Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ? Well maybe the reason is they don't want to put us off buying Vista. According to PCFormat Xp is now twice as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%! I for one am sticking with XP!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have installed it on both my laptop and desktop computers - so it is not a rumour but it is actually out!


On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm, eoghan wrote:
>Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ? Well maybe the reason
>is they don't want to put us off buying Vista. According to PCFormat Xp is now twice
>as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%!
>
>I for one am sticking with XP!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I know the RC version has been out a while. It really has a lot of news about it 
being out.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Where did you donwload it from?
Thanks,  MrC

Malware Removal Specialist

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

should one down load sp3.if so where can you get it


On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 4:24 pm, MrCharlie wrote:
>
>Where did you donwload it from?
>Thanks, MrC
>

>Malware Removal Specialist
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Google will guide you.







On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm, gary wrote:

>should one down load sp3.if so where can you get it

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

So who made this performance claim?
 I didn't see anything on the d/l page that would even make me even mildly interested.
Am I missing something?







On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm, eoghan wrote:

>Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ?  Well maybe the reason 

>is they don't want to put us off buying Vista.  According to PCFormat Xp is now 
twice 

>as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%!

>

>I for one am sticking with XP! 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Dont know that caring is needed! I agree. Seems that if you've kept up with auto 
updates you've pretty much already got it. EXECPT, for NAP which is needed to integrate 
XP machines into Server 2008. My guess is that the market has resisted upgrading 
to Server 2008 because it would have meant upgading workstations to Vista. So MS 
has buckled and included NAP in XP SP3. I could be wrong but thats what it smells 
like to me.







On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 7:12 pm, Ricer46 wrote:

>So who made this performance claim?

> I didn't see anything on the d/l page that would even make me even mildly interested.

>Am I missing something?

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

It's a Release Candidate, not the final version. I'll wait, thanks ;-)

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

As with all "upgrades" I will let the test of time judge whether it is worth doing.

Luckily for people like me, there enough lemmings out there to rush into new versions 
of software and do the testing that ought really to have been done before they were 
released.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The OP seems to be thrilled and doesn't care if anyone shares the excitement? LOL

I saw something about a 10% performance increase in an article not long ago. Think 
it was PC Mag. 



Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File

I agree, let the impatients "test" it, and get the buggs worked out!


On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 9:54 pm, MartinM wrote:
>

>As with all "upgrades" I will let the test of time judge whether it is worth doing.
>
>Luckily for people like me, there enough lemmings out there to rush into new versions
>of software and do the testing that ought really to have been done before they were
>released.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I haven't done auto updates in 5 years, but still see no need for any of the listed 
features.







On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 7:40 pm, Bevan Miller wrote:

>Dont know that caring is needed! I agree. Seems that if you've kept up with auto 

>updates you've pretty much already got it. EXECPT, for NAP which is needed to integrate 

>XP machines into Server 2008. My guess is that the market has resisted upgrading 

>to Server 2008 because it would have meant upgading workstations to Vista. So MS 

>has buckled and included NAP in XP SP3. I could be wrong but thats what it smells 

>like to me.

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

When people here tell me that it's worthwhile, I might do it. 10% is not even enough 
to "feel."
Thanks for the reference though.







On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm, Ms. Eagle wrote:

>

>The OP seems to be thrilled and doesn't care if anyone shares the excitement? LOL

>

>I saw something about a 10% performance increase in an article not long ago. Think 

>it was PC Mag. 

>

>

>


>
>color="006699">Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File 

is that auto updates only?what about criticual updades.are you saying on a new pc no updates will be fine.with little or no problems. thanks


On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 4:31 am, Ricer46 wrote:
>I haven't done auto updates in 5 years, but still see no need for any of the listed
>features.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

SP2 only, and that was well beyond a year after it was released. Aside from that 
zero M$ updates.







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 4:43 am, gary wrote:

>is that auto updates only?what about criticual updades.are you saying on a new pc 

>no updates will be fine.with little or no problems. thanks

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

thank you. got new computer with sp2 will try no updates. again thank you


On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 6:24 am, Ricer46 wrote:
>SP2 only, and that was well beyond a year after it was released. Aside from that
>zero M$ updates.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

It is not the final release, only the RC.



Regards,
Crash Override, MCP






On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm, eoghan wrote:

>Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ?  Well maybe the reason 

>is they don't want to put us off buying Vista.  According to PCFormat Xp is now 
twice 

>as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%!

>

>I for one am sticking with XP! 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Take caution with that advice. You absolutely MUST have a bullet proof backup and 
recovery system. System Restore doesn't count since it is far from bullet proof. 
I live on the edge compared to most. SR is turned off, the XP file protection system 
is disabled (saving about 500 MB of disk space by removing the dll cache.)
I've never had a security problem, but it doesn't mean that I won't in the future... 
the key is that I can recover from it quickly.







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 7:10 am, gary wrote:

>thank you. got new computer with sp2 will try no updates. again thank you

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Speaking as someone on dial-up (cant get broadband) an SP3 download from work does the job 3 years (?) of updates would accomplish. Asa gamer I like the 10% speed increase - not much you say? well my last salary increase was 2% and I was glad to get it! The review PCFormat is of the B-release which is "garnering performance boosts of around 10%" (Issue 210 Feb 2008 page 8)


On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:23 am, Ricer46 wrote:
>Take caution with that advice. You absolutely MUST have a bullet proof backup and
>recovery system. System Restore doesn't count since it is far from bullet proof.
>I live on the edge compared to most. SR is turned off, the XP file protection system
>is disabled (saving about 500 MB of disk space by removing the dll cache.)
>I've never had a security problem, but it doesn't mean that I won't in the future...
>the key is that I can recover from it quickly.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Substantial analysis has been done on this topic, and it takes close to a 50% improvement 
in performance before the user can really recognize that a system is indeed faster. 
You can count dollars and cents in your checking account far better than you can 
"feel" computer speed. 

And since your biggest interest is presummably in online gaming, then you will see 
no improvement at all, since you bottleneck is your modem.







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:47 am, eoghan wrote:

>Speaking as someone on dial-up (cant get broadband) an SP3 download from work does 

>the job 3 years (?) of updates would accomplish.  Asa gamer I like the 10% speed 

>increase - not much you say?  well my last salary increase was 2% and I was glad 

>to get it!

>

>The review PCFormat is of the B-release which is "garnering performance boosts of 

>around 10%" (Issue 210 Feb 2008 page 8)

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Excuse me for this comment, but I do not see any release announcement on the "official" final version on the Microsoft website(1-22-08).


On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm, eoghan wrote:
>Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ? Well maybe the reason
>is they don't want to put us off buying Vista. According to PCFormat Xp is now twice
>as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%!
>
>I for one am sticking with XP!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I myself don't have Internet service directly nor phone service right now, BUT I can manually download the Critical Updates and security Fixes at the local library ( if you have one nearby) with their broadband connection using a USB drive or burn it to CD rom for protability. Update your OS with the Hotfixes is is critically important with all the Bugs security threats " in the wild" so to speak.


On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:47 am, eoghan wrote:
>Speaking as someone on dial-up (cant get broadband) an SP3 download from work does
>the job 3 years (?) of updates would accomplish. Asa gamer I like the 10% speed
>increase - not much you say? well my last salary increase was 2% and I was glad
>to get it!
>
>The review PCFormat is of the B-release which is "garnering performance boosts of
>around 10%" (Issue 210 Feb 2008 page 8)
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Curb your enthusiasm. XP SP3 is just basically a "roll up" of all the previous updates since SP2. The main reason for it's existence is to make available a whole new "pool" of product keys for system builders. Somehow (don't ask me how) MS is running low on installation key #s and this is the easiest way for them to avoid the problem. Secondly, the version out now is a beta, a so-called Release Candidate. If one has kept up with updates I don't see where installing SP3 would buy you anything at all. When it's oficially released though, I will get it on CD so that when I do future clean installs of XP I can run it instead of installing SP2 and then another 80+ updates after that. SP3 will do it all at once.


On Monday, January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm, eoghan wrote:
>Service pack 3 is now out - why have microsoft kept so quiet ? Well maybe the reason
>is they don't want to put us off buying Vista. According to PCFormat Xp is now twice
>as fast as as Vista with SP3 for XP speeding things up 10%!
>
>I for one am sticking with XP!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

There is a little more to it - but not so you'd notice. I installed the release candidate 
about 3 weeks ago (after a thorough mirror of my system to an external drive - I 
should add) - and so far no problems, but no noticable improvements either.

Apparently - the final version won't be forced through updates for some time to come 
- so the choice is yours. I'm neither recommending or otherwise - just trying to 
inform - but solid as a rock here.



Steve

Athlon 64 x2 4200 @ 2.2 GHz, 1 Gig PC6400, Sapphire RX1950GT, Abit KN9Ultra, 250Gig 
SATA HD, LG1718S, and various bits and pieces plugged in here and there.




On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 11:31 am, Larry wrote:

>Curb your enthusiasm. XP SP3 is just basically a "roll up" of all the previous updates 

>since SP2. The main reason for it's existence is to make available a whole new "pool" 

>of product keys for system builders. Somehow (don't ask me how) MS is running low 

>on installation key #s and this is the easiest way for them to avoid the problem. 

>Secondly, the version out now is a beta, a so-called Release Candidate. If one has 

>kept up with updates I don't see where installing SP3 would buy you anything at 
all. 

>When it's oficially released though, I will get it on CD so that when I do future 

>clean installs of XP I can run it instead of installing SP2 and then another 80+ 

>updates after that. SP3 will do it all at once.

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

"Windows® XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released updates for the operating system, in addition to a small number of new functionalities that will not significantly change customers’ experience with the operating system. This white paper summarizes what is new in Windows XP SP3, and how to deploy the service pack.": http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02b40c12982/Overview%20of%20Windows%20XP%20Service%20Pack%203.pdf


On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 11:44 am, Steve H wrote:
>There is a little more to it - but not so you'd notice. I installed the release candidate
>about 3 weeks ago (after a thorough mirror of my system to an external drive - I
>should add) - and so far no problems, but no noticable improvements either.
>
>Apparently - the final version won't be forced through updates for some time to come
>- so the choice is yours. I'm neither recommending or otherwise - just trying to
>inform - but solid as a rock here.
>
>
>
>

Steve
>
>

Athlon 64 x2 4200 @ 2.2 GHz, 1 Gig PC6400, Sapphire RX1950GT, Abit KN9Ultra, 250Gig
>SATA HD, LG1718S, and various bits and pieces plugged in here and there.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

One only needs to read in this forum on a regular basis to know that many of the 
"fixes" have caused more problems than they have solved. I've heard of few cases 
where they have fixed anything that is really tangible. You who are never connected 
to the internet surely have no reason to bother with them.

Your choices are to take responsibility for your system's security or to allow M$ 
to take that responsibility for you. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they 
are not capable of doing the job.







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 10:37 am, Alvar Kresh wrote:

>  I myself don't have Internet service directly nor phone service right now, BUT 

>I can manually download the Critical Updates and security Fixes at the local library 

>( if you have one nearby) with their broadband connection using a USB drive or burn 

>it to CD rom for protability. 

>   Update your OS with the Hotfixes is is critically important with all  the  Bugs 

>security threats " in the wild" so to speak.

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I wouldn't advise the average user to take the "no updates" approach. There's no alternative to patching serious vulnerabilities. I believe they play a significant role in helping to secure a system. However, many of them do not apply to everyone's situation.

Why wouldn't you wait until the Final Release is out? It's not even ready for the general public.

I've slipstreamed XPSP3 into XP Pro and the advantage is in time and bandwidth saved 
over installs of XP with SP2. After installing the slipstreamed version to a "test 
HDD" the only security update loaded was the genuine advantage check, instead of 
the usual 80 odd updates after an XPSP2 install. Slipstreamed is way quicker than 
loading the SP3 separately. 
And so far the test PC is behaving well and does seem quicker (although that might 
just be the clean install tricking me).







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 11:31 am, Larry wrote:

>Curb your enthusiasm. XP SP3 is just basically a "roll up" of all the previous updates 

>since SP2. The main reason for it's existence is to make available a whole new "pool" 

>of product keys for system builders. Somehow (don't ask me how) MS is running low 

>on installation key #s and this is the easiest way for them to avoid the problem. 

>Secondly, the version out now is a beta, a so-called Release Candidate. If one has 

>kept up with updates I don't see where installing SP3 would buy you anything at 
all. 

>When it's oficially released though, I will get it on CD so that when I do future 

>clean installs of XP I can run it instead of installing SP2 and then another 80+ 

>updates after that. SP3 will do it all at once.

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Because HDDs have such limited capacity and are so expensive these days.







On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:23 am, Ricer46 wrote:

>Take caution with that advice. You absolutely MUST have a bullet proof backup and 

>recovery system. System Restore doesn't count since it is far from bullet proof. 

>I live on the edge compared to most. SR is turned off, the XP file protection system 

>is disabled (saving about 500 MB of disk space by removing the dll cache.)

>I've never had a security problem, but it doesn't mean that I won't in the future... 

>the key is that I can recover from it quickly.

>

>

> 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum