Re: Is WinXP Sp3 update necessary?

On Mar 14, 10:45 pm, "Shenan Stanley" <newshel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/bro...
(Archived Indefinitely - entire conversation)





Roy wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:
- Whom told you that SP3 was for improved security?

Somebody did but its not likely you..<grin>

- The size differential is because you likely *do* have components
of it installed. However - Windows XP SP3 contains 1179 updates -
only a fraction of which were released to the general public
between Windows XP SP2 and SP3 as well as including everything in
SP1a and SP2. If you have Windows XP SP2, then you have everything
that was included in SP1a and SP2 and you probably have 100 or so
updates since SP2 out of the additional 1179 things Windows XP SP3
includes. So - you are missing, likely, about 1050+ things. If you
can live with that - *shrug*, okay.

Shhhrug...okay...

- It is BETTER (IMHO) to follow the advice I gave in numbered
format and install from a downloaded/ISO version of the service
pack *offline*. Think of it simply - if your computer is
concentrating on doing *one thing* (the installation of SP3) and
nothing else - that's just bound to work out better. Just like you
driving down a road. You are probably a better driver if that is
all you are doing, as opposed to singing with the radio while
drinking a soft drink and eating a burger and talking on your cell
phone at the same time. Also - you eliminate any strange download
issues while it is decided what you need and don't need.

So - having answered your questions directly - I again ask mine...

You stated, "... due to problem with some of my acquiantances
using this update I had delayed it ..."

via windows update and by
ISO fresh installation.

Besides my PC is had factory installed WinXP SP 2.
You seems to be promoting only the benefits but you never
dig out the problems that may arise....

BTW, when all the people I know in my vicinity operated PC WinXP
sp2 and even Sp3 got infected with a conficker virus, due to poor
antimalware but not mine, meaning its not the SP3 that makes the
computer safe?

I have no direct relationship (other than voluntary here on these
newsgroups) with Microsoft. I hate marketing, it's usually not
fact-based. I don't particularly care if you ever use a Microsoft
product or not. I am just presenting you all the facts. What you
do with them is your choice. Your choice is your own - no one here
really cares what you end up doing.

Hmmm I am going to appreciate  likely as i soon as I digested all
what you have discussed

I did enumerate why I prefer local/offline installation vs. the
download and what tthe size differences in possible download sizes
were - you are eliminating the risk of random problems during
download and you are taking the computer offline, so you are not
risking any exposure during the update.

What I mean is if the Sp3 updates is already downloaded by windows
update and just need a go signal to instal , but still ruminating
whether to give it a go  or nott

Online simply scans your machine and sees which parts it needs to
download. If you have SP1a when you scan, it needs everything from
then/on. If you have SP2 already installed, it needs everything
from then on. So on. So
the download can be variable in size. The ISO/full executable does
the same thing - but just for the install part - there is no
download.

The full install results in a big file that the update as why there
is arange of file size that needs to be idownloaded /nstalled?

I gave all the problems that I have seen (and their
work-arounds/fixes) in my lengthier response. If you cannot read -
that is a problem you need to address elsewhere. ;-) The links
given have practically everything that has been reported in these
newsgroups and the steps many people have taken and then had no
problems installing SP3 as a result of.

Thanks for that ....

My experience is that Windows XP SP3 is a benign update, all
problems I have seen associated with it were existing issues -
things that needed to be looked at before SP3 was ever thought of,
but quite possibly the user did not know about them and/or did not
properly maintain their machine.

That is one issue, if there is not much care about PC maintenance
like many of the  PC users and the lack of users friendliness of the
installation and update of the SP3 is something of concern.

*shrug* - so you did not get infected when everyone else did. I
run no _active_ AntiSpyware applications on any of my personal
machines and have one or two machines I have ran for long periods
of time without AntiVirus software - and have not personally ever
got infected with a virus or the likes. It's a matter of common
sense and habits.

Oh? you must be running MAC OS or some other OS aside from Windoze?

Or its either your pc have already a preinstalled antimalware  that
magically install /update by itself without your knowledge  ( and
always in hidden/ invisible mode) <grin>?
Would you mind sharing that knowhow of that invisible malware
protection. that you've got in your pc as
Thats good a good business investment  opportunity to invest as
there is no compeitition <grin>?

I cannot dig out what isn't there in my experience. You are the
one that claimed to have delayed things because of problems you
'acquaintances had' - but you seem unwilling to enumerate those.
Why is that?

Well whatever their problems with their pcs I did n ot care to know
more about but the fact is the SP3 installation was the culprit. and
Nothing else and that is the reason for my reluctance to instal it
in mine.

I've given you all you need to decide, there really isn't much
more you could get out there than what I have presented you in
these posts surrounding SP3 and the known issues surrounding its
installed and the suggestions on the best way to install it.

Now it is "all you" - decide... or don't (which is a decision.)

Anyway  I presume  things will get better soon<grin>

The proper maintenance of your computer should not be something you do just
because of an update, it is a continuous thing.  Lack of it was the reason
some had trouble installing Windows XP SP3; although in a few cases, it was
something someone else (like HP) had done long before the end-user had a
chance to do anything.

With common sense and a little knowledge - I'd dare say you do not need
antimalware software or even antivirus software.  A firewall and perhaps NAT
protection followed by using common sense and maintaining a basic level of
knowledge so you don't do the dense things that get you infested/infected..
I still _recommend_ people use antivirus software, because anyone could have
a moment of weakness or foolishness.

Really? you should be a candidate for a major Windoze prize I for
insisting that you don't need any antimalware for their operating
system?

I presume
Antimalware companies if they take your word seriously et all would
like to hear you hear roll< LOL> for insisting and possibly
campaigning that antimalwares are superflous?
BTW
I don't see that the multitude of computer users will took pains on
following what you do to confirm if it really works. I was also
thinking why you said about absolutely no antimalware that is you
seldom connect to the internet and if you surf you are extra careful
about the sites you visit.

I presume you are doing the same painstaking care even when examining
your mails if its worth opening or not? <grin>

The download size range (one more time) presented to you by the automatic
updates and/or windowsupdate.microsoft.com web page is because from there it
will scan your computer and only _download and install_ what you need.  If
you download the full executable - it is *one* size: 316.4 MB.  It does the
scanning and only _installs_ what you need.

That is the point,if supposing what I need is not the whole package
then I should have the right to instal what is lacking so the Complete
installation does not sounds good to me as it might *** up my stable
system.

I want to know the other people experience with complete installation
by ISO or by just windows update..

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Network Installation Package for
IT Professionals and Developers (works just as well for you.)http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B33B5A8-5E7...


That link does not work for me

You seem to not have the gumption to install Windows XP SP3.  Nothing anyone
here can say will give you the courage you lack - all anyone here can do is
give you the actual facts of the situation.  IMO, your fear is founded in
ignorance.  You can continue blissfully in your timorous ignorance or take
the advice given.  It cannot be made simpler than that.

Well I am just reviewing the pros and cons if its worth it. I don't
want to listen to microsoft sales people< grin>..
Cheers!


.

Loading