Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do i need SP2?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:53:17 PM

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

I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD ide
drive.

I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says otherwise.
With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
bottlenecking this system.

Thoughts?

More about : sp2

September 4, 2005 9:26:28 PM

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

GotBonus? wrote:

> I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
> AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
> 9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD ide
> drive.
>
> I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
> people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says otherwise.
> With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
> speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
> I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
> bottlenecking this system.
>
> Thoughts?

With a properly running system you shouldn't see much if any speed
change between sp1 and sp2. However there were many improvements with
SP2. Much of the code was rewritten for SP2 to remove the buffer
overflow problems. For the majority of people SP2 works fine and offers
increased security. The major reason for problems post SP2 is not
having a properly prepared system, ie malware is present when the update
is run or the presence of system problems that carry over and get
magnified. Another reason is software that won't run on SP2 which is
really the responsibility of the vendor to port it. IMO you should run SP2.

Installing Service Packs
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

Pre-Install, Install, Cleaning Up Afterwards
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

What to Know Before You Download and Install Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sp2_whattoknow.m...

Get the Latest Updates and Information from Your PC Manufacturer Before
Installing Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/oemlinks.mspx

The hard disk space requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=837783

Free Technical Support for SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=en-us&...

Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/m...

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:36:01 PM

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

Yes
Related resources
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:17:16 AM

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

SP2 is a good thing and will not slow your system down.. for more info and
how to install it, go to this website..

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm



--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"GotBonus?" <GotBonus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZNLSe.1680$Zp.373@lakeread04...
>
>
> I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
> AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
> 9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD
> ide
> drive.
>
> I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
> people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says
> otherwise.
> With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
> speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
> I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
> bottlenecking this system.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
September 5, 2005 4:20:06 AM

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

"GotBonus?" <GotBonus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZNLSe.1680$Zp.373@lakeread04...
>
>
> I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
> AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
> 9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD
> ide
> drive.
>
> I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
> people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says
> otherwise.
> With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
> speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
> I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
> bottlenecking this system.
>
> Thoughts?
SP2 fixed lots of security holes. You need to look elsewhere for your
bottleneck problem.
As for trouble with SP2, only people who have trouble are motivated to post
messages.
Mine, my daughter's, and my son's computers are working flawlessly with SP2.
These are separate upgrades (each of us did our own computer).
Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
September 5, 2005 5:39:55 AM

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:53:17 -0700, "GotBonus?" <GotBonus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
>AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
>9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD ide
>drive.
>
>I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
>people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says otherwise.
>With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
>speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
>I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
>bottlenecking this system.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
If its slow without SP2 it will get slower not faster but SP2 amongst
other things fixes numerous bugs which could be the problem especially
if you have apps optimised for SP2 on a machine running SP1.

SP2 fixes many security issues and has a lot of great features like
Active X control, which in conjunction with MS Antispyware and a good
firewall / AV solution (Not Norton 8-) lol) its a vast step forward
security wise.

Its generally a good thing but it can cause problems with some
applications. I had problems with 1 PC out of 20 or so. After
installation I disabled the irritating security center which IMO is
unecessary for competent users and I suspect the main cause of the
slight but noticeable slow down, oh yeah and the still useless windows
firewall is enabled by default which causes mayhem until you disable
it. The windows firewall only checks incoming not outgoing connections
which is why it is useless and I disable and use a proper firewall
however its better than nothing.

I suggest you do a full OS Partition Drive image first, I use Acronis
or Ghost 2003 for imaging, not Ghost 2005 it uses .NET and is asking
for trouble. Restore back to SP1 via the partition drive image if you
have to. This is more thorough than any other method of backup as it
rewrites your OS partition to its exact original state. Don't forget a
bootable CD / floppy for your backup image just in case.

Then install SP2 and see what happens. The only problem I have which
is directly SP2 related is on one machine where the Fax & Scanner
wizard went missing entirely. I have no idea why this happened and TBO
its not missed so I am not bothered however this problem is not
uncommon with SP2 and there are plenty of fixes out there if it goes
wrong on you.

SP2 is probably the most valueble freebie MS has ever issued, try it
but take precautions first.

Jonah
September 5, 2005 6:36:44 AM

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

"GotBonus?" <GotBonus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZNLSe.1680$Zp.373@lakeread04...
>
>
> I am running XP pro with all updates EXCEPT SP2.
> AMD 64 2800 MSI K7N neo Platinum with a Gig of ram (2 x 512)and a 256meg
> 9600XT. WD 80 gig sata unpartitioned (primary boot disk) and an old WD
> ide
> drive.
>
> I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
> people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says
> otherwise.
> With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
> speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
> I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
> bottlenecking this system.
>
> Thoughts?


The first 2 times I installed SP2 I had to format and reload just to
get the computer to start. That obviously turned me off of it for awhile.
But, in honesty, I recently did a reload and decided to go ahead and try to
get it again before I put anything else on the machine. This time it
actually worked. Other than the initial shock at the installation, which
seemed to go better working with a clean install, I notice no performance
decrease in the system with SP2. Now I'm just afraid to get any more
updates for fear of screwing it up!
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:41:35 PM

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

GotBonus? wrote:

>
> I have fallen victim to the "SP2 is bad" syndrome, I know of a number of
> people who have had some major issues, yet I hear SOME other says otherwise.
> With the system listed above I have had some issues with items like
> speed..apps just don't open up as quickly as expected
> I have come to the conclusion that PERHAPS the lack sp2 might be
> bottlenecking this system.
>


My experience supporting hundreds of computers is just the opposite.
I've "heard" of a very small number of people having problems with SP2 -
mostly via these newsgroups -- but have *never* actually seen SP2 cause
any problems in real life.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:32:47 PM

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

SP3 should be out shortly.
L
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:32:48 PM

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

Lua

Can you see any bad weather on it's way for Eastern Ontario in that crystal
ball of yours?.. are we to get a really bad winter?.. another ice storm
perhaps?..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Lua" <lua@nospam.com> wrote in message news:431c6339_3@x-privat.org...
> SP3 should be out shortly.
> L
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:27:48 PM

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

Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Lua
>
> Can you see any bad weather on it's way for Eastern Ontario in that crystal
> ball of yours?.. are we to get a really bad winter?.. another ice storm
> perhaps?..

WOT?
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:33:05 PM

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

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Lua wrote:
>
>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>> L
>
>
>
> What's your source for this information?


Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
like before SP2 was released.
Lua
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:33:06 PM

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

Where did you see a Beta version? I sure haven't. Got a link to post to see
it?
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP - (IE/OE)
~IB-CA~

"Lua" <lua@nospam.com> wrote in message news:431c8d7a_3@x-privat.org...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Lua wrote:
>>
>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>> L
>>
>>
>>
>> What's your source for this information?
>
>
> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
> like before SP2 was released.
> Lua
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:33:06 PM

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

Lua wrote:

>
>
> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
> like before SP2 was released.
> Lua


You might have come across something that claimed to be a beta for SP3,
but I'll lay any odds you like that it didn't come from any where near
Microsoft.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
September 5, 2005 11:33:06 PM

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

Lua wrote:

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Lua wrote:
>>
>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>> L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What's your source for this information?
>
>
>
> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
> like before SP2 was released.
> Lua

What beta versions? Any patches post sp2 are labeled sp3 for later
inclusion if an sp3 comes out but that doesn't mean they are a beta for
sp3.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:34:07 PM

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

Lua wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Lua wrote:
>>
>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>> L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What's your source for this information?
>
>
>
> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
> like before SP2 was released.
> Lua


Forgot to add - notice I said "should" and not "will" in my OP.
Lua
September 6, 2005 12:50:42 AM

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

Why is my troll meter burying its needle?

Alias

"Lua" <lua@nospam.com> wrote

> Lua wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> Lua wrote:
>>>
>>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>>> L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your source for this information?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
>> like before SP2 was released.
>> Lua
>
>
> Forgot to add - notice I said "should" and not "will" in my OP.
> Lua
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:50:43 AM

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

Only update I've seen with a "3" i the title has to do with office, not
windows.

"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:o e5G4qksFHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Why is my troll meter burying its needle?
>
> Alias
>
> "Lua" <lua@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> Lua wrote:
>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lua wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>>>> L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's your source for this information?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently, just
>>> like before SP2 was released.
>>> Lua
>>
>>
>> Forgot to add - notice I said "should" and not "will" in my OP.
>> Lua
>
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 1:22:01 AM

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

Rock wrote:
> Lua wrote:
>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> Lua wrote:
>>>
>>>> SP3 should be out shortly.
>>>> L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your source for this information?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently,
>> just like before SP2 was released.
>> Lua
>
>
> What beta versions? Any patches post sp2 are labeled sp3 for later
> inclusion if an sp3 comes out but that doesn't mean they are a beta for
> sp3.

Maybe it's 'coz I've had a few glasses of the good stuff, but WOT?
L
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 1:23:03 AM

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

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Lua wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Just a hunch, as I've seen plenty of beta versions of it recently,
>> just like before SP2 was released.
>> Lua
>
>
>
> You might have come across something that claimed to be a beta for
> SP3, but I'll lay any odds you like that it didn't come from any where
> near Microsoft.

You could be right, but what odds are you laying?
L
!