Pdigmking said:
"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?
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".
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.
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
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?
Service packs are cumulative. They are not made *just for you* but for
everyone. They include all patches released (to the public and otherwise)
for the operating system including previous service packs. This makes it
easier for OEMs and IT people to integrate them into installs and roll them
out to the customers. It's the way it was done with SP1, SP1a (minus
JavaVM), SP2 (Plus lots of features) and now SP3 (plus minor features). SP1
for Vista as well.
Lots of testing is done - but I know of no way to test every possible
configuration. If you do - please start a business based on that. That
would be an unbelievable profit-maker!
SP3 - no matter how you get it - only installs parts it needs to install.
If you already have a patch it would have installed - it skips it. That's
how it works. Do you have all the following patches installed?
List of fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 3
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480/
The article clearly states that the list of fixes it shows were added to SP3
only. If you want to know what was included in SP2 or SP1a - they have
links in the article. ("The following fix list includes only the updates
that were added in Windows XP SP3.")
So - out of those 1174 additional fixes (yes - there are 1174 listed in SP3
alone) - how many do you have installed Post-SP2? I had about 100-120 on a
good day. ;-)
I still have no idea what you are trying to convey with 'update the
installer'; I would like to know, however.
Do you *need* those updates (as you ask in your subject line?) *shrug* -
nope. You'll likely live a long and happy life without them. Your computer
might stay running perfectly for many decades to come without SP3. You may
never change OSes, you may never upgrade applications and you may be
perfectly safe behind a router with your antivirus/antispyware running.
I do know that if you plan on continuing to receive updates say - in mid
2009-early 2010 and beyond - you'll likely need to have SP3 installed by
then. If SP1a and SP2 history show anything - it is that sooner or later,
in order to get new patches for the OS of your choice you have to have the
last service pack Microsoft released for said OS of your choice.
Otherwise - only if some third party vendor says their product is only
supported in Windows XP SP3 or above - will you have any further
'encouragement' to install SP3 onto your system.
BTW - I have to point out that if you have actually experienced this quote,
"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."; I feel obliged to introduce you to backups. ;-) Take
advantage of the fact that the data (every bit - literally) on a computer
can be backed up and restored later - in case of a problem. If everything
in life was like that - things would be all good.
You can either manually copy your important files, folders,
documents, spreadsheets, emails, contacts, pictures, drawings and so on
to an external location (CD/DVD - any disk of some sort, etc) or you can
use the backup tool that comes with Windows XP:
How To Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308422
Yes - you still need some sort of external media to store the results
on, but you could schedule the backup to occur when you are not around,
then burn the resultant data onto CD or DVD or something when you are
(while you do other things!) External hard drives are inexpensive these
days - and I have yet to find someone who said, "I'm so mad at you for
suggesdting I spend $100 on that external hard drive. When my computer
crashed, I lost nothing!" ;-)
Another option (free):
Cobian Backup
http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system
so that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to
do for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image
backup of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it
(something goes wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than
performing a full install of the operating system and all applications.
In other words - make sure you follow through. Some people just do this
extra step right before installing something major (like a service pack.)
That is not a bad plan.
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://snipurl.com/13e00
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
BootIt NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html