XP service pack 3??
- Thread starter tinar
- Start date
G
Garrovick
Guest
I tried the Beta version..
99 percent of pack 3 is simply all of the updates packed into one download.
Basicaly it's transparent to the user.
Anyone who had a probelm with one of the updated in the past should be careful.
Other wise, go for it, I haven't had any major problems.
Some reports of having to upgrade to IE7 though.
99 percent of pack 3 is simply all of the updates packed into one download.
Basicaly it's transparent to the user.
Anyone who had a probelm with one of the updated in the past should be careful.
Other wise, go for it, I haven't had any major problems.
Some reports of having to upgrade to IE7 though.
A
Amaris
Guest
Installed SP3 weeks ago. Everything's continued without a hitch.
I love XP.
J.
I love XP.
J.
No it doesn't -- sadly. XP SP3 *should* have included IE7, WMP11, .NET 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 frameworks along with all the other updates but they didn't which is a shame.
G
Garrovick
Guest
That would make the pack too large and bulky for it's main pupose. Those other programs are readily available for download anyway.
Mine started nagging me as soon as I logged in, but I won't be deploying it on my home machine until it's been given a run out on the test box at work. No major hidden surprises though from what I've heard, so I'll likely be bringing it home on a memory stick and installing it pretty soon (but without IE7 - that's caused me nothing but grief wherever it's been put on at work, and I don't need the thing anyway....).
GM
GM
Given the size of Microsoft Service Packs these days I'm not sure that would of made much difference.
To those using SP3 for XP, have you noticed any performance improvements?
Some of the reviews and articles during the Beta stage said there were noticeable performance improvements, unlike Vista SP1 hence Microsoft keeping SP3 on the QT.
ok so does it or does it not?
I don't want IE 7.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes. I've noticed some speed improvement, but more importantly, I've noticed better memory efficiency. My resources are lighter and not as bogged down with SP3.
As of last update, no, it does not. However, it will install via automatic updates. I disable automatic downloads and get notifications instead. That way I can check and uncheck updates I want. I always uncheck IE 7.
Why would we want to upgrade software we do not use? I'm talking for myself here but I don't care about WMP11, and little about IE7 (I'm doing web development so I will need it for test purposes). As for .NET runtimes, I think they are included. They're only runtimes and sooner or later, we'll need them.
SP3 is meant to update your core system and the more they put in it, the more they have to test, the longer the delay. And it's been quite long enough IMO.
I think that it's recommended you reinstall XP with SP 3 slipstreamed into it.
That way there are less problems and the performance/speed of the PC is better in comparison to when you upgrade from an existing SP 2.
At least that's what I'm gonna do on my laptop (which I think could use a re-installation as the current XP SP2 on it is almost 2 years old - for the most part I don't think it's essential as it runs decently with good care and all ... still a clean re-install sounds like a good idea anyway).
And yes, to my knowlege, the SP3 mainly contains things released up until now and very little in new innovations.
If anything MS could have invested a bit more time so they could really shake up XP with the latest SP ... still, this will do.
That way there are less problems and the performance/speed of the PC is better in comparison to when you upgrade from an existing SP 2.
At least that's what I'm gonna do on my laptop (which I think could use a re-installation as the current XP SP2 on it is almost 2 years old - for the most part I don't think it's essential as it runs decently with good care and all ... still a clean re-install sounds like a good idea anyway).
And yes, to my knowlege, the SP3 mainly contains things released up until now and very little in new innovations.
If anything MS could have invested a bit more time so they could really shake up XP with the latest SP ... still, this will do.
WMP is no great loss nor is IE7 which is about as successful as Vista in take up (hence MS starting to force it) but as applications become dependent on the .net shit it maybe advantagous for the the users to have them in place already.
Installed on my work laptop this morning - got a shiny new terminal services client - which works a bit quicker.
Apart from that no problems at all so far - I keep as up to date as possible anyhow, don't want a security flaw allowing someone into my work laptop when I have domain admin!
Apart from that no problems at all so far - I keep as up to date as possible anyhow, don't want a security flaw allowing someone into my work laptop when I have domain admin!
Yeah MS gave a new TS client with Vista SP1 and it's a definitely improvement on the old and I like the way it places so nicely with Server 2008 (which I guess was their aim given that for security reasons some earlier versions are prevented from connecting).
Any particular reason why you support IE? IE has always been a problematic TURD for every incarnation of Windows.
IE7 is not so bad - tabbed browsing, quite speedy etc etc - I still prefer Firefox but at least we have good browsers to choose from now - Opera isn't bad either.
Firefox has had tabbed browsing since 2001, and ever since then I've never thought about returning to IE. I always find the IE frustrations amusing to read about.
Similar threads
