Is WinXP Sp3 update necessary?

[Shenan Stanley]

Shenan Stanley wrote:

- Whom told you that SP3 was for improved security?

<snipped>

It's "Who told you....?"

WHOM would be used for "You told whom...?" or "Whom did you
tell...?"

Randall Flagg is correct. The mistake was mine.

For those who would like further information on the proper usage of
who/whom, I refer you to:
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/whowhom.html


You know what they say...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/The_More_You_Know.jpg

 

[db]

sure. glad to help.

as you can see, people
will implore you to install
this and that, but fail
short in everything else.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8e254e7a092/cf5aa69beffbcc72#cf5aa69beffbcc72
(Archived Indefinitely - entire conversation)

sure. glad to help.

as you can see, people
will implore you to install
this and that, but fail
short in everything else.

Or they can present the facts and let the person decide on their own.

In the end - if anyone responding actually cares whether or not the original
poster installs Windows XP SP3 - they know them personally or are just an
extremely sensitive/caring person (they probably exist - I've seen them made
fun of on TV and in movies. *grin*)

 

[db]

directly from microsoft:

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Overview

Brief Description

Windows® XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released updates for the operating system. This update also includes a
small number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change customers' experience with the operating system.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[BillW50]

In db typed on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:12:38 -0500:

directly from microsoft:

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Overview

Brief Description

Windows® XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released
updates for the operating system. This update also includes a small
number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change
customers' experience with the operating system.

Which begs the question, why bother?

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[db]

true.

the only reason I would
suggest sp3 is when the
computer user needs the
remote assistance feature
or requires connectivity
between computers via
networking.

sp3 resolves the issues
that sp2 has with the above.

further if I do recommend sp3
I will make sure people the
points below:

point 1: the issue of the sp2
cd becoming incompatible

point 2: the option to use add/
remove programs to uninstall
sp3 is available

point 3: the need to make a
slipstream of sp3.

point 4: uninstall the av's
before updating to sp3.

point 5: some third party
programs are hard coded
for sp2 only.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8e254e7a092/cf5aa69beffbcc72#cf5aa69beffbcc72
(Archived Indefinitely - entire conversation)

sure. glad to help.

as you can see, people
will implore you to install
this and that, but fail
short in everything else.

Or they can present the facts and let the person decide on their
own.
In the end - if anyone responding actually cares whether or not the
original poster installs Windows XP SP3 - they know them personally
or are just an extremely sensitive/caring person (they probably
exist - I've seen them made fun of on TV and in movies. *grin*)

directly from microsoft:

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Overview

Brief Description

Windows® XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released
updates for the operating system. This update also includes a small
number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change
customers' experience with the operating system.

If you want to just anwer the direct question (subject line):

- *NOTHING* is ever necessary. So WinXP SP3 falls under that umbrella.


If you want a little more information and be able to make an informed
decision whether or not you should install SP3...

- 1179 updates (post-SP2 updates) were included in Windows XP SP3. I would
venture to say less than 150 updates were released to the general public
between SP2 and SP3. That leaves over 1000 updates a system with only SP2
and post-SP2 updates doesn't have.

- In the near future, Windows XP machines that do not have Windows XP SP3
installed will be unable to download further updates (the updates will
require SP3 to be installed.) Whether these updates will be 'critical' - no
one can say.

- The offer of free support from Microsoft with problems/concerns installing
Windows XP SP3 ends very soon. If you want free technical help when
installing it/right after installing it - you need to get on it now. I
believe the free support offer ends in April 2009.


Essentially - it boils down to a decision each person has to make. If they
are satisfied making that decision of the fact that SP3 does not
significantly change the customers' experience line - fine. Makes no
difference in my life.

Personally - I think whom ever wrote that part you quoted failed.

I would say the lack of supported updates will change the customer
experience significantly if said updates turn out to be critical in nature
and cause trouble in the future. Reguardless of whether the updates end up
being critical or not - there will be people months or years down the line
asking how to install Windows XP SP3 because they didn't do it now and they
haven't got updates in XX months or they need SP3 to install some software
they want to use (just like still happens today with software needing SP2.)

Again - it boils down to personal decision and living with it.


Do you actually *care* whether or not anyone (at all) installs Windows XP
SP3?

For me - then answer is "only if I might become involved with their computer
support now/later".

 

[Roy]

sure. glad to help.

as you can see, people
will implore you to install
this and that, but fail
short in everything else.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
 - Systems Analyst
 - Database Developer
 - Accountancy
 - Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~









- Show quoted text -

You are the one of the sensible fella that answered to my post sans
the tedious discourse..Keep it up, SIMPLICITY is the keyword here!
BTW
I hope I can still hear other negative experience of SP3 installation
as I will then balance it if its worth the time to undergo the complex
process of preparation for the installation of that Microsoft vaunted
SP3.
Supposing by 2010 the support for Sp2 is stopped maybe that time
Window7 is ready then?
Cheers!

 

[Roy]

InDaave typed on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:22:13 -0400:

[...] Problem #2: The installation can fail if there are devices
connected to the PC. Therefore, it is best to disconnect all
perpipheral devices (e.g., USB external hard drives, printers, etc.)
and configure a Clean Boot environment (because certain anti-malware
programs that run in the background can interfere with the upgrade).
See:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353
Make sure to download the standalone SP3 installer like Shenan
advised! (Or make your own SP3 CD from the .iso file available.)

Sounds like it is best to install SP3 in Safe Mode, if it will let
you. Or maybe that isn't a good idea since you won't see much of your
system and guess wrong when it installs files.

You snipped away my recommendation to configure a clean boot and then
install SP3. But others have successfully installed it in Safe Mode.
Since I haven't done so, I don't personally recommend it, but still it's
better than installing with McAfee running!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm, thats another informative point taken, thanks!

 

[Roy]

InRoy typed on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:08:04 -0700 (PDT):



I haven't installed SP3 on any of my computers because I still remember
the horrors of installing SP2. Not a single one went well for me. And
performance went down the tubes. And only a total slipstreamed XP with
SP2 in a complete reinstall worked for all of my computers. What a PIA!
If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't. Period! There is much to
be said about not fixing something that isn't broken. ;-)

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

That is also my concern Bill, at least you said about it...Thanks for
that! And that is one reason to be careful with installing any more
updates and so called patches if its not necessary....

 

[Roy]

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/bro...
(Archived Indefinitely - entire conversation)

















The proper maintenance of your computer should not be something you do just
because of an update, it is a continuous thing.  Lack of it was the reason
some had trouble installing Windows XP SP3; although in a few cases, it was
something someone else (like HP) had done long before the end-user had a
chance to do anything.

With common sense and a little knowledge - I'd dare say you do not need
antimalware software or even antivirus software.  A firewall and perhaps NAT
protection followed by using common sense and maintaining a basic level of
knowledge so you don't do the dense things that get you infested/infected..
I still _recommend_ people use antivirus software, because anyone could have
a moment of weakness or foolishness.

Really? you should be a candidate for a major Windoze prize I for
insisting that you don't need any antimalware for their operating
system?

I presume
Antimalware companies if they take your word seriously et all would
like to hear you hear roll< LOL> for insisting and possibly
campaigning that antimalwares are superflous?
BTW
I don't see that the multitude of computer users will took pains on
following what you do to confirm if it really works. I was also
thinking why you said about absolutely no antimalware that is you
seldom connect to the internet and if you surf you are extra careful
about the sites you visit.

I presume you are doing the same painstaking care even when examining

The download size range (one more time) presented to you by the automatic
updates and/or windowsupdate.microsoft.com web page is because from thereit
will scan your computer and only _download and install_ what you need.  If
you download the full executable - it is *one* size: 316.4 MB.  It doesthe
scanning and only _installs_ what you need.

That is the point,if supposing what I need is not the whole package
then I should have the right to instal what is lacking so the Complete
installation does not sounds good to me as it might **** up my stable
system.

I want to know the other people experience with complete installation
by ISO or by just windows update..

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Network Installation Package for
IT Professionals and Developers (works just as well for you.)http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B33B5A8-5E7...

That link does not work for me

You seem to not have the gumption to install Windows XP SP3.  Nothing anyone
here can say will give you the courage you lack - all anyone here can do is
give you the actual facts of the situation.  IMO, your fear is founded in
ignorance.  You can continue blissfully in your timorous ignorance or take
the advice given.  It cannot be made simpler than that.

Well I am just reviewing the pros and cons if its worth it. I don't
want to listen to microsoft sales people< grin>..
Cheers!

 

[Roy]

true.

the only reason I would
suggest sp3 is when the
computer user needs the
remote assistance feature
or requires connectivity
between computers via
networking.

sp3 resolves the issues
that sp2 has with the above.

further if I do recommend sp3
I will make sure people the
points below:

point 1: the issue of the sp2
cd becoming incompatible

point 2: the option to use add/
remove programs to uninstall
sp3 is available

point 3: the need to make a
slipstream of sp3.

point 4: uninstall the av's
before updating to sp3.

point 5: some third party
programs are hard coded
for sp2 only.

--

That's good point DB, thanks I will consider that also..
Hmm that is maybe the reason why in windows update the file range for
SP3 ranges from 60 to 300 + mb, as it will be redundant if you install
the whole program.
But what are the complications with just installing what is needed in
your PC and not to put in what is in already from previous updates?
From my point , the fewer the update size, it would be the better so I
want to hear feedbacks from experienced people in this area as that is
the likey way I have to do so it will not bloat my C drive with
redundant files...

 

[db]

your welcome.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Hmm that is maybe the reason why in windows update the file range
for SP3 ranges from 60 to 300 + mb, as it will be redundant if you
install the whole program.
But what are the complications with just installing what is needed
in your PC and not to put in what is in already from previous
updates? From my point , the fewer the update size, it would be the
better so I want to hear feedbacks from experienced people in this
area as that is the likey way I have to do so it will not bloat my
C drive with redundant files...

SP3 will replace the files it needs to from previous updates, not put in
duplicates. It is not redundant.

- You can remove the update uninstall fies if you are concerned over space.
- Disk Cleanup and CCleaner are also options for cleaning up disk space.
- SequoiaView and JDiskReport can show you where all the space is being used
on your PC.
- Turning off Hibernation, adjusting the TIF size to 64-128MB and changing
the system restore maximum size to something near 1GB is also a good plan.
- Check your Add or Remove Programs control panel. Remove unused
applications, reduce the number of Java's you have installed to just the
latest (if you can.)

 

[Daave]

Hmm, thats another informative point taken, thanks!

You're welcome, Roy. A big reason that many people have had issues with
installiing SP3 is that they neglected to first turn off antivirus,
firewall, etc. programs that wind up interfering and botching the
installation.

 

[Roy Smith]

You're welcome, Roy. A big reason that many people have had issues with
installiing SP3 is that they neglected to first turn off antivirus,
firewall, etc. programs that wind up interfering and botching the
installation.

I guess it all depends on which antivirus and firewalls one uses. When
I applied SP3 to my 2 pc's and my sister's, I didn't do any of that.
Just stuck the CD in the drive and started the upgrade...

--

Roy Smith
http://roysmith1959.spaces.live.com/
Ubuntu 8.10 - Intrepid Ibex
Remove the letters N O S P A M in email address
to reply.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8e254e7a092/cf5aa69beffbcc72#cf5aa69beffbcc72
(Archived Indefinitely - entire conversation)

You're welcome, Roy. A big reason that many people have had issues
with installiing SP3 is that they neglected to first turn off
antivirus, firewall, etc. programs that wind up interfering and
botching the installation.

I guess it all depends on which antivirus and firewalls one uses.
When I applied SP3 to my 2 pc's and my sister's, I didn't do any of
that. Just stuck the CD in the drive and started the upgrade...

The 'turn off the antivirus' suggestion is more of a 'best practice' than a
'100% always must do'.

Eliminates possible variables before a problem arises and should a problem
arise - one less thing to look into.

 

[Roy]

SP3 will replace the files it needs to from previous updates, not put in
duplicates.  It is not redundant.

..)


Hmm, thanks, if that is the case, then what is the point of using a
complete install via an ISO file instead of following the windows
update?
My reluctance to go with the complete install is the related files
that have been downloaded to windows update will be likely replaced .
What ever upgrade I have to make it should be economical and not to
overhaul my system with parts of similar files that already exist?

 

[Roy]

You're welcome, Roy. A big reason that many people have had issues with
installiing SP3 is that they neglected to first turn off antivirus,
firewall, etc. programs that wind up interfering and botching the
installation.

Hmm thanks! Would you mind to elaborate further what popular
antivirus would interfere with the installation? Does the firewall
needs to be configured as well as what I am having right now is an
internet security which includes already their propreitary firewall.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

.)


Hmm, thanks, if that is the case, then what is the point of using a
complete install via an ISO file instead of following the windows
update?
My reluctance to go with the complete install is the related files
that have been downloaded to windows update will be likely replaced
. What ever upgrade I have to make it should be economical and not
to overhaul my system with parts of similar files that already
exist?

If you have the entire SP3 install file already downloaded or you have the
installation CD for Windows XP SP3 - there is almost *no chance* a bad
network packet or network hiccup/outtage will affect your install. It's
that simple.

As far as files getting replaced... Why do you think that is a bad thing at
all?

Once you install Windows XP SP3 - things in your automatic/download and
notify updates should be cleaned up for you. There are other things you can
do to clean up the uninstall files later - if you feel you need the space.

"Economical"? I guess you might have an Internet connection that you pay
for by how much you utilize?

I'd say if the latter is true - you would be better off (economically)
getting someone who does not have that limitation to download and save the
full install file for you and then using it on your machine.