|  | | 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. | | 31 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 | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Macs are something people can barely afford these days =(
Besides, Windows is a lot more compatible than the Mac | LOL so true man.
PC RULE! MAC SUCK!  | | | | there is a vista sp2 now is it still suck? compared to xp sp3? | | | | SP2 is faster then SP1 was, but its still slower then XP.
Windows 7 should be everyones focus anyway, its the truth evolution from XP. | | | | I consider Vista to be another WinME. A failed attempt to create a new OS. | | | | Ah
Vista look so cool
but so slow even you use Intel Core 2 Duo™
it will always slow because of the vista themes eat more memory than XP themes
XP faster 10 than vista i think
think hard if you want to upgrade your Service Packs
such as program compatible
coz my father software suddenly wont run perfectly when i upgrade my PC from SP2 into SP3
Vista is not piece of shit
you just need more RAM for Vista
e.g.
if XP just need 2 GB
Vista need 3.5 GB | | | | if i have xp sp2 and i update to sp3 | | | | When it comes to memory xp work with 32mb ram that's the greatness of xp. but vista need atleast 1gb.
Moreover, vista is not for tweakers its for running at most office 2007 and watching movies.
For getting most out of cpu xp is bottom line.
There is hardly any thing that xp wont run with this config-
xp sp2
dot net fm 3.5
adobe shockwave
runtime c++,vb,java
anvir task manager free. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer Screwer Fuck the gamers. | no, just fuck you | | | | SORRY UNREGISTERED .................
................XP IS REALLY THE PIECE OF SHIT.......
..........AND SINCE YOU GOT A PIECE OF SHIT COMPUTER YOU WONT NOTICE IT........... | | | | hey guys easy !! we r not here to write crap, we r here to write something which you've experienced on using WINDOWS SP2 OR SP3 and not VISTA, WINDOWS 7 etc,
stick to the topic guys and share your experiences. | | | | my abacus out performs all your pcs put together! =/ | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLANSAMUEL SORRY UNREGISTERED .................
................XP IS REALLY THE PIECE OF SHIT.......
..........AND SINCE YOU GOT A PIECE OF SHIT COMPUTER YOU WONT NOTICE IT........... | I am running what I consider a decent computer with both vista and XP installed (legasp legally, dun worry folks I don't support Microsoft but I would get pulled on it as it is also my work machine... so fines and confiscation of my love or paying microsoft... hmmm)
Anyway, running both, use XP and have vista only start when I tell it to and even with all the updates on vista it still isn't beating my XP even slightly, name one game that actually benefits from DX10 in a visable nature.
My computer has 6gig of ram so that isn't the problem and my processor is i7 950 and my happieness (you wasted money on higher for extra vantage marks go fratenise with a tree for all I care) with a 30" monitor running at full res... and guess what... XP stiilllllllll wins out.
Actually that said both suck... but only for mirrors edge physx enabled (nVidia can go die)... stupid glass.
Lol oh please tell me of your glorious 486 with the sticky full stop and capslock.
Now 7, well I will wait and see before I buy the hype... probably going to have a few problems till sp1 atleast, then again it is essentially a sold version of what sp2 was for XP but for vista, go figure. | | | | | | I think that XP SP3 is better!
But, I don't like WMP 11, or any new softw in SP3 that eats a lot of RAM! What do you think, is there any good reason for loseing precious RAM?
Darko | |
|
