Re: service pack 3, do I need it?

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:uh7n#6QtIHA.5472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



No "snot" - reality may seem like "snot" to you - but you are asking
other people whether or not *you* need to do something.

"Snot" and "reality" are not mutually exclusive, you provide both.
Setting aside the high school debate mentality that pretends that the
definition of "need" is the primary focus of this discussion, look at my
questions once again: Why should I install a service pack that will
simply re-inatall a bunch of patches that I've aleady downlaoded?


So - if I am understanding that correctly - you have been integrating
patches/service packs into your Windows XP Installation Media? And
you seem to be saying that you will do this anyway - which means you
will be integrating service pack 3 insto the installation media. What
would be the point of that unless you are running it on your system
already?

You seem to telling me that I need to reinstall 70 MB of patches I've
already installed, in order to keep installing patches in the future. If
this is true, it is completely silly. MS could, as it has done in the
past, simply update the installer. This would be safer and much less
time consuming. If I've missed some update in the past, that' my problem
is it not? Making me re-install updates for my own good is suspicious,
what else is in there? I am not being paranoid here. MS has a long
history of rolling out big packages filled with bugs. Most of their
resources are now devoted to Vista; did the guys who put this SP together
really have the resources to make sure it's free of glitches? Apparently
not. Apparently they knew that some machines manufactured by HP would
lapse into a re-boot loop because of some kind of dual AMD/Intel imaging
deal. Yet they rolled it out anyways, and they're response to the HP
owners is: "that's your problem".


Everytime something large (like a service pack) comes out - some
people have issues. Fact of the business. Milions of
software/hardware combinations - someone is going to be using
something in a way not tested for and that small percentage of the
total user base will experience issues. Then people begin coming here
and posting about those issues and then others come in and say, "Look
how many people are having trouble, it must mean the software is
broken!" It's like walking into a hospital emergency room and saying,
"Look at all the sick people, the world must be in a pandemic!"

Whatever. This could be easily avoided by providing alternatives to large
updates by simply updating the installer so people like me can just keep
getting updates on top of the ones we've already installed. No one said
anything about pandemics, I've spent hours and hours tweaking my system,
loading programs, and setting their defaults to my liking. I don't want
to have to spend hours and hours re-doing all that because a big MS
update has crashed my system, been there, done that. This is not an
unreasonable concern, I am here in an attempt to figure out what my risk
exposure is.



Last thing - If it takes an hour to install on your machine -
something else is wrong. ;-) Either that machine is reaching EoL, or
you have some other issues going on. So far - worst case was 30
minutes - and that machine was far beyond its EoL. Now if you are
including download time - understood - you may have slower download
speed. ;-)

You have no way of knowing how long this process would take on my
machine. I have seen posts on other boards by people who said it took an
hour. You have no way of knowing what my "needs" are, but you know how
long this install would take, and you know that I need a new machine.
Interesting. I would suggest much like decisions about my "needs",
decisions about my machines EoL are mine to make, not yours.


It is *not* just a patch
roll-up - mainly yes - but it does contain a couple of other features
and changes (some of which you may never utilize - not knowing you - I
don't know.)

Again, what are these other components? Why don't you tell me what they
are, and I can then decide if I "need" them. That way you don't have to
worry your pretty little head about what I may or may not "need".

If I've been keeping my updates current, and my machines are running
well, what is the advantage to running this service pack? Is the only
advantage that someday, a couple years from now, I may not be able to
continue to downlaod updates? According to you guys there's 300 MB of
stuff in this SP, at least 70MB previous patches, but only a handfull of
stuff that's not previous downloads. What exactly is in the other 230MB?
Are they just loading a bunch of crap on my machine that I've already
decided I didn't want or need? The difference between XP and SP2 was
huge. But I'm not hearing that the difference between SP2 and 3 all that
great, aside from a "a couple features that I may or may not use". Again
am I missing something? Is there some significant change in OS with SP3?
If so, what is it? If not, what's the point? Why not just make the new
stuff available as an update?

Paul.



.