Windows Service Pack 3

[jevans]

Just for general interest, here is a link with comments about the advisability or otherwise of installing Windows XP Service pack 3. I am afraid it is not too specific one way or another about whether to go ahead or not. On balance, I am going to wait a bit before upgrading. There seems to be too many caveats.

http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/080911

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Just for general interest, here is a link with comments about the advisability or otherwise of installing Windows XP Service pack 3. I am afraid it is not too specific one way or another about whether to go ahead or not. On balance, I am going to wait a bit before upgrading. There seems to be too many caveats.

http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/080911

Hi Jevans

I to was like you unsure, however after weighing up the odds, I decided to bite the bullet and try it on my spare laptop, which is a Sony Viao bought 4 years ago, with the ram upgraded to 2GB. This was only 2 weeks ago, I had no problems, so i went ahead and installed it on my No1 machine a Samsung G15 laptop with a 2gb ram upgrade. Apart from the machine not re-booting following installation (Ihad to manually switch off and re-boot) this machine accepted it without problems. Both machines now start and shut down faster, and there has been a change in the layout of my BT/Yahoo mail home page which may not be related. I didn't do any preparatory work such as a back up disc, so I think that MS have finally cracked it.

Yachtsman1

[Ken Cox]

Jeff

see

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=56021

ken

[Barry Beckham]

Well, I am terribly disappointed with Service pack 3.

I fully expected the world to end when I installed it for the first time

However, after trying it on two separate desktop PC's and a Laptop without incident I feel rather let down that I can't join the doom and gloom anti Microsoft debate.

I will just have to continue as a loner I suppose

[xahu34]

Well, I am terribly disappointed with Service pack 3.

Barry,

You made 3 installations of SP3 - no problems occurred.

I made 4 installations of SP3 - no problems occurred (I reported on my experience and on precautions).

Hundreds of users actually had various problems.

Even Microsoft published articles like:

"Steps to take before you install Windows XP Service Pack 3"

"You receive a “Stop 0x0000007E” error message after you upgrade to Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Service Pack 3 on a non-Intel-processor-based computer"

What is the message of your post?

Do you consider it to be a well-founded recommendation for a user who is about to install SP3?

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Barry Beckham]

What do I think?

Microsoft cannot produce a product that will work on millions of PC's with millions of different componants and millions of bits of software and have it work faultlessly for everyone. Anyone who thinks that are living in gar gar land. Much of that software installed on PC's has come by via dubious means anyway and that could be the cause of some problems. There are always bound to be some issues and no matter what you do in life and no matter how careful you are to plan, someone will have problems.

MSN upgrades are designed to make a product better and I don't believe for a second that they don't have every intention to do the best they can for their customers and their product, but they are just people and with the best will in the world you cannot foresee everything.

Take PTE, we often hear of people who have all sorts or problems with crashes and installation problems, but is that all Igors fault? Of course not. It is a quirk of that particular PC, the componants or the software installed. Or simple human error.

I have never had any issues with Microsoft and their products and I probably spend as much time as any using it.

My view is that if a major upgrade is available then accept it, it's not put out there for fun or to cause havoc. If an upgrade was to all goes pear shaped, so what? We can always re-install the software, they are only programs, not the end of life as we know it. To listen to some you would think the end of the world was upon us.

If anyone loses work due to a software upgrade, then more fool them for allowing their work to be vulnerable. All it takes is a little common sense.

Come on lets be honest, many people just don't like Microsft or any other large company because they make all those wicked profits.

[Lin Evans]

I think the bottom line for me is "if it's not broke, don't fix it."

The purpose of the change to SP2 is ostensibly to improve security protection but it appears to have another purpose as well. The other purpose "appears" to be to make the program more like Vista which would "ease" the transition for those who eventually purchase a new system which comes pre-loaded with Vista and is not backwardly compatible with XP because it contains components which will never have drivers for XP.

How one reacts or whether they accept the above analysis depends on their state of mind. My experience with Microsoft goes well beyond PC operating systems. When I was a network consultant and sold and installed major Unix systems networks I was hounded on a regular basis by Microsoft sales people who were dedicated toward changing my mind about NT and Microsoft. They were rude and arrogant and worse they were uninformed. Essentially I told them that when a Microsoft network could be upgraded without taking down the network (normal procedure with Unix) then I would consider what they had to offer. Until then, it was foolish to even consider for major clients who absolutely could not be down for the duration of time required to do updates. I was told, and I quote, "you will use Microsoft now or you will use it in the future," resistance is futile, you will be assimilated - LOL.

To me, Vista is not intuitive and appears to written by programmers with a strange sense of how people think. It's as if their Focus Groups are composed of Microsoft Programmers. It's not only Vista but other new Microsoft software (Word 2007 comes to mind) where they have made changes where no changes were necessary. These changes cause mass confusion for people who have, after years, learned to deal with Microsoft's idiosyncrasies. A change toward Vista, which is inherent in SP3 internals, is for me and for some others not a welcome change. Obviously, what is intuitive for some is not intuitive for others.

I certainly do not believe that everyone thinks as I do and see no reason for those comfortable with making the SP3 upgrade to not do so. On the other hand for those who are quite content as I am with the function and usability of SP2, change for change sake seems counter intuitive.

Best regards,

Lin

[Conflow]

Lin,

May I be the 1st to applaude your excellent descriptive Post above ~ "how true your comments really are" ~ and I also agree that

the 'veiled' purpose of XP3 is to ease ones transition over to Vista whether one like it or not. In reality the additional merits of XP3

are very marginal to say the least. In my opinion XP3 is NOT an upgrade, its a brand new 'transitional' Operating System and one

must ask....what is the real primary purpose of this 'Half-Way House' ??

You are right Lin...."If its not broke,dont fix it"...of course if others are happy with XP3, let them get on with it, but I shall wait for a

proper workable Operating System before I change XP2, and that might not be a Microsoft product.

Brian.Conflow.

[potwnc]

I use Win XPx64 SP2 on my own PC and there is not yet an SP3 upgrade for it... draw your own conclusions!

At work I use - and this is beyond my control - Win XP 32-bit SP2 and Office 2007... a few days ago I was using Outlook 2007 to send an e-mail (pretty basic, right?) when I received this error message - and I quote - "The operation failed." And this is in the workplace of a major corporation where we can't install programs/freeware/trialware as we please. Great QA testing combined with great usability testing there!

I don't generally bash MS for the sake of it but... come on MS... how much more simple could it get?

[JEB]

Hi,

I am sure there must be many, like myself, who are following this discussion with interest. I certainly and I’m sure many others, appreciate the views being expressed by those more knowledgeable than us mere mortals. Perhaps like me we are hoping that you will take the decision for us!

My dilemma is that I am unsure what the benefits to me, at this point in time are, if I upgrade.

It was quite clear several months ago that there were likely to be major problems if we upgraded at that time and we all appreciated the warnings being given and resisted the move. However these problems appear to have been addressed and on the face of it provided care is taken the upgrade can be successfully achieved.

But why should I? What’s in it for me?

I accept and understand the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" argument.

On the other hand, it seams to me that realistically, whether we like it or not, Vista or a derivative, is the future (I can feel temperatures rising across the ether from here)!

So perhaps one should bite the bullet?

Go on! Somebody make the decision for me!

Regards as ever.

John

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi

I have used both Vista and XP SP3, and they are as different as chalk and cheese, I cannot see anyting in xp sp3 to compare it to Vista. My use of Vista was to teach a new computer owner who had bought a machine with Vista pre installed how to use it. I will still go on using XP as I think Vista is a marketeers abomination. My XP machines open and close down faster with SP3 installed.

Yachtsman1

[fh1805]

It seems an appropriate time for me to add my "two-penn'orth" to this discussion.

Firstly, I also endorse Lin's philosophy of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!". I apply that philosophy to my own computer systems. But I also apply some additional ones that are based upon my 30 years experience of the IT industry.

Buy your key software from one of the "big-league" players

Any company that has built a solid reputation providing products and services in a competitive environment to major corporations cannot afford to get any bad publicity. Trust them and their offerings until you have reason to change your mind.

Keep your protection (firewall, anti-virus, anti-spam, etc.) up to date.

If the software permits it (and most do these days) let it auto-update. And if you see the indication, usually in the bottom right corner, that it is downloading an update: DO NOT OPEN E-MAIL OR DOWNLOAD ANYTHING ELSE OR INSERT ANY REMOVEABLE MEDIA until the protection update is fully installed.

Download software only from reputable sites

And, preferably, do this only after a personal recommendation from someone else whom you trust.

Virus-check everything you download before you open it

Don't rely on the website's claims that everything is virus-free. The best protection in the world can have loopholes. Yours does; mine does! Accept this and plan your defences accordingly.

Install only one software product per day, except when doing the initial "build" of your system.

If you make too many changes all at once you will not know which one has introduced the problem. Therefore you will not know which one to uninstall. This can be generalized even further to:

- The First Law of Change Management - make only one change at a time.

- The Second Law of Change Management - Make sure you know how to reverse each change

Apply these two laws, not just to software install, but to all significant changes to options and preferences as well.

Watch out for hidden installs.

Following some advice on this forum from Brian (Conflow), I downloaded and installed Advance Windows Care software. As it ran through the install process I noticed that it was wanting to download and install Yahoo Toolbar. I ticked the box to say "Oh no you don't!". If I hadn't done that I would have:

- installed software that I didn't want

- made two changes at the same time

My own experience with the XP3 upgrade is this:

The only XP system I have is my old laptop (A Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo). This was pensioned off from daily usage when PTEv5 came along and the poor little thing's graphics proved incapable of running the more complex animations. I now use it only in connection with my family history research. I do, however, keep its protection up to date by powering it up at least once per week and letting it connect via my in-house wireless network to pull down the latest anti-virus updates, etc.

A couple of weeks ago it pulled down the XP3 upgrade, so I let it go ahead with it. If everything had gone totally pear-shaped I could, if necessary, have simply junked the machine. I would not have lost any data as it is all backed up onto both my desktop system and my USB hard-disk unit.

It took the laptop about three hours to complete the download and the install process and I had to intervene via the keyboard/mouse on about four or five occasions. Most of these were at the very start: confirming that I really did want to do it, that I accepted the license terms and conditions, etc. The other occasions were all in order to enter my password as I logged in again after the auto-reboots that took place during the install activity.

Since completing the upgrade I have not noticed any significant change to the way any software behaves nor any change to the appearance of the screen displays. In other words, I'm not aware when using the PC that it has had the upgrade installed.

The whole process seemed totally trouble free.

However, PCs are complex creatures. What works on one system will not necessarily work on another. With so many different hardware components available and so many different software products around, no manufacture of either hardware or software can give a cast-iron guarantee that you will not encounter a problem when you install something new on your PC. The only rule that applies is: Caveat emptor! (That's a Latin phrase that is usually translated as "Let the buyer beware!")

regards,

Peter

[Antbrewer]

SP3 or not? Still rumbling on and on...

As I posted here a while ago that following advice (here on this site) I took a deep breath and installed SP3 on my AMD desktop and Intel laptop. I have yet to notice any visible difference to the running of either computer. Still starts and closes as before, same speed same everything.

More important than anything else though PtE runs just as smoothly.

Was it necessary.?..I don't know.

Anthony.

[Barry Beckham]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Thats great advice and one I would sign up to. (when it suits me). We all break it when we want to. How many of you are still using Photohop 3,4,5 or 6. There was nothing wrong with that software, it wasn't broke? I guess your all driving 1960's cars too, with a bit of maintenance they would still be servicable.

No, we generally keep up to date, some quicker than others because we want to take account of new technology. Its the same with cars to kitchens and everything in between.

I have no issues with being careful, but I believe there is an unhealthy hysteria around this issue and Microsoft Vista and this upgrade. Oops sorry I should say Bill (Boogey Man) Gates.

Any company that has built a solid reputation providing products and services in a competitive environment to major corporations cannot afford to get any bad publicity. Trust them and their offerings until you have reason to change your mind.

Except Bill Gates it seems !!

[Ken Cox]

MAKE A BACKUP DISK FIRST

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=56030

and if you decide to do the install you are covered

-- if you install sp3 and you have a screw up later your original xp disk is no good to do the repair you must use the backup disk to do the repair

ken

[fh1805]

Except Bill Gates it seems !!

Barry,

I was very careful to include in my post the phrase "...in a competitive environment...".

There is no way, in my opinion, that Microsoft can be described as operating in a competitive environment. They have a virtual monopoly on the operating system for the Intel platform and all other Intel-compatible processors. Yes, I know there is Linux out there; but that doesn't have a big enough market share seriously to worry Microsoft.

And in a monopoly situation, the monopoly holder can do pretty much as they please. And that is true of any monopoly!

regards,

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

If you are that worried, take Windows off your PC and use something else.

[xahu34]

Regarding SP3 we could go on with this discussion without finding an end, in this thread, or in a couple of new ones.

Now there could be the remark that some time next year, systems without SP3 will not have security updates any more. Then some users would answer that they were in the position to protect their systems, without using Microsoft’s patches (not very convincing in my eyes). And so on, and so on …..

Let us stop this discussion, there won’t be any new aspects!

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[fh1805]

Barry,

You've got me wrong; I'm not worried!

I've applied my philosophies (as described in my long post above) to my PCs for the last ten years. To-date I have not have a single virus infection nor have I had any serious problems when installing either hardware or software. Maybe I've been lucky; or maybe my philosophies have worked for me.

By staying mainstream, keeping things as simple as I can, relying on the big vendors to do a "professional" job, etc. I've enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, the pleasure and convenience that my PC systems bring me.

I don't like the seeming arrogance that some world-wide corporations exhibit in their dealings with their customer base but I learned a long time ago that you just have to live with it - and factor it in to all your planning and preparations for using their products and services.

I'll continue to take automatic updates and I'll continue to use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office products - until they give me some really serious pain. If/when that happens then I'll re-evaluate my stance. This, to me, is the only sensible way to approach these things.

regards,

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

I don't disagree at all and you have described my experiences which are identical to yours. I too have never had a major problem that hasn't been caused by a sudden hardware failure.

Never had a virus and never had any problems with Microsoft and don't know anyone personally who has.

Yet, if I was the nervous type I could be frightened to death by the hyisteria that is created around MS in general. A more balanced view would have far more respect and clout.

[cjdnzl]

I installed SP3 on my Dell laptop about 2 weeks ago, after setting a restore point, and performing an Acronis image backup.

The installation went with no problems, and I cannot detect any change in the computers performance - to date at least.

Dell 1520/3 GB ram/duo core 1.8 GHz cpu/nVidia 8600M-GT gpu/160 GB 7200 rpm HDD/1680x1050 screen.

Colin.

[JEB]

Hi,

I am heartened by the responses on this thread. It seems that generally those who have recently made the change from SP2 to SP3 have not encountered any problems.

However a few have stated some minor improvement in start up speed and a number have not detected any improvement.

Can somebody explain in simple terms what benefits SP3 provides?

I understand that MS may in the future stop providing upgrades for SP2 but as far as I detect they haven’t done so as yet.

Regards

John

[Barry Beckham]

I have always assumed that the improvements are in the engine room much like many PTE ones are. I guess that any time a vague threat to the security of the system becomes apparent, the MS boffins fix it.

I personaly don't expect to go for a MS upgrade and notice a physical speed increase. I am happy that they are keeping me up to date and secure.

The trouble with this type of debate is that most people don't have the first clue about the writing of software and quite rightly so. That is why we buy it ready written.

[Ken Cox]

JEB

description of SP3

SEE

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3.asp

also you told me one time you have a computer guru - ask him

ken

[Lin Evans]

I suspect that much of the resentment against Vista and Microsoft as well as pro Vista and Microsoft stems from a very basic difference in user's attitudes about what an "operating system" is and should be.

Those of us who grew up with Unix, CPM, etc., and know the true history of how Microsoft and Windows came to prominence have a different attitude than that of the younger set who have simply grown up with and accepted that Microsoft operating systems are the cat's meow and that "advances" and new and different is generally better.

This is just a little micro-history lesson on the non-Apple PC side for those who don't know about how things used to be back in the stone age of micro-computers when folks like Adam Osborne (Osborne Computers), Gary Kildall (Digital Research Inc./CPM), Dan Bricklin (VisiCalc), Wayne Ratliff (dBase II), Rob Barbany (WordStar), etc., were about.

In those days the competition to Apple's fledgling micro-computers was based on the operating system written by Gary Kildall called CPM. CPM was an innovative operating system which fit easily on a 5.25" floppy disk drive and took up a tiny bit of space yet allowed micro-computers such as the Kaypro, Osborne, etc., to work very well indeed with software such as WordStar (word processing), VisiCalc (electronic spreadsheet), dBase II (data management), and other useful programs. The operating system written by Gary was an 8 bit masterpiece which had tiny, tight code and very few bugs.

When IBM decided to branch into the micro-computer world they would introduce a more powerful system requiring a 16 bit operating system. Gary had licensed CPM for a clone of the Altair 8800 and by 1981 his CPM operating system was in use on over 3000 different computer models. IBM approached Gary about licensing his soon to be released CPM/86 (a 16 bit version) but negotiations fell through and IBM ended up licensing a CPM "clone" from SCP (Seattle Computer Products) which had infringed on Gary's code. After a threat to IBM, the company settled for a release of liability and an agreement to offer CPM/86 as an "option". In those days the operating system was a "neccesary" but non-bundled option and IBM sold their purloined PC DOS version (via SCP) for $40 and offered CPM/86 for $240 so you can guess which version the public purchased.

Bill Gates and his fledgling company Microsoft were already working in a consulting role for IBM and eventually took over development of the operating system and for a time both PC-DOS and MS-DOS were available. Eventually MS-DOS won out and the rest is well known history. Gary sold DRI to Novell in 1991 and in July of 1994 he fell or was "assaulted" (history is not clear on this) at a restaurant in Monterey, California and died three days later in the Community Hospital in Monterey.

Gary always said Bill Gates ripped him off and stole his code. I for one firmly believe this. One then might say (assuming this to be the case - and there is good evidence that it is) that Microsoft was founded on "theft" and they have a well-established" pattern of unfair dealings and trashing the rights and destroying smaller companies which try to stand up to them.

So early operating systems were small, well coded and could be housed on a tiny part of a 360K byte disc. Today, Vista takes huge chunks of storage space and hogs resources. It could be said that a major portion of your computer's resources are dedicated to simply running the "operating system". This is in stark contrast to what many of us believe an operating system should be. Many believe an operating system "should" be designed to facilitate running "application software" rather than making developers bend to the will of the developers of that operating system.

I ran a successful software development company of my own for many years in the early days prior to Windows. As Windows gradually took over the world, I was forced to either comply and give more and more of my control to the "operating system" or get out of the business. I chose the latter. So for me, bigger overhead, less user control and a "nanny" attitude by an "operating system" doesn't set well. Change for the sake of change with added confusion, nanny - "let me do it for you" control and so on are counter-productive.

Choice is good. Hopefully, in the future the monopoly Microsoft has on PC computer operating systems will be broken and we will be able to perhaps once again have small, concise code which allows the user to make choices rather than forcing them to work within the confines of some MS indoctrinated "software engineer's" idea of how things should be done.

Lin