 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Performance and Maintainance / May 2008service pack 3, do I need it?
I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2 when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates with a couple extra features for networks. I have two questions. First: will my automatic update automatically download and attempt to install SP3? Second: Do I really need SP3? Frankly, since the change to XP I've never noticed any differnce in performance associated with any of these updates, and my machines are working just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail, browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future updatas? Paul "I don't rely on Windows software for security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail, browsing, etc." I didn't know that software written for a different operating system installed on Windows. How were you able to do that? --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est > I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2 > when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul > I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded > to SP2 when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future > updates? Since you do not use "windows software for internet functions, e-mail, browsing, etc", I assume you actually have Linux/OSX installed and have some sort of virtual machine for Windows and it has not access at all to the Internet - you mearly pass files to it through the virtual machine software (updates and such)... If that is the case - you certainly have no need for the updates that Microsoft puts out. If, however, your message is misunderstood and you do have Windows XP installed and connected to the Internet and use programs installed on Windows XP (whether they came with Windows XP or you installed them is of no concern) to utilize basic Internet functions (from just connecting with your network card and the built-in TCP/IP functionality to e-mail applications, Internet browsers, etc) - then you might want to consider staying up to date. As far as 'needing' SP3 - no. You don't obviously *need* Windows. You don't *need* to use the Internet for thaqt matter. Or do you - I actually cannot say what it is that drives you on a daily basis from this single posting. I do know that if you plan on continuing to run Windows XP and that Windows XP has access to the Internet (no matter whose products you install on top of it) - you should at least consider applying whatever patches that fill whatever security holes in the base OS that become available to you. SP3 is a culmination of patches released (public and otherwise) since Windows XP SP2 was released as well as a few minor changes. That means - given your statement, "I've been automatically updating windows XP for years", you'll probably only have 60-70MB of patchess/change you don't already have installed. Whethe you get them or not is (always has been) completely up to you. Sooner or later - it will become necessary (as it did with SP2) to obtain the last service pack released before you can install any further updates for the OS. That time may be a couple of years off. So you get to make the decision (as always) of what you want to do or not do and live with whatever consequences come of it. ;-)  SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > Since you do not use "windows software for internet functions, e-mail, > browsing, etc", I assume you actually have Linux/OSX installed and > have some sort of virtual machine for Windows and it has not access at > all to the Internet - you mearly pass files to it through the virtual I mispoke, I meant to say that I don't rely on MS software, I wasn't referring to the operating system. Obviously, I'm using Windows. Paul. A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful. Why should I install a service pack that will simply re-inatall a bunch of patches that I've aleady downlaoded? I use the internet, one could deduce that given the fact that I am posting to newsgroup via the internet. I need SP3 because I use the internet? According to the MS PDF there is nothing critical in the new service pack, the only thing in it that I've not already downloaded as a matter of course is some network functions and IT functions that I won't use. It seems silly to sit around for an hour running a service pack this is installing a bunch of stuff that I've already installed. Am I missing something here? As far as future upgrades are concerned, my installer has been upgraded a couple times already. Why should I need an entire service pack to continue to get patches? Why not just update the installer I (and others) are using now? I worry about these large MS service packs. SP3 has crashed some systems, and MS response seems to be "that's your problem". I ended up switching to XP from 98 because 98 literally ate itself after a patch install. XP has been stable and trouble free, but now MS is pushing Vista, and judging from the Vista on my wifes new laptop, I don't need it. I'm using a PC that I built, and have maintained for over 6 years. While it clocks as fast on most proceedures as my new laptops with supposedly faster technology i.e. dual core processors, faster RAM etc., it does have some old components. One of the problems with Vista has been that it simply won't run on machines with older technology. One of the things I noticed in the MS PDF was that SP3 was that it includes some kind of patch for running Vista compatable software on XP machines, this makes me nervous. Does SP3 contain some Vista stuff that I don't need but will crash my computer? Paul > As far as 'needing' SP3 - no. You don't obviously *need* Windows. > You don't *need* to use the Internet for thaqt matter. Or do you - I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the decision (as always) of what you want to do or not do and live > with whatever consequences come of it. ;-) > A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > makes me nervous. Does SP3 contain some Vista stuff that I don't > need but will crash my computer? No "snot" - reality may seem like "snot" to you - but you are asking other people whether or not *you* need to do something. I figure the best person to know whether or not they need to do something is the person asking. I have no idea of your needs/wants - I have no idea of anything about you. You have walked into a room of total strangers and asked, "Do I need the bee keeper outfit?" but never stated whether or not you dealt with bees. ;-P I gave you a straight answer. Only you know what you need. I could explain until I am blue in the face why I need/want SP3 - but you may not understand it or you may not care why *I* need it. ;-) Windows XP SP3 and Vista... The only thing I can think of is the change in the Remote Desktop Client to allow one to connect to a NLA protected remote desktop session on a Vista machine - perhaps someone else knows more 'crossover' that this SP includes. I am confused by this paragraph of yours: > As far as future upgrades are concerned, my installer has been > upgraded a couple times already. Why should I need an entire > service pack to continue to get patches? Why not just update the > installer I (and others) are using now? So - if I am understanding that correctly - you have been integrating patches/service packs into your Windows XP Installation Media? And you seem to be saying that you will do this anyway - which means you will be integrating service pack 3 insto the installation media. What would be the point of that unless you are running it on your system already? Everytime something large (like a service pack) comes out - some people have issues. Fact of the business. Milions of software/hardware combinations - someone is going to be using something in a way not tested for and that small percentage of the total user base will experience issues. Then people begin coming here and posting about those issues and then others come in and say, "Look how many people are having trouble, it must mean the software is broken!" It's like walking into a hospital emergency room and saying, "Look at all the sick people, the world must be in a pandemic!" Last thing - If it takes an hour to install on your machine - something else is wrong. ;-) Either that machine is reaching EoL, or you have some other issues going on. So far - worst case was 30 minutes - and that machine was far beyond its EoL. Now if you are including download time - understood - you may have slower download speed. ;-) In the end - you asked for opinions and you got one from me. Mine is, "only you know what you need/want." I gave you some facts (sooner or later you will need to install SP3 to be able to install on your working PC some patches just like you now need SP2 to download and install some patches on your working machine; It is *not* just a patch roll-up - mainly yes - but it does contain a couple of other features and changes (some of which you may never utilize - not knowing you - I don't know.) I know people still happily using Windows 98 and Windows ME - so telling you that you *need* some service pack for an OS - not my place. SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > No "snot" - reality may seem like "snot" to you - but you are asking > other people whether or not *you* need to do something. "Snot" and "reality" are not mutually exclusive, you provide both. Setting aside the high school debate mentality that pretends that the definition of "need" is the primary focus of this discussion, look at my questions once again: Why should I install a service pack that will simply re-inatall a bunch of patches that I've aleady downlaoded? > So - if I am understanding that correctly - you have been integrating > patches/service packs into your Windows XP Installation Media? And > you seem to be saying that you will do this anyway - which means you > will be integrating service pack 3 insto the installation media. What > would be the point of that unless you are running it on your system > already? You seem to telling me that I need to reinstall 70 MB of patches I've already installed, in order to keep installing patches in the future. If this is true, it is completely silly. MS could, as it has done in the past, simply update the installer. This would be safer and much less time consuming. If I've missed some update in the past, that' my problem is it not? Making me re-install updates for my own good is suspicious, what else is in there? I am not being paranoid here. MS has a long history of rolling out big packages filled with bugs. Most of their resources are now devoted to Vista; did the guys who put this SP together really have the resources to make sure it's free of glitches? Apparently not. Apparently they knew that some machines manufactured by HP would lapse into a re-boot loop because of some kind of dual AMD/Intel imaging deal. Yet they rolled it out anyways, and they're response to the HP owners is: "that's your problem". > Everytime something large (like a service pack) comes out - some > people have issues. Fact of the business. Milions of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > broken!" It's like walking into a hospital emergency room and saying, > "Look at all the sick people, the world must be in a pandemic!" Whatever. This could be easily avoided by providing alternatives to large updates by simply updating the installer so people like me can just keep getting updates on top of the ones we've already installed. No one said anything about pandemics, I've spent hours and hours tweaking my system, loading programs, and setting their defaults to my liking. I don't want to have to spend hours and hours re-doing all that because a big MS update has crashed my system, been there, done that. This is not an unreasonable concern, I am here in an attempt to figure out what my risk exposure is. > Last thing - If it takes an hour to install on your machine - > something else is wrong. ;-) Either that machine is reaching EoL, or > you have some other issues going on. So far - worst case was 30 > minutes - and that machine was far beyond its EoL. Now if you are > including download time - understood - you may have slower download > speed. ;-) You have no way of knowing how long this process would take on my machine. I have seen posts on other boards by people who said it took an hour. You have no way of knowing what my "needs" are, but you know how long this install would take, and you know that I need a new machine. Interesting. I would suggest much like decisions about my "needs", decisions about my machines EoL are mine to make, not yours. It is *not* just a patch > roll-up - mainly yes - but it does contain a couple of other features > and changes (some of which you may never utilize - not knowing you - I > don't know.) Again, what are these other components? Why don't you tell me what they are, and I can then decide if I "need" them. That way you don't have to worry your pretty little head about what I may or may not "need". If I've been keeping my updates current, and my machines are running well, what is the advantage to running this service pack? Is the only advantage that someday, a couple years from now, I may not be able to continue to downlaod updates? According to you guys there's 300 MB of stuff in this SP, at least 70MB previous patches, but only a handfull of stuff that's not previous downloads. What exactly is in the other 230MB? Are they just loading a bunch of crap on my machine that I've already decided I didn't want or need? The difference between XP and SP2 was huge. But I'm not hearing that the difference between SP2 and 3 all that great, aside from a "a couple features that I may or may not use". Again am I missing something? Is there some significant change in OS with SP3? If so, what is it? If not, what's the point? Why not just make the new stuff available as an update? Paul. >> No "snot" - reality may seem like "snot" to you - but you are >> asking other people whether or not *you* need to do something. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > what is it? If not, what's the point? Why not just make the new > stuff available as an update? Service packs are cumulative. They are not made *just for you* but for everyone. They include all patches released (to the public and otherwise) for the operating system including previous service packs. This makes it easier for OEMs and IT people to integrate them into installs and roll them out to the customers. It's the way it was done with SP1, SP1a (minus JavaVM), SP2 (Plus lots of features) and now SP3 (plus minor features). SP1 for Vista as well. Lots of testing is done - but I know of no way to test every possible configuration. If you do - please start a business based on that. That would be an unbelievable profit-maker! SP3 - no matter how you get it - only installs parts it needs to install. If you already have a patch it would have installed - it skips it. That's how it works. Do you have all the following patches installed? List of fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 3 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480/ The article clearly states that the list of fixes it shows were added to SP3 only. If you want to know what was included in SP2 or SP1a - they have links in the article. ("The following fix list includes only the updates that were added in Windows XP SP3.") So - out of those 1174 additional fixes (yes - there are 1174 listed in SP3 alone) - how many do you have installed Post-SP2? I had about 100-120 on a good day. ;-) I still have no idea what you are trying to convey with 'update the installer'; I would like to know, however. Do you *need* those updates (as you ask in your subject line?) *shrug* - nope. You'll likely live a long and happy life without them. Your computer might stay running perfectly for many decades to come without SP3. You may never change OSes, you may never upgrade applications and you may be perfectly safe behind a router with your antivirus/antispyware running. I do know that if you plan on continuing to receive updates say - in mid 2009-early 2010 and beyond - you'll likely need to have SP3 installed by then. If SP1a and SP2 history show anything - it is that sooner or later, in order to get new patches for the OS of your choice you have to have the last service pack Microsoft released for said OS of your choice. Otherwise - only if some third party vendor says their product is only supported in Windows XP SP3 or above - will you have any further 'encouragement' to install SP3 onto your system. BTW - I have to point out that if you have actually experienced this quote, "I've spent hours and hours tweaking my system, loading programs, and setting their defaults to my liking. I don't want to have to spend hours and hours re-doing all that because a big MS update has crashed my system, been there, done that."; I feel obliged to introduce you to backups. ;-) Take advantage of the fact that the data (every bit - literally) on a computer can be backed up and restored later - in case of a problem. If everything in life was like that - things would be all good. You can either manually copy your important files, folders, documents, spreadsheets, emails, contacts, pictures, drawings and so on to an external location (CD/DVD - any disk of some sort, etc) or you can use the backup tool that comes with Windows XP: How To Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308422 Yes - you still need some sort of external media to store the results on, but you could schedule the backup to occur when you are not around, then burn the resultant data onto CD or DVD or something when you are (while you do other things!) External hard drives are inexpensive these days - and I have yet to find someone who said, "I'm so mad at you for suggesdting I spend $100 on that external hard drive. When my computer crashed, I lost nothing!" ;-) Another option (free): Cobian Backup http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system so that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall.. I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to do for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image backup of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it (something goes wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than performing a full install of the operating system and all applications. In other words - make sure you follow through. Some people just do this extra step right before installing something major (like a service pack.) That is not a bad plan. Symantec/Norton Ghost http://snipurl.com/13e00 Acronis True Image http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/ BootIt NG http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > List of fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 3 > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in SP3 alone) - how many do you have installed Post-SP2? I had about > 100-120 on a good day. ;-) I went to the website, and looked at the entire list. I choose 5 security patches randomly, and found that all five have already been installed via the automatic update. Well, it wasn't exactly random, I started with the last update on the list, or the most recent, and went back from there. Obviously that list does is not comprised of never- before released, only included in SP3 patches and updates. If I understand you correclty, you're saying that there's a 1174 fixes in there that I don't have. Again, what am I fixing? Nothing is currently broken. Obviously I don't need those fixes or I'd be here complaining about some problem I'm having and trying to find out which patch to download. I couldn't find a security patch in SP3 that I don't already have. > I still have no idea what you are trying to convey with 'update the > installer'; I would like to know, however. Well, it just did it again. When I went to the windows update website, (using I.E.) it checked for the most recent "updater", found that mine was out of date, and installed a more recent one. Then I ran the updater and found that SP3 is a recemended update. It appeared to download and install something called "genuine advantage" something or another. I've seen this two or three times over the last four years or so. It appears to change something so that I can download and install new patches. If I'm continually updating my XP this way, why wouldn't whatever I need to continue recieving updates not just be included in the routine updates? What is SP3 going to change that will make it impossible for me to continue updates and why would it do that? > BTW - I have to point out that if you have actually experienced this Take advantage of the fact that the > data (every bit - literally) on a computer can be backed up and > restored later - in case of a problem. If everything in life was like > that - things would be all good. I'm not just talking about data here, my important data is backed up regularly. I'm talking about the entire drive, (two of them) programs, shorcuts, network cofigurations, external devices, drivers, everything. no matter how I back up 200+ gigs of stuff, it takes hours to back it up, and hours to restore it. I have better things to do with my time than sit around trying to fix problems created by service packs that were supposed to fix problems not create them. I haven't had to restore an OS in five years, I'm not interested in doing it now. Paul. >> List of fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 3 >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480/ [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > trying to find out which patch to download. I couldn't find a > security patch in SP3 that I don't already have. Incorrect - I am saying that there are 1174 patches there - of which I do guarantee you do *not* have ALL of them installed. You may very well have 100-150 of them installed. I never said those patches were ONLY release in SP3 - I said they were included in SP3 - not SP2 or SP1a. 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. >> I still have no idea what you are trying to convey with 'update the >> installer'; I would like to know, however. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is SP3 going to change that will make it impossible for me to > continue updates and why would it do that? That is just another patch. Many of the patches you have gotten in the past year have only been offered to you because you have SP2 - if you did not - you would have never have been offered certain patches. It does not matter if you got the latest WIndows Update Agent or not - that's just a single component. Heck - even SP3 requires you have at least SP1a installed on a working system - in other words - if you never installed SP1a or SP2, you cannot install SP3. Microsoft has checks it does before allowing some patches/service packs to be installed. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322389 --> "You must have either Windows XP Service Pack 1a or Windows XP Service Pack 2 installed in order to install Windows XP Service Pack 3." SP2 required you have certain patches installed before you could install it: http://www.petri.co.il/windows_xp_sp2_patches.htm 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. >> BTW - I have to point out that if you have actually experienced >> this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > create them. I haven't had to restore an OS in five years, I'm not > interested in doing it now. Proves you did not read - I gave you three applications which - as I stated very clearly - would backup a system in totality. You could apply that image to a brand new hard drive in the same system and boot up like nothing happened since the day you created the exact image - settings and all. As for the 200+GB of data - I have a few terabytes - however - I backup and store my data seperately from my system drive and applications - so I can backup and restore 10-20GB of stuff and have everything up and working in 25-45 minutes. Sometimes the backup can take an hour or so - but it is done while I sleep. SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. Did you not answer your own question when you said updates will not be supported for SP2 after 2010??? Actually...the decision ultimately is yours to make and since support for SP2 wont stop for 2 years....you have 2 years to decide!!! I personally always wait a few months before installing a major update like SP2 ..SP3...that way some of the bugs get fixed. No update is absolutely necesary............ pk SignatureDISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-) >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Paul. Select quotes: > Did you not answer your own question when you said updates will not be > supported for SP2 after 2010??? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No update is absolutely necesary............ > pk "Why don't you go to MS and do some research on your own, smart a.s." "So might a little less "I already know my answer but I'll ask anyway to jerk you all around". " Man- what a bunch of piss-ants. I did not answer my own question, Shenan provided the information that MS will stop supporting non-SP3 systems in two years, ( amongst other things ) I didn't know that when I posted my original question. Why do you guys keep pointing out that this is my decision as if it's some kind of shrewd insight? Duh. Necessary updates? One assumes that MS releases these updates for a reason, what are you saying- no one needs any of them? I've been doing this for over 20 years, the first OS I worked with was MS DOS, there was a time when you had to type in an MIT address in order to get to newsgroups like this. I don't mean to be a smart a.s, but news groups were originally set up for people share information about research they were doing, and discuss questions they had. An astute observer would deduce from my many references to the MS PDF, and othter messege boards, that my inquiry at this newsgroup was not my only attempt find information about the SP. I was inclinded to skip this update, but prudent human beings recognize the limits of their knowledge and seek additional information before making a decision. I'm not jerking anyone around here, I was prepared to install the SP if someone had some information about it that indicated it was worth the potential risk. The fact that I didn't change my mind about the SP doesn't mean I'm jerking anyone around. I don't know why so many of you have such a bizzare attitude, maybe I'm talking to a bunch of 13 year olds, but I remind you, the name of this newsgroup: microsoft.PUBLIC.windowsxp.perform_maintain. This isn't a private club, deal with it. Paul. : Again, what are these other components? Why don't you tell me what they : are, and I can then decide if I "need" them. That way you don't have to : worry your pretty little head about what I may or may not "need". Why don't you go to MS and do some research on your own, smart a.s. >: Again, what are these other components? Why don't you tell me what they >: are, and I can then decide if I "need" them. That way you don't have to >: worry your pretty little head about what I may or may not "need". > > Why don't you go to MS and do some research on your own, smart a.s. Ouch. Hey pdigmking! you are right the snot really is coming out there! Someone is being huffy and almighty! Public relations class you think? > > A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful. > > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > happily using Windows 98 and Windows ME - so telling you that you *need* > some service pack for an OS - not my place. > Hey pdigmking! you are right the snot really is coming out there! > Someone is being huffy and almighty! Public relations class you > think? No snot from me - I do see it from you and pdigmking... SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful. So might a little less "I already know my answer but I'll ask anyway to jerk you all around". "Pdigmking" <paugle@gmail.com> wrote... > I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2 > when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul Like you, I've been up-to-date with the past Windows Updates. Still, SP3 had about 70MB to download (at least that's better than the full SP3 standalone file of something like 500-600 MB) and install. I'm not sure about the automatic Windows Update but expect it may do that, given enough time. Unless/Until you hear differently, if you don't want SP3, you might want to be safe and turn off Auto Windows Update and proceed with Windows Update manually where you can choose to accept or ignore SP3. But unless you have a specific reason to fear doing the upgrade, you may just want to go ahead and become a SP3 user. Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3 will install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?), complete with their service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and I'm unsure if it would update a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC. Craig > Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3 > will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Craig Thanks Craig. What is .NET Frame, and why should I have versions 2 and 3? "Pdigmking" wrote... >> Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3 >> will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks Craig. What is .NET Frame, and why should I have versions 2 and 3? I'm not the most knowledgeable user here so will let the others fill you in with details. I think it's something like a Virtual Machine or Java, whatever it is these things do for us... From what I see on my PC and from what I've read here and elsewhere, you only need a .NET Framework when some other software on your system requires it. On my PC, I think that my Quicken needs .NET 2 and I know that .NET 2 is needed for my "Driver Detective," my EMC backup software and I think my income tax software. When installing a software package that requires a non-present .NET Framework, you'll be told it's needed. Note that software is built to work with a specific .NET Framework. In other words, if you have software that requires .NET v2, you need to keep v2 on your PC even after installing v3. As far as I know, SP3 adding .NET version 3 on my PC for future possible use--it's not needed now by me. And since my PC works without having .NET v1.1 present, I must have no software that requires it. You can see if your system has a .NET Framework installed--it may already be there. If you do a full Windows Update (not the recommended "Express" Update), you'll be offered the three .NET (v 1.1, 2, and 3.x) if they're not already on your system. If you don't see a version offered, then it's already on your PC. And if you have one or more .NET Frameworks on your PC but they're not up-to-date, you'll be offered patches or Service Packs for them. If offered a .NET Framework update of any sort, then you system has the basic .NET Framework of that version installed. Regarding your earlier comment to in reply to someone else, using Windows Update to download SP3 will NOT reinstall a bunch of patches you've already done. The SP3 inspection/download process sees what your system has already done and only downloads and installs the patches that are not present. As a couple have pointed out in this thread, a SP3 upgrade on a previously fully-patched PC will have about 60 MB of material to download--a PC that's less up to date could require a SP3 download of several hundred MB up to about 500-600 MB. Craig > From what I see on my PC and from what I've read here and elsewhere, > you > only need a .NET Framework when some other software on your system > requires it. On my PC, I think that my Quicken needs .NET 2 and I know > that .NET 2 is needed for my "Driver Detective," my EMC backup (snip) How do I find out what if any version of Net Frame I already have? > Regarding your earlier comment to in reply to someone else, using > Windows [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Craig Thanks for that. Again, I got my original info from the MS PDF which described SP3 as a collection of previous patches amongst other things. From that I got the incorrect impression that I would be re-loading patches previously installed. So we're only talking about maybe 60-70MB of additional stuff. What is this addititional stuff? Paul. Pdigmking wrote: > I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded > to SP2 when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > e-mail, browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get > future updatas? <inline> > Like you, I've been up-to-date with the past Windows Updates. > Still, SP3 had about 70MB to download (at least that's better than > the full SP3 standalone file of something like 500-600 MB) and > install. No. Full SP3 downloaded size is 331,808,768 bytes. > I'm not sure about the automatic Windows Update but expect it may > do that, given enough time. Unless/Until you hear differently, if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > complete with their service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and > I'm unsure if it would update a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC. SP3 contains no .NET Frameworks or updates - nor does it require any that I have found. There are many people out there without any .NET Frameworks - 1.1, 2.0. 30. or 3.5 (non-cumulative.) SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html "Shenan Stanley" wrote... >> Like you, I've been up-to-date with the past Windows Updates. >> Still, SP3 had about 70MB to download (at least that's better than >> the full SP3 standalone file of something like 500-600 MB) and >> install. > > No. Full SP3 downloaded size is 331,808,768 bytes. I stand corrected. I thought I had seen a link to the download of the stand-alone that was mid-500MB but since I didn't need it, I'm probably remembering wrong. It was much bigger than what I needed by using the Windows Update method... >> Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3 >> will install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have found. There are many people out there without any .NET > Frameworks - 1.1, 2.0. 30. or 3.5 (non-cumulative.) Hmm, what you say does agree with what I had been told shortly before SP3 became available. But I'm confused. Prior to installing SP3, my full (not Express) Windows Update always reminded me that my .NET Framework v2 had a Service Pack available to update it...and that I was offered .NET Framework v 3 (or maybe it was 3.5) and .NET Framework 1.1 to install. I chose not to install any of these three updates so all three offers were made each time I did a full Windows Update. But now after installing SP3, I'm not being offered a v2 update or an installation of 3. I am still offered the 1.1 installation. If SP3 didn't install and update .NET Framework 2 and 3, then why am I no longer be offered these with Windows Update? I am curious and confused right now. Thanks. Craig > "Shenan Stanley" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > remembering wrong. It was much bigger than what I needed by using the > Windows Update method... That'll be the iso version. The iso version is the SP3 execuatble plus installer front end that you can burn to CD. "Craig" wrote... > "Shenan Stanley" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Craig Shenan, OK, I'm getting off the OP's questions, but in looking further, I believe you are correct and SP3 does not add or update .NET Frameworks. In checking through my "Add/Remove Programs" with "show updates," all that I see is my original unservice-patched .NET 2. I do not see that my system has patched .NET 2 or installed .NET 3 when installing SP3. There is a problem still. Prior to installing SP3, Windows Update told me I had a .NET 2 Service Pack available and that all of .NET 3 was also available to add (as well as .NET 1.1). After upgrading my XP to SP3, Windows Update (Custom, not Express) no longer offers me the upgrade to my installed .NET 2 or the installation of .NET 3. I wonder if this is a bug/oversight on MS's part post-SP3 and wonder if it'll be remedied in the future to again offer me the various .NET Framework stuff. Craig Since installing SP3 I have much trouble. Computer freezing, not able to open program after about 3 minutes after booting, also not able to close any open programs or even to shut down in a normal manner. I cannot even keep it working long enough to uninstall SP3. If anyone can suggest how to solve this please let me know. Thanks > "Craig" wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Craig > Since installing SP3 I have much trouble. Computer freezing, not > able to open program after about 3 minutes after booting, also not > able to close any open programs or even to shut down in a normal > manner. I cannot even keep it working long enough to uninstall > SP3. If anyone can suggest how to solve this please let me know. Safe Mode --> System Restore. SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.