Sp1 Vs. Sp2

[Sputzy]

Just installed Windows SP1 onto my computer and was about to download SP2, but ran into people who said that it is not really all that better, and that sometimes it even slows down your pc...

Just wanted to know it this is a load of crap, if i should stick with Sp1, or if i should go to Sp2

[classicsoftware]

Please don't take this personally, not you, but the people you have been talking to do not know the difference between an a-hole and a Doughnut hole.:eek:

SUPPORT: Microsoft will cease support for Windows XP SP1 on October 10, 2006. There will be no updates of any kind for this OS. No security updates, no e-mail support, nothing.

SECURITY: SP2 is much safer than SP1. There is no question you are much more likely to get spyware or viruses if you are running SP1.

So please if these are your friends, humor them, if they are people who you depend on for up to date technology information, you need better sources.

[123456]

SP2 is much better. Actually, I feel like it's a new OS...

Which reminds me to upgrade this PC to SP2 sometime...

[Budfred]

If you are running WinXP and you are not running SP2, you are part of the problem... If your comment was serious 123456, I hope you updated right after you posted that...

[Sputzy]

well... i'm trying to make u guys my source cuz u guys r geniuses, but i was just surfing around google to see what other people had to say

-thnx

[Erik]

I think that most of those who bash SP2 are doing do because it won't work with their pirated Windows installs.

I have had no major issues with SP2, and I have had it and played with it since it was in Beta. The only real issues were when it first came out it might have caused some minor conflicts, which have long since been fixed. There is no real reason not to be fully up to date with all patches and SPs. That is unless you like having a PC with virus and spyware problems and no support to get them fixed.

[jlreich]

I agree you need to get SP2. You are at risk if you don't.

The only problems with it, as Erik alluded to, is if the machine is infected prior to installing SP2 it can cause problems. Just make sure your computer is clean before you attempt installation.

It's been out for a couple years now. They have long since worked out any bugs that were around in the beginning. The only bug left is windows itself. :rolleyes:

[scorpie]

late post here,

Well guys im sure your all much more advanced users than i am, and you may think me a bit coo-coo but here it is, i've used sp1 and sp2 and i can tell you there is a noticable difference is smoothness and speed in sp1 vs sp2. As to the holes in windows, lol hasent all mircosoft os's had holes in them and im sure they will continue to do so seeing that there is attackers out there always looking for a way to hose up your os. I use a third party firewall and spam blocker on sp1 and do not have any more problems than i have had on sp2. The bigest thing for avoiding malware is avoid sites that are trash, if you look up/download porn or "junk" as i call it your gonna have problems no matter what you do.
It's interesting to note that from win95 to vista each os became larger, requiring more resources and gave you less control over its settings than the previous os. I wonder if the software side of the computer industry is not fueling the hardware side, laugh if you will but i know its a legitimate question.
:) Anyhow did'nt mean to write a book here but my experience tells me SP2 is slower than SP1.

[SufferWell1396]

Scorpie, this thread is over a year old...
Please to leech off old threads, start a new one.

Everyone with the right mind so far has upgraded to SP2
SP3 is even in development now, they dropped support for SP1 a year ago
SP2 is much more stable, also.

[mjc]

The bigest thing for avoiding malware is avoid sites that are trash, if you look up/download porn or "junk" as i call it your gonna have problems no matter what you do.


That is one of the biggest fallacies around.

There have been many cases where 'malevolent' ads have been served up by everyday, run of the mill, common sites...

[scorpie]

so sorry guys, i figured since the thread was still OPEN you could still post on it. and as far as leeching is concerned, thats funny i saw a topic and had something to say about it, not sure but next time you will probably accuse me of plagiarism.

sinserely,
scorpie

[SufferWell1396]

when we here at the forums use the word "leeching" we mean that you are posting on an incredibly old thread with a new subject/question/oppinion.

[Budfred]

when we here at the forums use the word "leeching" we mean that you are posting on an incredibly old thread with a new subject/question/oppinion.Who is the "we" you speak of?? The only member I can see using that term to refer to people who add to an old thread is you... Given that it is a rather offensive way of addressing it, I suggest you remove yourself from that list as well... Given the nature of this thread, I don't see that there is a need to start a new thread...

In reference to the question... Running without SP2 is just a bad idea... The only reason that any vaguely reasonable person might do that is that he/she is running bootleg WinXP and that is even more of a bad idea than running without SP2...

[PrntRhd]

SP2 is much better at stopping some of the worm infections vs SP1.

scorpie,
We leave the threads open on the forums, since it is sometimes hard to decide when a thread is completed.
The best rule of thumb is: don't post comments unless directed at helping the original poster, and simply look at the age of the thread. If it is older than 6 weeks, the original poster usually has either fixed it with our advice or fixed it using alternative methods.

[saphalline]

i've used sp1 and sp2 and i can tell you there is a noticable difference is smoothness and speed in sp1 vs sp2.Dude, what kind of hardware are you using!? :eek: Unless it's an old PII system on which WinXP would be slow either way, I haven't noticed a raw OS performance difference between SP0 or SP1 or SP2. And let me tell you, I see a lot of hardware! ;)

I wonder if the software side of the computer industry is not fueling the hardware sideWell... yeah! They fuel each other. Software developers are constantly playing catch-up with the latest instruction sets and cache improvements and massive memory resources, and the hardware engineers are constantly trying to design ways to "hide" the physical limitations of what you can do with microprocessors. They have to work together and challenge each other and fuel each other in order to make computers work at all! It's silly to think OS/software footprints (in terms of hardware resource usage models) will stay static at all times! Why would you ever upgrade anything if that were true? How would the software developers and hardware engineers alike get paid?


By the way, if you check the member profile of the original poster, you'll see that he/she hasn't visited the forums since the last post in 2006! I'd say they've moved on...