new system (that is conviently completely incompatible with every prior version). They have access to the msdos source, and they still cannot make XP compatible with msdos programs? Yet, some nappy-haired-unix-guru can hack out some code and make it run Diablo2 with full sound?
This thread is, like, screaming out for some photoshopped images...