Window xp service pack

[Gigan13]

So I was wondering, when I first install windows do i have to directly install sp2 i mean like what will hapen if i don;t do it immadiely?

 

[zbalat]

Read

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Gigan13
So I was wondering, when I first install windows do i have to directly install sp2 i mean like what will hapen if i don;t do it immadiely?

Your much more likely to be infected by malware if you do not. There are very few valid reasons for a home user on XP not to be running SP2.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Gigan13
So I was wondering, when I first install windows do i have to directly install sp2 i mean like what will hapen if i don;t do it immadiely?

Your much more likely to be infected by malware if you do not. There are very few valid reasons for a home user on XP not to be running SP2.

If you use FF you won't. I use FF with SP1 and the last time I did a scan (which was about 2 weeks ago and the time before that was 4 months before) it didn't find anything and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything running I don't want to be running. I personally will not upgrade to SP2 because 1. the problems it causes and 2. no benefit for me and the ram it uses makes it that much more frustrating.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Gigan13
So I was wondering, when I first install windows do i have to directly install sp2 i mean like what will hapen if i don;t do it immadiely?

Your much more likely to be infected by malware if you do not. There are very few valid reasons for a home user on XP not to be running SP2.

If you use FF you won't. I use FF with SP1 and the last time I did a scan (which was about 2 weeks ago and the time before that was 4 months before) it didn't find anything and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything running I don't want to be running. I personally will not upgrade to SP2 because 1. the problems it causes and 2. no benefit for me and the ram it uses makes it that much more frustrating.

By malware I was not refering to spyware/adware, I was refering to worms which will easily infect an XP box directly connected to the internet without patches.

As for our SP2 comments, sounds like your typical misinformation. But I'll bite, what problems does it cause (be specific, try not to repeat a bunch of BS you read somewhere else). As for ram usage, I've not seen anything substantially change over SP1.

 

[firewall]

Use an SP2 slipstreamed version of WinXP. That is much easier to do.

 

[volrath]

I've seen more problems caused by not having SP2 than by having SP2.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Gigan13
So I was wondering, when I first install windows do i have to directly install sp2 i mean like what will hapen if i don;t do it immadiely?

Your much more likely to be infected by malware if you do not. There are very few valid reasons for a home user on XP not to be running SP2.

If you use FF you won't. I use FF with SP1 and the last time I did a scan (which was about 2 weeks ago and the time before that was 4 months before) it didn't find anything and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything running I don't want to be running. I personally will not upgrade to SP2 because 1. the problems it causes and 2. no benefit for me and the ram it uses makes it that much more frustrating.

By malware I was not refering to spyware/adware, I was refering to worms which will easily infect an XP box directly connected to the internet without patches.

As for our SP2 comments, sounds like your typical misinformation. But I'll bite, what problems does it cause (be specific, try not to repeat a bunch of BS you read somewhere else). As for ram usage, I've not seen anything substantially change over SP1.

I know what malware is, and my machine still isn't infected, one POSSIBLE reason is because I run behind my router which has a little dinky software firewall.. Every system I've worked with that has had SP2 runs much slower than when it had SP1. I refuse to install SP2, nothing I need from it really.. That stupid "security center" and other garbage is likely the reason for the extra ram usage. If I don't get infected with SP1 I don't see the need for SP2. And this box has been around for over a year now, no infections. I've gotten viruses on here, but they haven't "infected" the machine because I have antivirus and I know what is and what isn't running.

 

[bsobel]

I know what malware is, and my machine still isn't infected, one POSSIBLE reason is because I run behind my router which has a little dinky software firewall..

Possible reason? That is the reason.

Every system I've worked with that has had SP2 runs much slower than when it had SP1.

Benchmarks please (should be hillarious watching you try to prove this point)

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I know what malware is, and my machine still isn't infected, one POSSIBLE reason is because I run behind my router which has a little dinky software firewall..

Possible reason? That is the reason.

Every system I've worked with that has had SP2 runs much slower than when it had SP1.

Benchmarks please (should be hillarious watching you try to prove this point)

Sighs, how can you run a software benchmark proving that navigating an OS with SP2 and with OUT SP2.... You can't really...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: zbalat
Read

What?

 

[bsobel]

Sighs, how can you run a software benchmark proving that navigating an OS with SP2 and with OUT SP2.... You can't really...

That has to be one of the stupidest things ever posted here by you (and thre is alot to choose from!)

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Sighs, how can you run a software benchmark proving that navigating an OS with SP2 and with OUT SP2.... You can't really...

That has to be one of the stupidest things ever posted here by you (and thre is alot to choose from!)

Alright, so I assume you've got a program that can benchmark navigation speed through the OS, no? If not, then STFU.

 

[cubby1223]

There is only one valid reason that I have come across as why someone wouldn't put the service packs on the machine, and it has nothing to do with performance or stability or compatibility concerns.

If you can, do it. If you don't want to, then purchase a legit copy that will let you.

When using the early releases of the XP cd, you will have errors come up with software that I think is java related, like weatherbug, aim, etc. Installing sp2 immediately will remedy any software issues you might run into otherwise.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
There is only one valid reason that I have come across as why someone wouldn't put the service packs on the machine, and it has nothing to do with performance or stability or compatibility concerns.

If you can, do it. If you don't want to, then purchase a legit copy that will let you.

When using the early releases of the XP cd, you will have errors come up with software that I think is java related, like weatherbug, aim, etc. Installing sp2 immediately will remedy any software issues you might run into otherwise.

Like I'm going to trust some one who considers weatherbug as "software"...

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: cubby1223
When using the early releases of the XP cd, you will have errors come up with software that I think is java related, like weatherbug, aim, etc. Installing sp2 immediately will remedy any software issues you might run into otherwise.

Like I'm going to trust some one who considers weatherbug as "software"...

What is there not to trust? I presented a fact I know to be true. You, on the other hand, have not provided sufficient enough reasoning to hold back installation of SP2.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: cubby1223
When using the early releases of the XP cd, you will have errors come up with software that I think is java related, like weatherbug, aim, etc. Installing sp2 immediately will remedy any software issues you might run into otherwise.

Like I'm going to trust some one who considers weatherbug as "software"...

What is there not to trust? I presented a fact I know to be true. You, on the other hand, have not provided sufficient enough reasoning to hold back installation of SP2.

You said weatherbug is "software" like the equivalent of word....

 

[KoolDrew]

If you use FF you won't. I use FF with SP1 and the last time I did a scan (which was about 2 weeks ago and the time before that was 4 months before) it didn't find anything and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything running I don't want to be running. I personally will not upgrade to SP2 because 1. the problems it causes and 2. no benefit for me and the ram it uses makes it that much more frustrating.

Wow... :roll:

Not updating Windows is just pure stupidity.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

If you use FF you won't. I use FF with SP1 and the last time I did a scan (which was about 2 weeks ago and the time before that was 4 months before) it didn't find anything and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything running I don't want to be running. I personally will not upgrade to SP2 because 1. the problems it causes and 2. no benefit for me and the ram it uses makes it that much more frustrating.

Wow... :roll:

Not updating Windows is just pure stupidity.

I didn't say I didn't update windows, I said I refuse to use the latest service pack, thats all..

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: goku
You said weatherbug is "software" like the equivalent of word....

Well, I think we all can agree that Weatherbug is not hardware. Kind of narrows down the options of what to label it as. :roll:

Seriously, your warning of SP2 causing major slowdowns on machines is not good advice. I've updated many systems with SP2 and have never noticed any issues speed-wise. There are always going to be rare occurrances, which usually are because of malware already on the system prior to updating - of which is nullified because the OP is talking about a fresh install of XP.

Plus, your advice to the OP was to say if you use FireFox, you are protected from malware, is just not true, and you should know that.

It's the same old story that get's told over & over again. Everyone always has the perfect secure computer up until the moment an infection occurs - then and only then does anyone ever learn to be better protected in the future.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: goku
You said weatherbug is "software" like the equivalent of word....

Well, I think we all can agree that Weatherbug is not hardware. Kind of narrows down the options of what to label it as. :roll:

Seriously, your warning of SP2 causing major slowdowns on machines is not good advice. I've updated many systems with SP2 and have never noticed any issues speed-wise. There are always going to be rare occurrances, which usually are because of malware already on the system prior to updating - of which is nullified because the OP is talking about a fresh install of XP.

Plus, your advice to the OP was to say if you use FireFox, you are protected from malware, is just not true, and you should know that.

It's the same old story that get's told over & over again. Everyone always has the perfect secure computer up until the moment an infection occurs - then and only then does anyone ever learn to be better protected in the future.

Your right, its a wonderful peice of software, all people should have it installed because it provides up to date information on weather in your local area :roll: To me, it's just a bunch of malicious code..

Firefox is so much safer than IE it's not even funny, you thinking that IE is just as safe is just as stupid as you thinking that I think FF has no security vulnerabilities. Sure it does, but IE's far outweighs FF's...


Oh and BTW, when my system according to you *will get infected*, it won't matter anyways. What do I have to lose?

 

[KoolDrew]

I didn't say I didn't update windows, I said I refuse to use the latest service pack, thats all..

Service packs are updates...

Your right, its a wonderful peice of software, all people should have it installed because it provides up to date information on weather in your local area To me, it's just a bunch of malicious code..

It is still software by definition.

Firefox is so much safer than IE it's not even funny, you thinking that IE is just as safe is just as stupid as you thinking that I think FF has no security vulnerabilities. Sure it does, but IE's far outweighs FF's..

Browser security all boils down to user intellgience. IE is perfectly fine as long as the user is not a moron and they know how to configure a few settings properly. To say by using FF you are completely protected my malware is just ignorant.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

I didn't say I didn't update windows, I said I refuse to use the latest service pack, thats all..

Service packs are updates...

Your right, but SP are more of a collection of updates than anything else. They provide in the case of windows XP SP2, system wide changes and hinder performance compared to SP1.

Your right, its a wonderful peice of software, all people should have it installed because it provides up to date information on weather in your local area To me, it's just a bunch of malicious code..

It is still software by definition.
[/quote]
So by your definition, viruses are "software" as well...

Firefox is so much safer than IE it's not even funny, you thinking that IE is just as safe is just as stupid as you thinking that I think FF has no security vulnerabilities. Sure it does, but IE's far outweighs FF's..

Browser security all boils down to user intellgience. IE is perfectly fine as long as the user is not a moron and they know how to configure a few settings properly. To say by using FF you are completely protected my malware is just ignorant.[/quote]

 

[bsobel]

Your right, but SP are more of a collection of updates than anything else. They provide in the case of windows XP SP2, system wide changes and hinder performance compared to SP1.

More of your lies eh? Still waiting for you to backup your claim that SP2 is slower than SP1. I know I'll be waiting for a long time, you can't do it as you made it up.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Your right, but SP are more of a collection of updates than anything else. They provide in the case of windows XP SP2, system wide changes and hinder performance compared to SP1.

More of your lies eh? Still waiting for you to backup your claim that SP2 is slower than SP1. I know I'll be waiting for a long time, you can't do it as you made it up.

Why should I waste my time reinstalling windows with both SP and then running benchmarks for only you to question the integrity of my benchmarks later? SP2 runs slower, I know it for a fact because I've got first hand experience with it on my sisters laptop and she hasn't really install much else since I last worked on it. Her system just doesn't feel as "zippy" as it used to with SP1. Until I or somebody comes out with a program that can *actually* emulate what a user goes through with everyday tasks and has a scoring system based on that, it won't be easy to prove with out trying it out for your self. She has 512MB of ram.

Edit: So have you know, I don't hate things arbitrarily, I hate things because I've been subjected to things from "it" to cause me to hate it. For one thing, when Firefox was in it's beta form and was gaining popularity, I really hated firefox I mean I hated it with a passion and was a very big IE supporter claiming with IE properly setup, you won't get infected, well I "tried this out" and infact got infected with IE.

Now The last time I had used FF was around 2003 and I just didn't like the interface or the fact tabbed bowsing was required and so I supported IE all the way up to Dec 2004/Jan 2005 IIRC. So back to my "proper config of IE", So I went to a few bad sites and the system got infected pretty badly but because kaspersky was installed, I was able to remove the virus and did some spyware scans, also checked bootup applications and removed the remnants..

So after seeing that no matter what, IE was extremely suspeptible, I bit my tongue and tried out FF AGIAN after having a bad experience with it, well when I tried it agian (FF was now finalized IIRC) my experience was much much more positive and I liked the interface much more now. So I gradually switched over and now I have FF installed on all of my systems. I just couldn't be happier, sure I use IE every once in a while when a page doesn't load in FF but otherwise I'm a happy camper and my system doesn't get infected anymore.