BleepingComputer.com: Why are people still using XP Service Pack2?

An interesting article at PCWorld questions why so many people are still running XP Service Pack 2 when Service Pack 3 is far superior. It is an interesting, and sometimes humorous read. A quote from the article is below.

"OK, I get why many Windows users haven't moved from XP to Windows 7. For one thing, while you can upgrade some XP PCs to Windows 7, chances are you really need to buy a new PC. And, whether you're just buying a new PC for yourself or a few thousand for your company, cash is tight these days. But, why the heck is anyone still running XP SP2!?"

I can understand why 2 years ago SP3 wasn't really used (it was horrifyingly buggy). Oh well,
I guess people won't really have much of a choice in the weeks to come.

Isn't the SP3 Download patch a few hundred megabytes?

Many people's internet can't handle that much in a single sitting. Its a pain to wait for, and install. Its perfectly clear to me why they haven't.

Yes the size of SP3 is about 700 MB (at least at release it was) Thankfully I was smart enough to download the .iso file so I could store it on CD, that saved my somewhat of a headache after having to reinstall windows with only a dial-up connection, even now with mobile broadband a 700MB .iso still takes a few days via torrent to download (but ubuntu 10.04 was worth it!)

Probably half or more of the computers I see have the Windows yellow shield saying updates are ready to be installed and SP3 is there. Along with Java, Adobe and sometimes others. Question is why haven't they installed them yet, probably haven't even noticed.....scary huh?

Two things. One, I think it is because the average user doesn't give two dangs about updates, and two, I think it is because they think that if something happens, their insurance will take care of it.

I ordered SP3 on disk from MS and thus avoided the download issue. Did the same for SP2.

Additional benefit - when I have to reinstall the OS, I'll have the SP2 and SP3 disks available to install the SP's on the computer.

~ OB

Or you could create an SP3 slipstream disk, of course.

JMHO why some do not install it?

It is a Hidden thing in Windows XP that those that reformat and reinstall often, know very well, as I have found out in fixing Computers for Disadvantaged people?

In SP2 and SP1, there was always the Option of Downloading Updates without verifing the Product Code for 30 days. Enough time for a Tech to really work on the Machine in a really Bad Virus Hit and to reformat and reinstall, but to be able to do it with ALL Updates.

No way can you do that with SP3. Before you can download Updates you must validate and verify your Product Code. Then that is counted as an Install, after just a few, the Tech then has to Phone M$oft and BEG for another Product Number. That is so silly.

Edit. Hey, I do know that Pirated Copies can do the same, but only once, after 30 days they are eliminated, if they don't Verify and validate successfully, under SP2 or SP1. That is how it should be. I completely agree with that, not with SP3, that is just a Money Grab from M$oft.

Ray

BlackSpyder, on Jun 22 2010, 10:32 PM, said:

Download it once, and burn it to a CD. That way you have it forever, and you can also get it from MS for like 10 bucks I think.

cryptodan, on Jun 30 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

Can one do that with Vista updates and SP/2? I would imagine that it might be faster installing all that with a disc than downloading all those updates via the internet.

I've got XP SP3 on Cd somewheres and an .iso file to boot if the CD ever gets to damaged to use. As for Vista only Service packs are available for .iso download or CD ordering I believe the regular monthly updates must be downloaded and installed on a file by file basis, which is automated anyways. If your looking to save some time on a reinstall look into "Slipstreaming" theres a tutorial here on BC on how to do it although I've never tried it others seem to prefer it.

powder_sullivan, on Jun 22 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

Horrifyingly buggy?

Wow, I don't know what to say... the FUD is blinding in that article...

So SP3 is far superior, huh?
Far as I remember it, there wasn't any difference in performance on any of the computers I installed it on. It was (from the opinion of most techs I worked alongside when it was released) just a packaged deal of previous fixes that had already been implemented in SP2, and a few minor security tweaks; nothing major when SP3 was released as opposed to SP2's arrival, which brought the default activation of the Windows Firewall (still better than nothing for you WF haters), the Security Center (which helped raise the general net population's awareness to the importance of having an updated anti-virus and firewall) and overall more robust security to the Windows world... SP3 far superior? I think not. Of course, over time it has grown in use (and expanded its usefulness with the added fixes tacked on), either because people kept forgetting to turn autoupdate off, or they just got tired of the nag... I'm not sure which, but it certainly wasn't because SP3 is/was far superior to its predecessor. Is it a better choice for people still unable to upgrade to Windows 7? Sure, if only because of the sheer amount of updates and added features since its original release, but as is and on its own merit, SP3 did not have anywhere near the impact that SP2 had... good or bad.

In my experience installing SP3 boosted computer performance by as much as 25% on all the computers I installed it on. Programs responded much much quicker and made the computer more reliable then the previous SP's on Windows XP. It actually increased productivity for me. We still use SP2 at work, and the computer performance and reliability is down right disgusting and slow. Makes you glad to come home, and use a computer that is far more reliable and more responsive. Especially when doing day to day tasks like browsing the web, opening up Word and other office utilities. Windows XP SP3 made the computer run like never before.