SP3 - Help - what is best XP install ??

[telemental]

`Hellooooooo`

Anyone have links to websites who favor older versions of XP or even Win2k instead of the SP3 experience ?

I'm kinda sick of XPSP3 rollup/updates and such with "no significant difference" to user experience. I'm considering nstalling my OFFLINE PC to basic XP with maybe SP1/SP2 and zero online updates.

Would this make much sense?

I understand - new threats everyday and Microsoft trying to catch up, etc... I understand do Linux is the safe OS, but in reality I AM an old man (50) stuck on Windows but I'm not adverse to using Win2k to be rid of the IE7 crap, the MediaPlayer11 crap as well as dogging performance.

Best to all, regards, TELEMENTAL

[Lespaul20]

Not all Microsoft update are security related but SP3 seems to be mostly that. MS is slowing moving on from XP so they are not going to spend a lot of resources to make drastic UI improvements. I don't see the point of refusing to go with SP3. What is it going to hurt? I doubt it's going to slow anything down. XP is much better than W2K in all aspects in my opinion. You have to have a pretty low end computer to say XP is slow. Both IE7 and WMP11 are solid improvement over previous versions.

I don't quite understand you logic about SP3. It's good that MS is still making improvements on XP.

[glc]

Go ahead and use Win2K if it supports ALL your software. I still do. It's rock solid.

[Negeva]

Knew this was bound to happen: SP3 Blues.

Ever since SP2 was released ppl have had false impressions of what a service pack should be. You cannot expect Microsoft to introduce a vast array of features for an OS that they are technically trying to phase out. Afterall, Windows 2000 has had it's fair share of roll-up and SP releases to contend with; it was at number 4 or 5 last time I looked.

Personally, I loathe IE7 and WMP11. Whilst, I have IE7 installed I refuse to install WMP11: don't need a useless (IMHO) network service it insists on installing. Instead for all my browsing Firefox with plugins does all one will ever need. As, for media playback VLC and Media Player Classic suffice.

Regarding running XP without updates off-line that's fine; know several ppl that do that as they only really need the machines for office duties, though I do have a guy that uses it for media (photographic/video) creation and swears that by keeping his rigs off-line he has no need for internet security suites and their ilk. Which is true and it allows his machine to focus solely at the task in hand.

However, there is a chance that certain programs will refuse to run under a 'vrigin' XP install without certain Service Packs installed or other updates (.NET for example). That is easy to circumvent even without ever having to place that machine on-line.

Service Pack 3 for XP, is a good SP release. Not high on features but is a better, quicker and more efficient way of updating a machine. Plus, during my own tests it is slightly quicker in certain tasks over XP SP2 and a lot quicker than Vista!

[Statica]

It's funny that a service pack that has barely made it to RTM has so many pundits out there with their opinions. First thing to realize is that most people have been writing articles about SP3 BEFORE it went gold (or RTM) .. which means beta's and RCs. Now regarding RTM it hasn't had nearly the exposure that a wide release will have .. which means that you're looking at an extremely small number of people out there using it.

So dont get yourself all worked up about SP3 before it has hit the streets. I'm not saying that you should run out and install it the day it's released .. but take the time to evaluate the success or failure of SP3 for yourself AFTER it has been significantly adopted .. and then form an opinion.

[telemental]

To all you replying, thanks for taking your time to feedback me - its weird how many ppl have comments and I've hit a good lot of responses on this respectable site (cudos David Risley).

I agree I can't imagine I'd be able to install .NET (what... now v3) on Win2k or a virgin XP machine without jumping thru the hoops of installing all the previous SPs

But I"ll give Win2k a shot again and work it up from there, and probably find my self right back where I'm at now installing SP3.

Funny thing. I heard once that Windows was designed to run one program well, but problems for dolts like me, when, well .... you can't expect to have Photoshop minimized, run a TV Tuner program, check webmail and Eudora mail all at the same time. Microsoft has done excellent work no doubt. I need to assess when I'm going to limit the crazieness and limit operations to more machines, instead of more applications running on one machine.

THANKS to everyone including Negeva, glc and lespaul20

[glc]

You can install .NET on Win2k. I don't know how far you can go with the version though, I do know you can do 2.0. I do NOT have .NET installed on mine - because I don't run any software that requires it!

Just read some benchmark testing on XP SP3 on ZDNet. The difference in speed between SP2 and SP3 is negligible - some benchmarks are slightly higher, some slightly lower. ANYONE who claims a performance increase started with a beat-up system, the SP install refreshed the system files, like a mini-reinstall.

Both Win2K and XP do not require intermediate SP installs. With 2K, you can go right from baseline to SP4, with XP you can go right from baseline to SP3. However, you cannot do this through Windows Update - you would need the IT download. This is how I do SP installs anyway.

[Statica]

Originally Posted by telemental Funny thing. I heard once that Windows was designed to run one program well, but problems for dolts like me, when, well .... you can't expect to have Photoshop minimized, run a TV Tuner program, check webmail and Eudora mail all at the same time.

Which is a philosophical conundrum that extends to everything. One could argue that humans are designed to do one program well .. and the more tasks a person gets burdened with the slower and poorer the output tends to be. Now translate that over to an OS - sure every operating system (OSX, Windows, *NIX) will do one task very well .. the differences in attitudes comes about with how well they share task and thread priorities with other programs.
The problem isn't necessarily how an OS' writer designed the sharing of resources, more often than not it is also 3rd party software that insist on hogging system resources or even users who overload the system with an insane number of tasks (ever see some ppl's system tray?).

[glc]

I heard once that Windows was designed to run one program well,

That was very true back in the days of Windows 3.1, it did not multitask well at ALL. Win 95/98/ME was a lot better, and NT/2K/XP/Vista multitasks best of all.

[Negeva]

Originally Posted by glc That was very true back in the days of Windows 3.1, it did not multitask well at ALL. Win 95/98/ME was a lot better, and NT/2K/XP/Vista multitasks best of all.

Aye, DOS in it's earliest days couldn't multi-task. There use to be a program called Borland Sidekick that allowed one to circumvent this. Sidekick was a memory resident tool that could pop up and run over another running application.

If, I recall correctly, it was sold to a company which Microsoft then pruchased. This was in the mid to late 1980s.

[telemental]

God bless MS Dos 6.22 or do I forget all the hassles with config.sys - HiMem - etc...
We had some good old times in simpler but limited times.

Thx again all fer your comments