Is SP2 worth downloading?

[Jik47]

Hello Guys and I need some input. My 1 Ghz. P III was running fine and fast and when I decided to get the SP2 as it was touted as the best thing since the wheel. Well I downloaded it and strange things have been going on ever since. Such as I will be working along and machine just crashes, my monitor stays on all the time instead of the power down mode where Windows XP is on the screen, other programs do not seem to run right now and various other misery. I posted a search a while back on Google and out of like 20 links, nearly 18 of them said the same thing; get rid of SP 2 and just run SP1 with just critical updates instead of the SP 2 download. I am about ready to do that and just thought I would check in with the Anandtech guys as you have always been a helpful bunch to me before. I am not a real computer savy guy, just very basic level abilities as I am a school teacher and do not have the time to become savy or learn to fix my mess ups. I just like my machine to run smooth with little problems other than updating downloads for Nortons antivirus and zone alarm, along with Lavasoft Adware and spybot.
Please help me out here with input on keeping SP2 or getting rid of it. I appreciate all of your time and assistance...

 

[firewall]

It is better to have SP2 installed. My PIII 700MHz crawled when I installed SP2 after installing WinXP from scratch (without any SP).

To remedy this, I slipstreamed the SP2 setup file into my Windows Installation CD, burned it onto another disc and then installed it. It worked fine after that and hasn't caused any other major problem apart from the regular quirks of thw Windows OS.

 

[Artek]

NO SP2!!! It just messed with me sooo much and didn't let me do sooo many things. I think its a big waste and a pain.

 

[bacillus]

No, don't download it, get the CD from Microsoft!

 

[Maximilian]

D/l it, get the cd, either way upgrade to SP2. I got a dodgy update from the uni i go to, n it wrecked XP's ability to run old 16-bit stuff and old games. As long as u get it from M$ its all good

 

[Nothinman]

NO SP2!!! It just messed with me sooo much and didn't let me do sooo many things. I think its a big waste and a pain.

Care to explain how it messed with you?

 

[JDCentral]

I'm one of the computer support consultants for the Engineering college, here, and from past experience I have found that on a 'taken care-of' machine, SP2 install goes extremely well.

'taken care-of' meaning that the HD is clean, there aren't all sorts of quirky spyware pop-ups, aren't all those odd 'theme' plugins that make WinXP look like Mac OS X, etc..

However, on newly installed machines (and slip-streamed) SP2 is probably the best thing since the wheel.

I'd recommend just backing up all your stuff and re-installing XP w/ SP2, if you're having problems with SP2.

Note: It's a good practice to partition your drive into at LEAST two partitions - one (the C: drive) holds Windows and all your program files, and the second (the D: drive? or whatever) holds all your documents and stuff. That way, you can just blow away the C: drive whenever you REALLY need to (as I've found that re-installing windows usually takes a hell of a lot less time than figuring out what caused the problem). You can update the 'My Documents' shortcut to point to the other partition, as well... so you almost won't even need to know about your second partition.

-Justin

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: JDCentral

Note: It's a good practice to partition your drive into at LEAST two partitions - one (the C: drive) holds Windows and all your program files, and the second (the D: drive? or whatever) holds all your documents and stuff. That way, you can just blow away the C: drive whenever you REALLY need to (as I've found that re-installing windows usually takes a hell of a lot less time than figuring out what caused the problem). You can update the 'My Documents' shortcut to point to the other partition, as well... so you almost won't even need to know about your second partition.

-Justin

This is why I have moving most of my stuff towards linux. It should never be easier to reinstall to fix a problem then it is to just fix the problem. I do understand that philosophy with windows, but it's still wrong from an OS perspective.


To the OP: I maintain a test lab of 500+ computers, and SP2 has never been too bad, the extra security from the firewall is worth it if you don't us another s/w firewall. I think that running without all the updates you can get is asking for trouble.

 

[groovin]

MS is fading away support for non XP sp2 machines... so going to sp2 is somethign you should plan for at least. just install with caution. ive installed it on many machines and have only had a couple bad occurances (semi-customized software from small companies written 6+ years ago not working right until I reinstalled them).

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Artek
NO SP2!!! It just messed with me sooo much and didn't let me do sooo many things. I think its a big waste and a pain.

Pirated software ?


Either way, SP2 is a worthy update, download it.

 

[stash]

It should never be easier to reinstall to fix a problem then it is to just fix the problem. I do understand that philosophy with windows, but it's still wrong from an OS perspective.

That's not a Windows philosophy. It's unfortunately the philosophy of many users of Windows who either do not understand how to troubleshoot or can't be bothered. People with this mentality would not fare any better with a different OS.

 

[Phoenix86]

With regards to security service packs are not optional. MS supported SP1 + SP2 for a while (IE the provided patches for both) but I think that's expired or about to.

Originally posted by: STaSh

It should never be easier to reinstall to fix a problem then it is to just fix the problem. I do understand that philosophy with windows, but it's still wrong from an OS perspective.

That's not a Windows philosophy. It's unfortunately the philosophy of many users of Windows who either do not understand how to troubleshoot or can't be bothered. People with this mentality would not fare any better with a different OS.

So true. fix>reinstall, but you gotta know how.

I'm still running a 2K install at home as my primary rig, it's over 3 years old.

 

[JDCentral]

Originally posted by: STaSh

It should never be easier to reinstall to fix a problem then it is to just fix the problem. I do understand that philosophy with windows, but it's still wrong from an OS perspective.

That's not a Windows philosophy. It's unfortunately the philosophy of many users of Windows who either do not understand how to troubleshoot or can't be bothered. People with this mentality would not fare any better with a different OS.

I find it the fastest/easiest way to do it. It's usually the LAST resort, though... as in "I'm fed up with this, and have tried everything I and/or everybody I've asked knows".

Personally, I have totally abandoned Windows... I haven't had windows on my main machine for about 3 years, and haven't USED a windows machine since it was on my last machine. I got fed up with XP when it would blue-screen 15 seconds after bootup, on a fresh install (that was about three weeks after it came out, though).

So.. .my M$ Windows views are slightly biased

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: JDCentral

Originally posted by: STaSh

It should never be easier to reinstall to fix a problem then it is to just fix the problem. I do understand that philosophy with windows, but it's still wrong from an OS perspective.

That's not a Windows philosophy. It's unfortunately the philosophy of many users of Windows who either do not understand how to troubleshoot or can't be bothered. People with this mentality would not fare any better with a different OS.

I find it the fastest/easiest way to do it. It's usually the LAST resort, though... as in "I'm fed up with this, and have tried everything I and/or everybody I've asked knows".

Very true. While my well-maintained Windows system runs just fine except for the relatively rare reinstall to coincide with major hardware upgrades, I have found that in friends' systems that have become infected with thousands of copies of spyware, it is simply not practical to do anything other than reinstall, because you'd have to be a Microsoft programmer to know where to look to find all of the stuff that's been screwed up (obviously, Stash is, so he's not seeing things from a more practical perspective).

 

[Oyeve]

If your WinXP installation is healthy then get SP2, if its been in use for a while and you havent d/l updates regularlly then I would do a clean install, apply all updates and then do SP2. For some reason, all of my friends who use DELL have had major issues with SP2. I hade to fix too many DELL systems after a SP2 install.

 

[stash]

because you'd have to be a Microsoft programmer to know where to look to find all of the stuff that's been screwed up (obviously, Stash is, so he's not seeing things from a more practical perspective)

Well, I'm not a programmer of any sort, but I know how to troubleshoot. There's nothing magical about it.

If something goes wrong in Linux, do you think the recently converted Windows user (who solves problems by formatting) is going to approach the problem any differently? This is not an OS-specific issue, it's a user issue.

 

[calyco]

Originally posted by: bacillus
No, don't download it, get the CD from Microsoft!

 

[nweaver]

if they have spent more then a day tweaking and building, then yes. Not to mention, in linux, problems arn't fixed by reformatting (usually)

 

[stash]

Why would a user who has dismal troubleshooting skills (somethings broken, let's format) suddenly develop good troubleshooting skills after using an entirely different OS for a couple days?

There are very few problems in Windows that require a format. Unfortunately, the biggest one is malware. If something gets on your box, the box can no longer be trusted and the only way you can be sure is to format it. This principle applies to any other OS.

 

[Nothinman]

Why would a user who has dismal troubleshooting skills (somethings broken, let's format) suddenly develop good troubleshooting skills after using an entirely different OS for a couple days?

Because when they did that Linux install they had to read some docs and figure something out, if they actually kept with it and got it working once there's a chance that they might understand what's broken and how to fix it. Just figuring out what's broken in Windows can be a PITA.

 

[stash]

Because when they did that Linux install they had to read some docs and figure something out

Really? Huh. I always thought that was what generic troubleshooting is. So a user who says "OMG my box doesn't work, this is WAY to hard!!!!!1111 one one one...format" is suddenly going to immerse themselves in man files and user groups?

And I thought installing some Linux distributions was a piece of cake now. Why would they need to read any documentation to install the OS?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why would a user who has dismal troubleshooting skills (somethings broken, let's format) suddenly develop good troubleshooting skills after using an entirely different OS for a couple days?

Because when they did that Linux install they had to read some docs and figure something out, if they actually kept with it and got it working once there's a chance that they might understand what's broken and how to fix it. Just figuring out what's broken in Windows can be a PITA.

While I don't run linux I can't compare, most issues with the OS can be resolved by hitting up technet KBs. Is it really that hard? I just think people are ignorant and want to remain that way since it's easier. Formatting is an "easy" fix for many people, which begs the question, why bother learning how to TS unless it's your career?

Most people can't TS their cars' problems (not maint.).

You have to admit, it'd be nice if you could fix 85% of all your car's problems by inserting a CD and letting it run...

Gah, I hate computer-car analogies, but whatever.

 

[mechBgon]

I frequently recommend fresh installs, here are some reasons:

1) there's no ambiguity about whether the issue (usually malware) has been eradicated.

2) it is often faster than trying to fix the problem the l33t way.

3) people are not so great at following detailed instructions

4) if there were some bad practices in the past, it gives them a chance to start over and begin using better practices right from the get-go.


You could call me lowbrow, but I think I'm just being practical

 

[Nothinman]

Really? Huh. I always thought that was what generic troubleshooting is. So a user who says "OMG my box doesn't work, this is WAY to hard!!!!!1111 one one one...format" is suddenly going to immerse themselves in man files and user groups?

I agree it's rare, but it happens. It depends on who much the user wants to do something.

And I thought installing some Linux distributions was a piece of cake now. Why would they need to read any documentation to install the OS?

Installing most is simple, but there are still some like Gentoo that force you to do a lot of extra work.

While I don't run linux I can't compare, most issues with the OS can be resolved by hitting up technet KBs. Is it really that hard?

Yes, because finding docs on MS' site is a PITA. Most of the time I have to resort to using google to search their site and even then I only find what I want half of the time.

1) there's no ambiguity about whether the issue (usually malware) has been eradicated.

Yes there is, the problem could be hardware.

2) it is often faster than trying to fix the problem the l33t way.

Only if the user didn't have many programs, games, data, etc on that drive.

3) people are not so great at following detailed instructions

Which means that unless they have a restore CD that does the XP install for them, they'll probably botch it up.

4) if there were some bad practices in the past, it gives them a chance to start over and begin using better practices right from the get-go.

Most people consider computers crashing a normal activity so they're not going to change their practices until someone explains to them what's good and what's not.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: NothinmanYes, because finding docs on MS' site is a PITA. Most of the time I have to resort to using google to search their site and even then I only find what I want half of the time.

It's seperated since there is so much out there, so you need to know wether your looking for a KB article, MSDN, Technet, etc.

Don't use search.microsoft.com to start your search, use technet.com. It lets your select between Technet and the KBs (where most of the docs are), and you can further refine if needed from there. Then it's just a matter of search terms.

I use google some too.