should service pack 3 be installed?
in [Windows XP]
|
Prev: slow
Next: IE8 works, but Firefox, Opera etc. do not
From: SPAMCOP User on 6 Dec 2009 05:41 Yes, it should be installed but if you have a low-end spec machine then you will notice degradation with the machine's performance. In that situation I wouldn't install it, but if your machine can handle it easily then I suggest you do it with the number of security updates afterwards Example: I go on-site to many places which cannot afford new equipment & are running Pentium IV machines with under 1Gb RAM. In this case SP3 is a big no-no. Then again, if you're PA Bear you install it on every machine in the world & live with the consequences -- SPAMCOP User <aaronep(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:c84f74de-73b6-40cb-b20a-3ee35d902d8f(a)b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > about a year ago when service pack 3 for Windows XP was released, > there was some controversy about it, in that it caused problems. > > > Now that a year has passed, are there still reasons NOT to install > SP 3, but to remain on using only SP 2? > > best, Aaron
From: C on 6 Dec 2009 06:01 SPAMCOP User wrote: > Yes, it should be installed but if you have a low-end spec machine then > you will notice degradation with the machine's performance. In that > situation I wouldn't install it, but if your machine can handle it > easily then I suggest you do it with the number of security updates > afterwards > > Example: > > I go on-site to many places which cannot afford new equipment & are > running Pentium IV machines with under 1Gb RAM. In this case SP3 is a > big no-no. Then again, if you're PA Bear you install it on every machine > in the world & live with the consequences > I have it installed on an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ with only 512MB of PC266 RAM and it works just fine. Another half a gig of RAM would be nice but it's quite usable without it. Maybe you're thinking of Vista. C
From: SPAMCOP User on 6 Dec 2009 09:05 Hi C, Since when has SP3 been out for Vista? You are confused I think I look after 600 networks around the country. Most are using XP, some still have the odd 2000 being replaced, some have Vista and all have 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Some of these workstations are Dell GX520's GX260's even the Optiplex 755 struggle these days. None of those would I think of putting SP3 on My example was based on slow machines like those listed above What if you have an HP Compaq DC5800 that comes with SP2? Some machines which I have upgraded to SP3 have had a fatal error on reboot asking me to re-install the OS. At that point I flatten them & use MVL XP with SP3 media instead Remember that XP steals around 400Mb of memory just loading then if you have MS Office on top of that you are already out of memory. If you then install ..NET Framework 2 it has a garbage collector that runs for a while too hogging vital resourses. All of which has now given you -600Mb + memory -- SPAMCOP User "C" <nospamming(a)please.com.invalid> wrote in message news:hfg2t6$o9r$1(a)aioe.org... > SPAMCOP User wrote: >> Yes, it should be installed but if you have a low-end spec machine then >> you will notice degradation with the machine's performance. In that >> situation I wouldn't install it, but if your machine can handle it easily >> then I suggest you do it with the number of security updates afterwards >> >> Example: >> >> I go on-site to many places which cannot afford new equipment & are >> running Pentium IV machines with under 1Gb RAM. In this case SP3 is a big >> no-no. Then again, if you're PA Bear you install it on every machine in >> the world & live with the consequences >> > > I have it installed on an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ with only 512MB of PC266 RAM > and it works just fine. Another half a gig of RAM would be nice but it's > quite usable without it. Maybe you're thinking of Vista. > > C
From: C on 6 Dec 2009 09:18 SPAMCOP User wrote: > Hi C, > > Since when has SP3 been out for Vista? You are confused I think Not really but you sure are. > > I look after 600 networks around the country. Most are using XP, some > still have the odd 2000 being replaced, some have Vista and all have > 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Some of these workstations are Dell GX520's > GX260's even the Optiplex 755 struggle these days. None of those would I > think of putting SP3 on > > My example was based on slow machines like those listed above > > What if you have an HP Compaq DC5800 that comes with SP2? Some machines > which I have upgraded to SP3 have had a fatal error on reboot asking me > to re-install the OS. At that point I flatten them & use MVL XP with SP3 > media instead > > Remember that XP steals around 400Mb of memory just loading then if you > have MS Office on top of that you are already out of memory. If you then > install .NET Framework 2 it has a garbage collector that runs for a > while too hogging vital resourses. All of which has now given you -600Mb > + memory I have even installed XP with SP3 on an AMD Athlon 800 Mhz with 256 MB PC-100 RAM, a 32 MB nVidia graphics card and an old 5400 30GB IDE hard drive. It ran very slowly but it ran. When I upped it to 512MB RAM, it ran decently and was quite usable. I expect your expectations are a bit on the high side. C
From: Ken Blake, MVP on 6 Dec 2009 10:00
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:17:58 -0800 (PST), "aaronep(a)pacbell.net" <aaronep(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > about a year ago when service pack 3 for Windows XP was released, > there was some controversy about it, in that it caused problems. > > > Now that a year has passed, are there still reasons NOT to install > SP 3, but to remain on using only SP 2? In my view there were never any good reasons not to install it. I would certainly not put it off any longer. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |