Tim.T said:
Well you are Microsoft, aren't you,
No. I'm not.
being an MVP or whatever that
means?
It's an honorary title, given to volunteers like me who have a record of
being helpful in places like these newsgroups. Read here:
Regardless of that, my opinions are my own. Sometimes I agree with
Microsoft's point of view, sometimes I don't.
I kinda expected that response
. The only reason I feel that
way about SP2 is because of the anedotal evidence of it causing more
problems than it solves.
The problem is that you hear about the problems far more than the successes.
When someone has a problem with something, he is likely to come to a place
like this newsgroup, looking for a solution. All those many with no problems
at all don't typically come here to tell us how well it worked. As someone
once said, hang around a transmission shop for a while, and you'll come to
the conclusion that all cars have transmission problems.
I don't claim there is never a problem with it, but in my experience with
it, it has been remarkably problem-free. The few times I've seen problems
with it, it's always been because the person installed it on a
spyware-ridden machine. When you prepare for it properly, there is almost
never a problem.
Sure it might work fine for the average
desktop user, but for people like me who use specialised software
packages, it can be a different matter. I have to consider possible
conflicts and so on.
I have three points in answer to that:
1. There is clearly some risk in installing any software update. The larger
the update (and a Service Pack is a large update), the greater the risk. But
there is also risk in *not* installing the update. Updates fix things that
are wrong and protect you against possible problems, and if you don't
install it, you run unfixed and vulnerable to these problems. The question
is whether the risk is greater by installing it or by not installing it. The
answer is clear to me--it's greater if you don't install it.
2. SP2 is a required base for installing many later updates. If you don't
have it, you are unable to install some later fixes, and you get more and
more vulnerable to problems as time goes on.
3. Your statement above, "Sure it might work fine for the average desktop
user" is a *very* different one from the statement to which I responded, "I
aint bothering with SP2, 75mb of junk!"
I do a lot of rendering using complex 3D modelling applications and
render engines. They can require a lot of processor power and memory,
both virtual and physical; the more the better, in this case. Thus my
considering a dual-core pc, and so much ram.
OK, fine. Then you seem to be someone who will likely benefit from a lot of
RAM. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't someone who was misled by
the common misconception that the more RAM you have, the better. That's true
only up to a point, and where that point is depends on what apps you run.
