Service Packs Slow Down Windows

“On the whole, as far as performance goes, we’re leaning towards thinking
service packs don’t typically add anything to application speed and if
anything, cause it to slow down.�
-- November PC User, pages 34-35

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

On Nov 3, 6:47*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> “On the whole, as far as performance goes, we’re leaning towards thinking
> service packs don’t typically add anything to application speed and if
> anything, cause it to slow down.”
> * -- November PC User, pages 34-35

Someone recently suggested on this ng that a Windows XP machine with
updates should have 2G of memory to compensate for performance losses
with the updates. 256M was perfectly adequate 9and probably generous)
in the early days of XP.

peterwn

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:hcog5j$99e$...
> “On the whole, as far as performance goes, we’re leaning towards thinking
> service packs don’t typically add anything to application speed and if
> anything, cause it to slow down.�
> -- November PC User, pages 34-35
>


See it time and time again.

Fresh install of XP SP1 (from original vendor disks, image or full install)
on a 256MB machine as original when purchased new.
Performance perfectly acceptable.
Install SP3 and subsequent patches (80+) along with the manditory Anti Virus
and Anti Spyware program and the same PC runs like a dog.
Slap in another GB or two of RAM (if the motherboard will take it) and
regains 'some' of it's performance.
Not as good as original but at least useable.

Some would say it's Microsoft way of 'encouraging' owners to upgrade to a
new machine & a new copy of Windows.

Best
Paul.

PeeCee

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:43:29 +1300, PeeCee wrote:


>
> Fresh install of XP SP1 (from original vendor disks, image or full
> install) on a 256MB machine as original when purchased new. Performance
> perfectly acceptable.
> Install SP3 and subsequent patches (80+) along with the manditory Anti
> Virus and Anti Spyware program and the same PC runs like a dog. Slap in
> another GB or two of RAM (if the motherboard will take it) and regains
> 'some' of it's performance.
> Not as good as original but at least useable.
>
> Some would say it's Microsoft way of 'encouraging' owners to upgrade to
> a new machine & a new copy of Windows.
>
> Best
> Paul.

Put the blame / reason where it should be @ hardware barely designed for
the windows98 platform...and the inadequate 256 meg amount.......

BigglesZZ

BigglesZz