Reasons to patch XP to sp3?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Hi all.

    I'm running a bit of older gear here and have noticed that XP Pro seems to
    run better on older gear when it's only patched to sp2 rather than being
    patched to sp3 and completely updated.

    Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this? If so is it significantly slower
    with sp3 in your opinion? Is there much difference if you only patch to sp2
    but then update Windows to date?

    What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?

    Thanks for any input, I'm going to do a clean install of one of my machines
    (Banais Pentium M 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM) tomorrow and would like nz.comp's
    input, to a point*. :)

    *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will change
    that. <g>

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    Donchano Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:00:29 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >Hi all.
    >
    >I'm running a bit of older gear here and have noticed that XP Pro seems to
    >run better on older gear when it's only patched to sp2 rather than being
    >patched to sp3 and completely updated.
    >
    >Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this? If so is it significantly slower
    >with sp3 in your opinion? Is there much difference if you only patch to sp2
    >but then update Windows to date?
    >
    >What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >
    >Thanks for any input, I'm going to do a clean install of one of my machines
    >(Banais Pentium M 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM) tomorrow and would like nz.comp's
    >input, to a point*. :)
    >
    >*I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will change
    >that. <g>
    >
    >Cheers,


    Don't know what you mean by "older gear." But I'm running XPpro SP3
    Build 2600 on both my three year old Toshiba Tecra laptop and my four
    year old Dell Dimension 9150. Both are running fast and smooth.

    Can't tell you what my laptop system details are because I only use it
    when I travel. But my Dell = Intel Pentium Dual Core PU 3.40 GHz, +
    2GB of RAM and around 90 + 250 in two partitions.

    I had to reformat my Dell after updating to SP2, but that was because
    I'd attempted to install a dodgy version of Adobe Creative Suite from
    Thailand. Lesson learned.
     
    Donchano, Jun 20, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Donchano wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:00:29 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >> Hi all.
    >>
    >> I'm running a bit of older gear here and have noticed that XP Pro
    >> seems to run better on older gear when it's only patched to sp2
    >> rather than being patched to sp3 and completely updated.
    >>
    >> Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this? If so is it significantly
    >> slower with sp3 in your opinion? Is there much difference if you
    >> only patch to sp2 but then update Windows to date?
    >>
    >> What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >>
    >> Thanks for any input, I'm going to do a clean install of one of my
    >> machines (Banais Pentium M 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM) tomorrow and would
    >> like nz.comp's input, to a point*. :)
    >>
    >> *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will
    >> change that. <g>
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Don't know what you mean by "older gear." But I'm running XPpro SP3
    > Build 2600 on both my three year old Toshiba Tecra laptop and my four
    > year old Dell Dimension 9150. Both are running fast and smooth.
    >
    > Can't tell you what my laptop system details are because I only use it
    > when I travel. But my Dell = Intel Pentium Dual Core PU 3.40 GHz, +
    > 2GB of RAM and around 90 + 250 in two partitions.
    >
    > I had to reformat my Dell after updating to SP2, but that was because
    > I'd attempted to install a dodgy version of Adobe Creative Suite from
    > Thailand. Lesson learned.


    Hi. Older gear means 2004, the 1.4GHz Pentium M / 768MB RAM mentioned above.
    It's a sweet little X31 IBM ThinkPad, Magnesium base, titanium lid,
    carbon-fibre reinforced palm rest. The size and weight of a netbook but is
    more powerful, feels *so* solid, doesn't have a glossy 'short screen' and
    has a keyboard that's a dream to use. Of course they were $4K+ new here....

    I'll likely upgrade the RAM when I can (DDR[1] SODIMMs, up to 2 x 1GB) but
    money's tight ATM. I'd been trying to tidy up the install that was on it
    when I bought it but, even when it looks like everything's uninstalled and a
    'registry cleaner' has been used it was still a lot slower than this
    hardware should be, so a clean install it is...

    I'd say both of your machines are much faster than this little gem. Your
    laptop's likely dual-core as well.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 20, 2011
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    PeeCee Guest

    On 20/06/2011 9:00 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Hi all.
    >
    > I'm running a bit of older gear here and have noticed that XP Pro seems to
    > run better on older gear when it's only patched to sp2 rather than being
    > patched to sp3 and completely updated.
    >
    > Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this? If so is it significantly slower
    > with sp3 in your opinion? Is there much difference if you only patch to sp2
    > but then update Windows to date?
    >
    > What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >
    > Thanks for any input, I'm going to do a clean install of one of my machines
    > (Banais Pentium M 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM) tomorrow and would like nz.comp's
    > input, to a point*. :)
    >
    > *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will change
    > that.<g>
    >
    > Cheers,



    Hi Shaun

    Been there several times with 'older' machinery.
    What seemed OK after a restore or fresh install with SP1/SP2 quickly
    became draggy with SP3, Updates, Anti Virus & the other necessities of
    computer life.

    Realistically you should have well north of 1GB to give it the best chance.

    However I've just done a cleanup on a Tecra A2 (1.3GHZ/256MB) for a
    local play centre.
    Because it was going to be handed from committe to committe member SP3
    was deemed necessary (and the 100 + subsequent updates) to give the best
    chance of surviving more than a couple of weeks.
    On 256MB it was not really fast enough, but taking it to 512MB it became
    'useable' so your 768MB should be a bit better with a fresh install.

    Having said that, using my 1.6 Atom Netbook afterwards (2GB, Win7
    Starter) felt quite sprightly after the Tecra.
    i.e. don't expect to much.


    FWIW
    Paul.
     
    PeeCee, Jun 21, 2011
    #4
  5. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs PeeCee wrote:
    > On 20/06/2011 9:00 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Hi all.
    >>
    >> I'm running a bit of older gear here and have noticed that XP Pro
    >> seems to run better on older gear when it's only patched to sp2
    >> rather than being patched to sp3 and completely updated.
    >>
    >> Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this? If so is it significantly
    >> slower with sp3 in your opinion? Is there much difference if you
    >> only patch to sp2 but then update Windows to date?
    >>
    >> What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >>
    >> Thanks for any input, I'm going to do a clean install of one of my
    >> machines (Banais Pentium M 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM) tomorrow and would
    >> like nz.comp's input, to a point*. :)
    >>
    >> *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will
    >> change that.<g>
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Hi Shaun


    Hi Paul, thanks for the reply.

    > Been there several times with 'older' machinery.
    > What seemed OK after a restore or fresh install with SP1/SP2 quickly
    > became draggy with SP3, Updates, Anti Virus & the other necessities of
    > computer life.


    Yup. Also I've read here (and there) of people who don't patch past sp2,
    saying that it's not needed as long as you have a good AV solution and use
    common sense. I just wondered what the dangers of doing so would be.

    > Realistically you should have well north of 1GB to give it the best
    > chance.


    I couldn't agree more, I always say 1GB minimum for XP and when I can, I
    will. (Unfortunately I got hit with five bills [other than normal monthly
    costs] north of $100 this month so it's going to take a while to get the CC
    down a bit.)

    My main machine runs XP P with 3GB RAM and is great. I think 2GB is enough
    for most users as I always have over 1024MB free, even with ~12 windows
    open, one of them being Vuze which is a notorius RAM hog.

    > However I've just done a cleanup on a Tecra A2 (1.3GHZ/256MB) for a
    > local play centre.


    I remember running XP on 256 when it first came out. I couldn't save money
    fast enough to upgrade the RAM!

    > Because it was going to be handed from committe to committe member SP3
    > was deemed necessary (and the 100 + subsequent updates) to give the
    > best chance of surviving more than a couple of weeks.


    Ah, OK. So sp3 just makes it more robust? Less prone to malware?

    > On 256MB it was not really fast enough, but taking it to 512MB it
    > became 'useable' so your 768MB should be a bit better with a fresh
    > install.


    Yeah, it's quite nippy right now, installed with an XP / sp2 disk and not
    updated and no AV yet. I'm just trying to decide whether to update Windows
    all the way... or something in between.

    > Having said that, using my 1.6 Atom Netbook afterwards (2GB, Win7
    > Starter) felt quite sprightly after the Tecra.
    > i.e. don't expect to much.


    After the Tecra, with 512MB and fully updated, yes I bet. However that would
    largely be down to more RAM and faster bus speed as the Pentium M is
    actually about 1.5 x as 'powerful' as a single-core Atom, clock-for-clock in
    all basic benchmarks I've tried.

    > FWIW


    Quite a bit, thanks Paul.
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 21, 2011
    #5
  6. ~misfit~

    Malcolm Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:00:29 +1200
    "~misfit~" <> wrote:

    > Hi all.
    >
    > *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will
    > change that. <g>
    >
    > Cheers,

    Try a live version of this...go on Go On.... dare you ;)
    http://www.xpud.org/

    Oh found a neat tool to reset passwords if a user hasn't made a backup;
    http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.p..._YOUR_COMPUTER&front_id=12&lang=en&locale=en/

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    openSUSE 11.4 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.37.6-0.5-desktop
    up 12:13, 4 users, load average: 0.14, 0.15, 0.11
    GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 270.41.06
     
    Malcolm, Jun 21, 2011
    #6
  7. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Malcolm wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:00:29 +1200
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi all.
    >>
    >> *I'm installing XP pro, not linux and no amount of lobbying will
    >> change that. <g>
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    > Try a live version of this...go on Go On.... dare you ;)
    > http://www.xpud.org/


    Heh! That looks interesting, duly bookmarked.

    However, one of the things that makes © 2003 - 2007 ThinkPads so attractive
    to me is that, by using NoteBook Hardware Control and the ACPI script that
    the guys on forums.thinkpads wrote I can undervolt the CPU (usually hugely).
    I can also set what CPU speed I want to run at*, as low as 600MHz and as
    high as the CPU maximum (Speedstep don't you know?). I can also set what
    temperature I want the fan to kick in at, what temp to ramp the speed up
    (four steps) and what temps to drop to each step as it cools.

    [*]Some older games that I play demand 100% of CPU cycles regardless of how
    powerful the CPU is. it's a PITA if you can't clock it back and have the
    thing running at full-speed, 100% load, running hot.

    It's wicked having that much control, especially of the vcore. I can take a
    notebook that's got a reputation for running hot and have it running so cool
    that the fan doesn't even come on. :)

    > Oh found a neat tool to reset passwords if a user hasn't made a
    > backup;
    > http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.p..._YOUR_COMPUTER&front_id=12&lang=en&locale=en/


    Another bookmark, thanks. <g> I have Hiren's Boot CD on a 4GB USB on my
    keyring. It's got heaps of spare space, how would I set it up so I could
    choose what to boot?

    LOL, I get the feeling that the answer would require me to have many more
    skills than I do already. :-/

    Good to 'see' you posting. :)
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 21, 2011
    #7
  8. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
    > On 21/06/2011 11:22 a.m., PeeCee wrote:
    >>
    >> Realistically you should have well north of 1GB to give it the best
    >> chance.

    >
    > SP3 is acceptable with 1GB of RAM for everyday use. Power users would
    > benefit from 2GB.


    Yep, I agree with that. What I wasn't sure of was if, with less than 1GB of
    RAM, staying at sp2 level would have been of any benefit.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 22, 2011
    #8
  9. ~misfit~

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in news:itn27h$l58$1
    @dont-email.me:

    >
    > What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >


    I thought MS said they wouldn't make any more patches for it if XP was not
    at SP3.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jun 22, 2011
    #9
  10. ~misfit~

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <Xns9F0CD0527F3CDdaveytaynospamplshot@94.75.214.90>,
    , Dave Taylor says...
    >
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in news:itn27h$l58$1
    > @dont-email.me:
    >
    > >
    > > What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    > >

    >
    > I thought MS said they wouldn't make any more patches for it if XP was not
    > at SP3.


    I was waiting for someone to say that! :) Support for SP2 has already
    ended - July? last year.

    To my way of thinking, running at SP2 only, yer sitting on a timebomb.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Jun 22, 2011
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <Xns9F0CD0527F3CDdaveytaynospamplshot@94.75.214.90>,
    > , Dave Taylor says...
    >>
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    >> news:itn27h$l58$1 @dont-email.me:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> What are the down-sides to not patching to sp3?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I thought MS said they wouldn't make any more patches for it if XP
    >> was not at SP3.

    >
    > I was waiting for someone to say that! :)


    You didn't have to wait, you could have said it yourself. ;-)

    > Support for SP2 has already
    > ended - July? last year.
    >
    > To my way of thinking, running at SP2 only, yer sitting on a timebomb.


    Thanks guys. I didn't know that. I've just patched to sp3 using my CD and
    will now update. I managed to get a 512MB DDR SODIMM so swapped out the
    256MB one giving me 1GB total now. :)
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 23, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RObErT_RaTh

    I haven't been on much for good reasons

    RObErT_RaTh, Sep 23, 2005, in forum: The Lounge
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    4,043
    unholy
    Sep 26, 2005
  2. why?
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    820
  3. Steven M. Scharf

    25 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10 (was 15 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10)

    Steven M. Scharf, May 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    823
    Views:
    10,329
    George Preddy
    Jul 2, 2004
  4. none
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    599
    Jim Watt
    Jan 9, 2006
  5. ~misfit~

    To XP SP3 or not to XP SP3?

    ~misfit~, May 7, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    851
    ~misfit~
    May 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page