Don't want it - don't download it - you realize my whole point is that
no one cares what you do with your computer system as long as you are
happy with it and you do not harm them directly or indirectly.
Actually, that's the problem, you seem to be preoccupied with proving
that you don't care what I do. I never asked anyone here to meet my
needs or care about me or my computer. This is a newsgroup, a place to
share information, in this case, about MS service pack 3. I'm not
interested in anything else here. I don't know what you care about, and
I dont' care.
It's the way things work - they will stop support for Windows XP with
SP2 in 2010.
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect
Specifically:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 released on 17-Sep-2004 will
have its support retired on 13-Jul-2010. After that date - there will
be patches you will not be offered unless you have SP3 installed.
Once you strip away all crap about "needs", "caring", and snotty remarks
about my computers EoL and the fact that one can back-up data (I use
"Migrate Easy" to copy HDs by the way, and "Safe Sync" for back-ups) I am
left with the following information:
Were I to install SP3 it would be a 60-70MB download that would install
only those files that I have not previously installed.
No one knows how long this would take on my machine, it could be anywhere
from 30 minutes to over an hour.
The only reason I've been consistantly given to install the SP is that in
Jul of 2010 I will no longer be able to get XP patches without SP3. Even
MS doesn't describe SP3 as a significant change to the OS of any kind,
the handful of new features added are of no use to me. No one has said
anything about this SP improving performance, or providing additional
security given the fact that I've been auto updating since I installed
SP2 years ago.
There may be over a 1000 patches in SP3 that I have not already
installed, but apparently I don't need those patches because my machine
is running just fine as it is. Looking at the list provided provided by
Shenen most of those patches are things I would have chosen to not
install in the first place, and a sample of five security patches found
none that I've not already installed.
Judging from posts at other places like PC magazine :
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2008/05/windows_xp_service_pack_3
_actu.php
and even one post here, a significant number of people are experiencing
problems with this SP ranging from annoying to severe. It's not a
pandemic, but it's significant.
I realize no one cares what I do with my computer, but given the
information outlined here, I've decided to forgoe SP3 for now. I am a
photographer, I'm running one PC, a wireless router with a couple laptops
in the house. I'm not rolling out any new systems, or connecting to
multiple routers that may be dumping packets or anything so I don't need
the additional features in SP3, nor do I appear to need the any of the
patches that I may not have gotten already. Very few people are
reporting improved performance after installing SP3, most just seem to be
relieved that their system is still running at all.
I'm not interested in experimenting with SP3 to see if will or won't
crash my system, and I'm not interested in spending hours preparing back
ups to restore my system if SP3 does crash it.
By the way, Craig, I found that I already have Frame.net 2 and five or
six others installed.
For all I know in two years MS won't be supporting XP at all anymore so
continuing patches will be moot point. I may very well have a new
computer by then, and would probably opt for Vista instead of XP anyways.
By then they should have most of the Vista bugs worked out.
I just don't think given my situation SP3 is worth the risk. I need to
be using my computer, not screwing around with it.
I'm sharing my reasoning here because others, in similar situations to my
own, may wish to make the decision.
Paul.
