|  | | Windows XP: SP2 vs. SP3 | 
Microsoft came out with latest service pack for XP, four years after SP2 was released. XP itself is very stabile system with SP2 installed, so SP3 is considered as not so innovative like it was SP2. The essence of this service pack is to bring all patches for XP that are released until now. Beside patches attended for safety of your OS, SP3 also contains few new additions that should provide better network collaboration, easier administration etc.
Service pack is cumulative so you can install it on XP on which is already installed SP1 or SP2, while for “basic” version of Windows XP that doesn’t have effect. Microsoft recommends installing SP3 on system that already supports SP2. If you decide to integrate SP3 in Windows installation and install Windows with integrated SP3, we should tell you that you can do even that. But, during installation new possibility will wait you: OS installation without need to enter serial number. Also bear in mind recommendation that integration should be done on Windows installation with integrated SP2, but this also can be done with systems with built in SP1. If you install SP3 using Windows update service, you will have to download from Internet from 40MB up to 316, depends how often you upgraded system.
We installed SP3 on Windows that was upgraded on daily bases and that has a lot of installed applications. This was the only way to see if there is any improvement regarding SP2. It takes about 10 minutes on 512Kbps connection for downloading using Windows update service. Also it takes about 15 minutes (which is radically less than it takes for installation SP1 for Vista) for installation SP3 and 900MB on system partition. All settings are left unchanged after SP3 installation except for Spyware Terminator service– it was set on manual start-up, but after SP3 installation it starts automatically. The same thing happened again when we installed SP3 on other computers with Spyware Terminator installed, so it seems that this is “normal”.
You can read the entire article at InsideHW. | | 17 Comments | | | | | There is no performance difference achieved by updating to SP3,
You must either fresh install, or Repair install from an XP SP3 cd to gain the increase. | | | | this is the best conclusion for that morons..
the lower version operating system the faster the speed of performance
the higher version operating system the lower the speed of performance
that would be inversely proportional to each other.
so still, XP Service Pack 2 is the best specially for gamers. | | | | | | sp3 more stable than sp2,end of story. | | | | These guys are morons, i recently did a fresh install with sp3 and there is performence inprovements, including in games, my games are running smoother, applications run a litte faster, over all sp3 has shown improvements over sp2 on my end
these guys need to go get themselves a mac and stay away from windows | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by blindartist  These guys are morons...........
these guys need to go get themselves a mac and stay away from windows | LOL, I like it man  | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by ITmonster this is the best conclusion for that morons..
the lower version operating system the faster the speed of performance
the higher version operating system the lower the speed of performance
that would be inversely proportional to each other.
so still, XP Service Pack 2 is the best specially for gamers. | No, it isn't. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart No, it isn't. | yes it is
xp is wayyyy faster then vista
vista looks kool but is a piece of shit | | | | nobody mentioned vista you dumbshit. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered yes it is
xp is wayyyy faster then vista
vista looks kool but is a piece of shit | It's not that Vista "is a piece of shit". It's because your computer "is a piece of shit" | | | | No, its definitely because vista is a piece of unoptimised shit.
You can't deny this fact, being that Windows 7 incudes the same, and more services,
Yet uses less memory, and runs faster.
Thats plenty of proof right there. | | | | Quote: |
It's not that Vista "is a piece of shit". It's because your computer "is a piece of shit"
| Lol, I'm in half agreement,
I like vista more than XP for gaming, although it is a resource hog, if your computer doesn't suck, vista is more than worth buying
plus dx 10 support is nice.
but, im still all about win 98 SE
but by no means is vista a piece of shit | | | | Macs are something people can barely afford these days =(
Besides, Windows is a lot more compatible than the Mac | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by dammit45 Lol, I'm in half agreement,
I like vista more than XP for gaming, although it is a resource hog, if your computer doesn't suck, vista is more than worth buying
plus dx 10 support is nice.
but, im still all about win 98 SE
but by no means is vista a piece of shit | Its shit.
and a little fact for you. most Dx10 games are only using Dx9 effects for gfx. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered yes it is
xp is wayyyy faster then vista
vista looks kool but is a piece of shit | thats a different story haha | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered yes it is
xp is wayyyy faster then vista
vista looks kool but is a piece of shit | true, how very true. vista sucks so much while xp SP2 is awesome | |
|
