service pack 3, do I need it?

I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2
when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as
basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates with a couple extra
features for networks. I have two questions. First: will my automatic
update automatically download and attempt to install SP3? Second: Do I
really need SP3? Frankly, since the change to XP I've never noticed any
differnce in performance associated with any of these updates, and my
machines are working just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for
security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future updatas?

Paul

"I don't rely on Windows software for security, and I don't use windows
software for internet functions, e-mail, browsing, etc."

I didn't know that software written for a different operating system
installed on Windows. How were you able to do that?

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Pdigmking wrote:
> I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2
> when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as
> basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates with a couple extra
> features for networks. I have two questions. First: will my automatic
> update automatically download and attempt to install SP3? Second: Do I
> really need SP3? Frankly, since the change to XP I've never noticed any
> differnce in performance associated with any of these updates, and my
> machines are working just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for
> security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
> browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future updatas?
>
> Paul

Pdigmking wrote:
> I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded
> to SP2 when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's
> described as basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates
> with a couple extra features for networks. I have two questions.
> First: will my automatic update automatically download and attempt
> to install SP3? Second: Do I really need SP3? Frankly, since the
> change to XP I've never noticed any differnce in performance
> associated with any of these updates, and my machines are working
> just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for security, and I
> don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
> browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future
> updates?

Since you do not use "windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
browsing, etc", I assume you actually have Linux/OSX installed and have some
sort of virtual machine for Windows and it has not access at all to the
Internet - you mearly pass files to it through the virtual machine software
(updates and such)... If that is the case - you certainly have no need for
the updates that Microsoft puts out.

If, however, your message is misunderstood and you do have Windows XP
installed and connected to the Internet and use programs installed on
Windows XP (whether they came with Windows XP or you installed them is of no
concern) to utilize basic Internet functions (from just connecting with your
network card and the built-in TCP/IP functionality to e-mail applications,
Internet browsers, etc) - then you might want to consider staying up to
date.

As far as 'needing' SP3 - no. You don't obviously *need* Windows. You
don't *need* to use the Internet for thaqt matter. Or do you - I actually
cannot say what it is that drives you on a daily basis from this single
posting.

I do know that if you plan on continuing to run Windows XP and that Windows
XP has access to the Internet (no matter whose products you install on top
of it) - you should at least consider applying whatever patches that fill
whatever security holes in the base OS that become available to you.

SP3 is a culmination of patches released (public and otherwise) since
Windows XP SP2 was released as well as a few minor changes. That means -
given your statement, "I've been automatically updating windows XP for
years", you'll probably only have 60-70MB of patchess/change you don't
already have installed. Whethe you get them or not is (always has been)
completely up to you. Sooner or later - it will become necessary (as it did
with SP2) to obtain the last service pack released before you can install
any further updates for the OS. That time may be a couple of years off. So
you get to make the decision (as always) of what you want to do or not do
and live with whatever consequences come of it. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in
news:#lOwHaQtIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

>
>
> Since you do not use "windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
> browsing, etc", I assume you actually have Linux/OSX installed and
> have some sort of virtual machine for Windows and it has not access at
> all to the Internet - you mearly pass files to it through the virtual


I mispoke, I meant to say that I don't rely on MS software, I wasn't
referring to the operating system. Obviously, I'm using Windows.

Paul.

"Pdigmking" <paugle@gmail.com> wrote...

> I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded to SP2
> when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's described as
> basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates with a couple extra
> features for networks. I have two questions. First: will my automatic
> update automatically download and attempt to install SP3? Second: Do I
> really need SP3? Frankly, since the change to XP I've never noticed any
> differnce in performance associated with any of these updates, and my
> machines are working just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for
> security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions, e-mail,
> browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get future updatas?
>
> Paul

Like you, I've been up-to-date with the past Windows Updates. Still, SP3
had about 70MB to download (at least that's better than the full SP3
standalone file of something like 500-600 MB) and install.

I'm not sure about the automatic Windows Update but expect it may do that,
given enough time. Unless/Until you hear differently, if you don't want SP3,
you might want to be safe and turn off Auto Windows Update and proceed with
Windows Update manually where you can choose to accept or ignore SP3. But
unless you have a specific reason to fear doing the upgrade, you may just
want to go ahead and become a SP3 user.

Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3 will
install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?), complete with their
service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and I'm unsure if it would update
a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC.

Craig

A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful.

Why should I install a service pack that will simply re-inatall a bunch
of patches that I've aleady downlaoded? I use the internet, one could
deduce that given the fact that I am posting to newsgroup via the
internet. I need SP3 because I use the internet? According to the MS
PDF there is nothing critical in the new service pack, the only thing in
it that I've not already downloaded as a matter of course is some network
functions and IT functions that I won't use. It seems silly to sit around
for an hour running a service pack this is installing a bunch of stuff
that I've already installed. Am I missing something here?

As far as future upgrades are concerned, my installer has been upgraded a
couple times already. Why should I need an entire service pack to
continue to get patches? Why not just update the installer I (and
others) are using now?

I worry about these large MS service packs. SP3 has crashed some
systems, and MS response seems to be "that's your problem". I ended up
switching to XP from 98 because 98 literally ate itself after a patch
install. XP has been stable and trouble free, but now MS is pushing
Vista, and judging from the Vista on my wifes new laptop, I don't need
it. I'm using a PC that I built, and have maintained for over 6 years.
While it clocks as fast on most proceedures as my new laptops with
supposedly faster technology i.e. dual core processors, faster RAM etc.,
it does have some old components. One of the problems with Vista has
been that it simply won't run on machines with older technology. One of
the things I noticed in the MS PDF was that SP3 was that it includes some
kind of patch for running Vista compatable software on XP machines, this
makes me nervous. Does SP3 contain some Vista stuff that I don't need
but will crash my computer?

Paul




>
> As far as 'needing' SP3 - no. You don't obviously *need* Windows.
> You don't *need* to use the Internet for thaqt matter. Or do you - I
> actually cannot say what it is that drives you on a daily basis from
> this single posting.
>
> I do know that if you plan on continuing to run Windows XP and that
> Windows XP has access to the Internet (no matter whose products you
> install on top of it) - you should at least consider applying whatever
> patches that fill whatever security holes in the base OS that become
> available to you.
>
> SP3 is a culmination of patches released (public and otherwise) since
> Windows XP SP2 was released as well as a few minor changes. That
> means - given your statement, "I've been automatically updating
> windows XP for years", you'll probably only have 60-70MB of
> patchess/change you don't already have installed. Whethe you get them
> or not is (always has been) completely up to you. Sooner or later -
> it will become necessary (as it did with SP2) to obtain the last
> service pack released before you can install any further updates for
> the OS. That time may be a couple of years off. So you get to make
> the decision (as always) of what you want to do or not do and live
> with whatever consequences come of it. ;-)
>

"Craig" <wpyr@invalid.us> wrote in
newsQhWj.199179$D_3.38232@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


>
> Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3
> will
> install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?), complete with
> their service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and I'm unsure if it
> would update a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC.
>
> Craig
>
>


Thanks Craig. What is .NET Frame, and why should I have versions 2 and 3?

Pdigmking wrote:
> A little less "snot" would make these responses more helpful.
>
> Why should I install a service pack that will simply re-inatall a
> bunch of patches that I've aleady downlaoded? I use the internet,
> one could deduce that given the fact that I am posting to newsgroup
> via the internet. I need SP3 because I use the internet?
> According to the MS PDF there is nothing critical in the new
> service pack, the only thing in it that I've not already downloaded
> as a matter of course is some network functions and IT functions
> that I won't use. It seems silly to sit around for an hour running
> a service pack this is installing a bunch of stuff that I've
> already installed. Am I missing something here?
>
> As far as future upgrades are concerned, my installer has been
> upgraded a couple times already. Why should I need an entire
> service pack to continue to get patches? Why not just update the
> installer I (and others) are using now?
>
> I worry about these large MS service packs. SP3 has crashed some
> systems, and MS response seems to be "that's your problem". I
> ended up switching to XP from 98 because 98 literally ate itself
> after a patch install. XP has been stable and trouble free, but
> now MS is pushing Vista, and judging from the Vista on my wifes new
> laptop, I don't need it. I'm using a PC that I built, and have
> maintained for over 6 years. While it clocks as fast on most
> proceedures as my new laptops with supposedly faster technology
> i.e. dual core processors, faster RAM etc., it does have some old
> components. One of the problems with Vista has been that it simply
> won't run on machines with older technology. One of the things I
> noticed in the MS PDF was that SP3 was that it includes some kind
> of patch for running Vista compatable software on XP machines, this
> makes me nervous. Does SP3 contain some Vista stuff that I don't
> need but will crash my computer?

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

I figure the best person to know whether or not they need to do something is
the person asking. I have no idea of your needs/wants - I have no idea of
anything about you. You have walked into a room of total strangers and
asked, "Do I need the bee keeper outfit?" but never stated whether or not
you dealt with bees. ;-P

I gave you a straight answer. Only you know what you need. I could explain
until I am blue in the face why I need/want SP3 - but you may not understand
it or you may not care why *I* need it. ;-)

Windows XP SP3 and Vista... The only thing I can think of is the change in
the Remote Desktop Client to allow one to connect to a NLA protected remote
desktop session on a Vista machine - perhaps someone else knows more
'crossover' that this SP includes.

I am confused by this paragraph of yours:

> As far as future upgrades are concerned, my installer has been
> upgraded a couple times already. Why should I need an entire
> service pack to continue to get patches? Why not just update the
> installer I (and others) are using now?

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?

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!"

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. ;-)

In the end - you asked for opinions and you got one from me. Mine is, "only
you know what you need/want." I gave you some facts (sooner or later you
will need to install SP3 to be able to install on your working PC some
patches just like you now need SP2 to download and install some patches on
your working machine; 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.) I know people still
happily using Windows 98 and Windows ME - so telling you that you *need*
some service pack for an OS - not my place.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Pdigmking wrote:
> I've been automatically updating windows XP for years, I upgraded
> to SP2 when it came out. I'm reading about SP3 here and it's
> described as basically just a bundle of all the post SP2 updates
> with a couple extra features for networks. I have two questions. First:
> will my automatic update automatically download and
> attempt to install SP3? Second: Do I really need SP3? Frankly,
> since the change to XP I've never noticed any differnce in
> performance associated with any of these updates, and my machines
> are working just fine. I don't rely on Windows software for
> security, and I don't use windows software for internet functions,
> e-mail, browsing, etc. If I pass on SP3, will I be able to get
> future updatas?

<inline>

Craig wrote:
> Like you, I've been up-to-date with the past Windows Updates.
> Still, SP3 had about 70MB to download (at least that's better than
> the full SP3 standalone file of something like 500-600 MB) and
> install.

No. Full SP3 downloaded size is 331,808,768 bytes.

> I'm not sure about the automatic Windows Update but expect it may
> do that, given enough time. Unless/Until you hear differently, if
> you don't want SP3, you might want to be safe and turn off Auto
> Windows Update and proceed with Windows Update manually where you
> can choose to accept or ignore SP3. But unless you have a specific
> reason to fear doing the upgrade, you may just want to go ahead and
> become a SP3 user.
> Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3
> will install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?),
> complete with their service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and
> I'm unsure if it would update a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC.

SP3 contains no .NET Frameworks or updates - nor does it require any that I
have found. There are many people out there without any .NET Frameworks -
1.1, 2.0. 30. or 3.5 (non-cumulative.)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Pdigmking" wrote...

> "Craig" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Contrary to what I had been told earlier, I'm pretty sure that SP3
>> will
>> install .NET Framework Version 2 and 3 (or is it 3.5?), complete with
>> their service packs. It doesn't install .NET 1.1 and I'm unsure if it
>> would update a PC's version 1.1 if found on a PC.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks Craig. What is .NET Frame, and why should I have versions 2 and 3?

I'm not the most knowledgeable user here so will let the others fill you
in with details. I think it's something like a Virtual Machine or Java,
whatever it is these things do for us...

From what I see on my PC and from what I've read here and elsewhere, you
only need a .NET Framework when some other software on your system requires
it. On my PC, I think that my Quicken needs .NET 2 and I know that .NET 2 is
needed for my "Driver Detective," my EMC backup software and I think my
income tax software. When installing a software package that requires a
non-present .NET Framework, you'll be told it's needed. Note that software
is built to work with a specific .NET Framework. In other words, if you have
software that requires .NET v2, you need to keep v2 on your PC even after
installing v3. As far as I know, SP3 adding .NET version 3 on my PC for
future possible use--it's not needed now by me. And since my PC works
without having .NET v1.1 present, I must have no software that requires it.
You can see if your system has a .NET Framework installed--it may already be
there. If you do a full Windows Update (not the recommended "Express"
Update), you'll be offered the three .NET (v 1.1, 2, and 3.x) if they're not
already on your system. If you don't see a version offered, then it's
already on your PC. And if you have one or more .NET Frameworks on your PC
but they're not up-to-date, you'll be offered patches or Service Packs for
them. If offered a .NET Framework update of any sort, then you system has
the basic .NET Framework of that version installed.

Regarding your earlier comment to in reply to someone else, using Windows
Update to download SP3 will NOT reinstall a bunch of patches you've already
done. The SP3 inspection/download process sees what your system has already
done and only downloads and installs the patches that are not present. As a
couple have pointed out in this thread, a SP3 upgrade on a previously
fully-patched PC will have about 60 MB of material to download--a PC that's
less up to date could require a SP3 download of several hundred MB up to
about 500-600 MB.

Craig