XP SP3?

[DL]

Thats a beta
Dont you read before firing?

Do people "pay" attention to posts?

As Shenan stated in his post - XP SP3 RC1 is the current release and was
made available to MSDN and TechNet subscribers.

 

[Maincat]

OK I'll try and make this as clear as possible.

It's a freakin' Beta. Use at your own risk. If you really must try it,
then don't blame anyone but yourself if it goes tonto.

If that's not clear enough, try a new hobby.

 

[Gerry]

Ken

Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas with
memory leaks!

Did you see what Mike M thought about Windows Live OneCare?

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ken

Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software. Whether
it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!

I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
software (and not just *recently* released software) can have serious
errors. But there's still a big difference between beta software and
released software. With released software, the manufacturer at least
thinks that there are no critical errors remaining, and it's safe to
use. With beta software, the manufacturer is normally aware that there
critical errors; if he thought there were none, he would release it,
rather than keeping it beta.

Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was risk
with beta software and no risk with released software; I said there
was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"


message On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"

Ken:

RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.


Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It
is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky
to use.



The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
several day.


Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and there
is always increased risk when you run a test version.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken

Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas with
memory leaks!

Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
non-beta having a serious problem.

Ken

Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software. Whether
it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!

I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
software (and not just *recently* released software) can have serious
errors. But there's still a big difference between beta software and
released software. With released software, the manufacturer at least
thinks that there are no critical errors remaining, and it's safe to
use. With beta software, the manufacturer is normally aware that there
critical errors; if he thought there were none, he would release it,
rather than keeping it beta.

Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was risk
with beta software and no risk with released software; I said there
was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"


message On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"

Ken:

RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.


Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It
is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky
to use.



The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
several day.


Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and there
is always increased risk when you run a test version.

 

[VanguardLH]

It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
should be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to
an NDA before becoming accepted. they also have their own private
newsgroups for discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta
tester has either got it "illegally" or from a very dubious source.

Oh really? So if I get it from Microsoft's Windows Update site and am
not an official beta tester than the Windows Update site is an illegal
source? All it takes is to add one registry entry to get the WU site
to offer the SP3 update. I don't need to be an authorized beta
tester. I don't have to pay big bucks for an MSDN subscription. I
just go to the WU site to get it.

I've got SP3 installed but under a VM in VMWare Server. So far, which
is all of 2 days, it's been okay. No crashes but then no real need
for it, either. I don't need NAP (network access protection; see
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx) since this
is my home PC so I don't have to concern myself with running host that
are not fully updated and which present a security risk and want to
run those with restricted network permissions. I don't need to
concern myself with a roll-up of previous updates which are already
available from the WU site. And if I was having problems with
hotfixes that weren't available via the WU site then I would've gotten
those separately to fix those problems.

Most users asking for the availability of SP-3 haven't a clue why they
would need it. Most will never notice the claimed 10% performance
increase after applying SP-3. I don't even bother overclocking my
video card because a 10% faster result is nearly meaningless in
real-world use and at the cost of greater heat, increased instability,
and reduced time to failure. XP is already faster than Vista.
Another 10% faster is irrelevant. By the way, the way the 10%
increase was measure was to run through a script to run a series of
real-world applications to see how long it took for all of them to
complete. That doesn't mean YOU will be executing the same sequence
of actions so who knows if you'll see any of that 10% increase. SP-3
isn't going to speed up your games, and your word processor is sitting
so extremely idle waiting between your keystrokes that 10% faster is
meaningless. Remember that delivering a service pack that delivers a
"measurable" speed boost simply means that, thank God, it didn't make
it SLOWER!

Yeah, installing SP-3 has been interesting to see that it didn't
destabilize my host but it has been uninteresting in its effect (as
there are no real changes for users to experience; i.e., no ooh-aah
reactions). Remember that I'm testing it in a VM. That is for a
clean install of the OS, not with all the applications that gets
installed later to make actual use of the OS but garbage up the
pristine OS.

For the question "When will SP-3 become available?", the better
response is "Detail why to you need it?" I can get it but don't have
a good reason to deploy it into my working OS until it gets released.

 

[Gerry]

Sorry Ken I was moving on from your original point which is patently
true.

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ken

Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas
with memory leaks!

Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
non-beta having a serious problem.

Ken

Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software.
Whether it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!


I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
software (and not just *recently* released software) can have
serious errors. But there's still a big difference between beta
software and released software. With released software, the
manufacturer at least thinks that there are no critical errors
remaining, and it's safe to use. With beta software, the
manufacturer is normally aware that there critical errors; if he
thought there were none, he would release it, rather than keeping
it beta.

Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was
risk with beta software and no risk with released software; I said
there was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"


message On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"

Ken:

RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.


Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version.
It is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very
risky to use.



The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
several day.


Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and
there is always increased risk when you run a test version.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Sorry Ken I was moving on from your original point which is patently
true.

OK. Thanks, Gerry. Glad to hear we agree.

Ken

Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas
with memory leaks!

Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
non-beta having a serious problem.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
Ken

Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software.
Whether it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!


I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
software (and not just *recently* released software) can have
serious errors. But there's still a big difference between beta
software and released software. With released software, the
manufacturer at least thinks that there are no critical errors
remaining, and it's safe to use. With beta software, the
manufacturer is normally aware that there critical errors; if he
thought there were none, he would release it, rather than keeping
it beta.

Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was
risk with beta software and no risk with released software; I said
there was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"


message On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"

Ken:

RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.


Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version.
It is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very
risky to use.



The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
several day.


Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and
there is always increased risk when you run a test version.

 

[Tip]

in message news:[email protected]...


Oh really? So if I get it from Microsoft's Windows Update site and am not
an official beta tester than the Windows Update site is an illegal source?
All it takes is to add one registry entry to get the WU site to offer the
SP3 update. I don't need to be an authorized beta tester. I don't have
to pay big bucks for an MSDN subscription. I just go to the WU site to
get it.

I've got SP3 installed but under a VM in VMWare Server. So far, which is
all of 2 days, it's been okay. No crashes but then no real need for it,
either. I don't need NAP (network access protection; see
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx) since this is my
home PC so I don't have to concern myself with running host that are not
fully updated and which present a security risk and want to run those with
restricted network permissions. I don't need to concern myself with a
roll-up of previous updates which are already available from the WU site.
And if I was having problems with hotfixes that weren't available via the
WU site then I would've gotten those separately to fix those problems.

Most users asking for the availability of SP-3 haven't a clue why they
would need it. Most will never notice the claimed 10% performance
increase after applying SP-3. I don't even bother overclocking my video
card because a 10% faster result is nearly meaningless in real-world use
and at the cost of greater heat, increased instability, and reduced time
to failure. XP is already faster than Vista. Another 10% faster is
irrelevant. By the way, the way the 10% increase was measure was to run
through a script to run a series of real-world applications to see how
long it took for all of them to complete. That doesn't mean YOU will be
executing the same sequence of actions so who knows if you'll see any of
that 10% increase. SP-3 isn't going to speed up your games, and your word
processor is sitting so extremely idle waiting between your keystrokes
that 10% faster is meaningless. Remember that delivering a service pack
that delivers a "measurable" speed boost simply means that, thank God, it
didn't make it SLOWER!

Yeah, installing SP-3 has been interesting to see that it didn't
destabilize my host but it has been uninteresting in its effect (as there
are no real changes for users to experience; i.e., no ooh-aah reactions).
Remember that I'm testing it in a VM. That is for a clean install of the
OS, not with all the applications that gets installed later to make actual
use of the OS but garbage up the pristine OS.

For the question "When will SP-3 become available?", the better response
is "Detail why to you need it?" I can get it but don't have a good reason
to deploy it into my working OS until it gets released.

So if I overclock my video card, memory/cpu and get SP-3 I'll get a 30%
increase!!

Woot


Not that I have tried the beta or will, but when it comes official I may
have to tweak this old box out.

 

[VanguardLH]

So if I overclock my video card, memory/cpu and get SP-3 I'll get a
30% increase!!

Right up to when the hardware dies.

 

[Sam Hobbs]

What happens if you encounter a problem? Do you have a way to report the
problem and get a fix?

 

[Tom [Pepper] Willett]

We'll uninstall it and wait for the next version.

: What happens if you encounter a problem? Do you have a way to report the
: problem and get a fix?
:
:
: : > It is also available from MSDN and Tech-Net for subscribers, quite
legal.
: >
: > I'm testing on a computer as we speak.
: >
: >
: > : > : : > : > Hi:
: > : >
: > : > Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new
: > SP3.
: > I
: > : > have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some
: > first
: > : > hand comments.
: > : >
: > : > Thanks
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: > : It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
: > should
: > : be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to an NDA
: > before
: > : becoming accepted. they also have their own private newsgroups for
: > : discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta tester has either
: > got
: > it
: > : "illegally" or from a very dubious source.
:
:
: