Do i need SP2?

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?
20 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. 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.mspx

    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&x=18&y=6&c1=509&gprid=6794&

    Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2chngs.mspx

    --
    Rock
    MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Yes
  3. 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?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  5. 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
  6. 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!
  7. 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
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    SP3 should be out shortly.
    L
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Lua wrote:
    > SP3 should be out shortly.
    > L


    What's your source for this information?

    --

    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
  10. 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
  11. 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?
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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:Oe5G4qksFHA.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
    >
    >
  19. 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
  20. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Western Digital Windows XP