Windows XP Service Pack 3

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 00:47

Download it here, it's 316Mb: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... 1555d4f3d4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SP3 is due out First Quarter 2008. SP3 looks to have more in common with SP1 than SP2 in that it's mostly hotfixes and a few new "business" security features than anything major.

A PDF can be found here, posted on the 10th of December:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... b4f56f5110

The PDF is 11 pages but is in fact mostly blank space!

Apparently it will have over a thousand hotfixes, but contrary to original opinion will not contain IE7 (although will update it if installed). I’d guess Windows Media Player 11 isn’t included either. Normally Service Packs do upgrade Internet Explorer. I’d guess this is to push more people to get Vista.

It will give WinXP WPA2 support (Wireless Encryption).

p.s - Windows NT 4 had 6 service packs and Windows 2000 4 service packs. Many of which were released long after the next Windows was released.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 23 Dec 2007, 03:25

Lack of IE7 is because it has incompatabilities with a lot of sites and applications still so there'd be too much backlash. I don't see why it would have anything to do with Vista...

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Dec 2007, 03:33

I'm still contemplating whether or not I just create a slipstreamed disc, reformat and install everything from scratch; or just install the pack in my current Windows installation.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 04:09

@ Eva: That all depends how clogged down our Windows installation is.

Lourdes wrote:Lack of IE7 is because it has incompatabilities with a lot of sites and applications still so there'd be too much backlash.

I've not come across any, underneath it's very similar to IE6. I've never heard anyone else who has either. Even then it's standard practise to usually upgrade IE. I don't believe it's your reason behind why it's missing, Microsoft are very keen for everyone to use IE7 (and Vista).

Lourdes wrote:I don't see why it would have anything to do with Vista...

Because if you can get some of what's in Vista in a nice and easy Service Pack you maybe less likely to upgrade. Microsoft doesn't want to make it clear IE7 is also available on XP for Joe Public. More people install Windows Service Packs than would install IE7 on it's own. They think install XP, must also make sure I have SP2 not install XP, upgrade IE, upgrade WMP etc . . .

Anyway that's just my thinking on it. Back on topic it's worth reading the PDF.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 23 Dec 2007, 09:43

Trusted Reviews said this update gives your computer a 10% speed/performance boost.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Dec 2007, 14:47

Not a chance in hell I will install this shit, SP2 broke my PC beyond words. Mine works fine as it is now, no need for SP3 at all.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Dec 2007, 15:18

You've gone back to SP1 ? :bom:

If there really is some kind of performance increase, then I might try the SP3.
I'll do anything to stay away from Vista.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 15:35

romerojpg wrote:Not a chance in hell I will install this shit, SP2 broke my PC beyond words. Mine works fine as it is now, no need for SP3 at all.

I see the usual Romerologic is at work. It wasn't SP2 fool. It was your particular configuration, "with possibly" at most SP2 too that killed it.

tom2681 wrote:You've gone back to SP1? :bom:

Nope he's gone back to 3.1.

tom2681 wrote:If there really is some kind of performance increase, then I might try the SP3.

I know you like your system empty but don't tell me you're still running the original XP build?

tom2681 wrote:I'll do anything to stay away from Vista.

Speaking of Vista, SP1 Release Candidate 1 was released recently. It's also due First Quarter 2008.

gasteropod wrote:Trusted Reviews said this update gives your computer a 10% speed/performance boost.

Here it is: http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/ ... m-Vista/p1

Nothing is mentioned of this in the Microsoft PDF.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:18

bradavon wrote:
romerojpg wrote:Not a chance in hell I will install this shit, SP2 broke my PC beyond words. Mine works fine as it is now, no need for SP3 at all.
I see the usual Romerologic is at work. It wasn't SP2 fool. It was your particular configuration, "with possibly" at most SP2 too that killed it.

You think you know everything. As usual your wrong.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:44

I know more about ICT than you do! I work in the field for one.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 23 Dec 2007, 17:06

I agree with bradavon on this, sorry romerojpg but properly-running & stable Windows XP configs worked just fine after the SP2 upgrade. I can pretty much guarantee you had somethin undesirable on your PC that botched things up.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 17:15

I'm going to bet Tom and Lourdes would even agree with me on this one

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 23 Dec 2007, 19:34

I certainly had no problems after installing SP2.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Dec 2007, 21:05

Yep. SP2's fine with my rig, too.

It needs to be installed properly, though.
(Format your drive, install XP SP1, install all drivers, install all M$ programs, then install SP2)
I did run into trouble when I got the order wrong. Maybe that's what happened to Romero.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:03

SP2 includes SP1.

I've gone from Original Release to SP2 a few times. It says on the SP2 page it also includes SP1. Since 2002 (I think) all Service Packs have included the previous Service Pack.

It needs to be installed properly, though.
(Format your drive, install XP SP1, install all drivers, install all M$ programs, then install SP2).

The order isn't important. I always install XP then SP2 so I have a base level to work from (i.e - Windows itself is at the latest level). After SP2 I then install drivers followed by programs. There is no connection to having to install Microsoft programs first, they're just software like any others. You cannot also install some programs without SP2 installed first too.

I now have a Slipstreamed WinXP SP2 install saving time. Not that I've installed XP for ages, now I'm on Vista.

Say what you will about Vista but it's setup routine and recovery console are much better than 2000/XP. It now has proper repair options instead of just a complicated command prompt to work with (which it also has too). Obviously with any luck you should never see it on XP or Vista though.

There is no DOS section of the setup routine, it's straight to a graphical install with mouse functionality. The last time I installed XP was for my Dad. He's capable of doing it himself but I said I'd do it to get it right, his last PC was so utterly cluttered. It's getting that way again, he wont' learn.

I did run into trouble when I got the order wrong. Maybe that's what happened to Romero.

I never have. I suspect again it was "your" experience. In Romero's case he could've installed SP2 on to an already clunky or old PC thinking it would help when it just made it worse. I'm just guessing though.

If I was going to install SP2 I'd definitely do so on a fresh install if at all possible!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:06

So does anyone have any comments about the changes in SP3 found in the PDF? Is there anything you're particularly looking forward to or indeed worried about?

As well as rumoured about SP3 increasing XP's already speed I've also heard it will have negative affects in many Security Software (that's all I've heard). Which we all run unless your name is Tom

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:09

bradavon wrote:So does anyone have any comments about the changes in SP3 found in the PDF? Is there anything you're particularly looking forward to?

None, I only use 32-bit XP as a backward OS for incompatibilities with XP x64 (which are very rare). I can go for months at a time without booting 32bit XP.

32bit Windows is backward. The 4GB memory addressing limit sucks (and that includes VRAM).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:14

tom2681 wrote:I did run into trouble when I got the order wrong. Maybe that's what happened to Romero.

Service pack are cumulative BTW.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:21

Does WinXP x64 include SP2 by default?

It's hard to work out if it is or not. According to this link an SP2 download is mutually available for both 2003 x64 and XP x64:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... F0315B2AE6

None, I only use 32-bit XP as a backward OS for incompatibilities with XP x64 (which are very rare).

Who said anything about 32-Bit Windows? I was asking about SP3. I'd imagine it will at a later date be made available for XP x64 too.

I can go for months at a time without booting 32bit XP.

The fact you cannot 100% do away with 32-Bit XP entirely makes me still wary of it. There's no way I or most people will want dual OS's installed. The lack of 16-Bit support is also a concern. I like some of my old programs that use 16-Bit installers, for instance.

I'll consider it when Windows 7 is released hopefully by then it will be 100% compatible. Not that I remotely find 32-Bit 2000/XP/Vista unstable to start with. Windows has come on a long way since the days of Windows 98 SE.

The 4GB memory addressing limit sucks (and that includes VRAM).

Most people don't even need 4Gb on Vista let alone on XP

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:53

bradavon wrote:Does WinXP x64 include SP2 by default?

No, but it's always included SP1. XP x64 is just the workstation version of Windows 2003 under a different name; Win2003 already had a SP1 by the time XP x64 was released sometime in '05.

Who said anything about 32-Bit Windows? I was asking about SP3. I'd imagine it will at a later date be made available for XP x64 too.

No, as 32bit XP and x64 are two different Operating Systems. Eg XP 32-bit's SP2 came out in 2004, 2003/XP x64's came out in March 2007.

I already 4GB of system ram and plan to upgrade to a video card with 512MB VRAM (Tthere's mid-range cards with 1GB VRAM now, but that's overkill for any current games; thus a waste of money.). My current card only has 256MB VRAM, which struggles at the high resolutions that I run my games at.

The aim of my upgrade would be to play DX9 games from 2004-2007 (bar system hogs like Crysis and World in Conflict of course.) maxed out @ 1680*1050 (my monitor's native resolution) with a constant framerate of 60fps. For example the HL2 Orange Box came out this October, the HDR effects and AA effects of upgraded Source engine kill any decent performance at 1680*1050, so I have to play at 1440*900 with minimal AA (2*AA), if I want a playable framerate of 30-60fps (with all the effects turned on). The erratic framerate constantly jumping from 30ish to 60fps can be very jarring.

If you don't enable v-sync when playing LCDs, you get very ugly screen tearing (you get same thing with video playback. Another reason why Overlay is still superior to VMR and EVR). You get that because LCDs refresh rates can't keep up with what's being processed. V-sync caps your performance at your configured refresh rate (that's usually 60Hz on LCDs).

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Dec 2007, 23:56

@Eva:
I've set the maximum framerate at 30 in my Half-Life 2 games.
It all feels a bit jerky at first, but then you get used to it. I don't like constant framerate variations either.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Dec 2007, 00:46

EvaUnit02 wrote:No, but it's always included SP1. XP x64 is just the workstation version of Windows 2003 under a different name; Win2003 already had a SP1 by the time XP x64 was released sometime in '05.

Cool. I didn't know 2003 was 64-Bit only. It would make sense though. I did know they shared the same code base but not that were so similar.

Does this mean without the Server bits 2003 is really XP? If 2003 was "that" different they couldn't call x64 XP "Windows XP". I always thought 2003 had a new engine to XP. Then again they did re-write the kernel from scratch for Vista so I guess not.

EvaUnit02 wrote:No, as 32bit XP and x64 are two different Operating Systems. Eg XP 32-bit's SP2 came out in 2004, 2003/XP x64's came out in March 2007.

I guess it will come when MS consider 2003 needs SP3 then. As far I understand it the latest version is 2003 SR2 (aka Second Edition) with SP2.

It stands to reason at some point SP3 will be released. That said "some" of the new features in SP3 are specifically designed for XP workstations connecting to 2003 Servers.

tom2681 wrote:@Eva:
I've set the maximum framerate at 30 in my Half-Life 2 games.
It all feels a bit jerky at first, but then you get used to it. I don't like constant framerate variations either.

Wouldn't it be better to reduce it a bit to compensate?

I used to set everything to the maximum quality settings but then reduce the resolution down one to make it playable instead of lower quality settings and a higher resolution. It looked better that way.

Not that I've played Games on my PC for years now. I never have on my current laptop. It's graphics card isn't "great". My Vista score is a nice 4.5 but the Graphics drops it to 2.5 (it's overall score)

. It handles Aero fine and that's all it needs to do.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 24 Dec 2007, 09:24

bradavon wrote:Cool. I didn't know 2003 was 64-Bit only. It would make sense though. I did know they shared the same code base but not that were so similar.

Umm, there's a 32-bit (x86) 2003 as well.

Does this mean without the Server bits 2003 is really XP?

Practically, 2003 was developed with the XP (the desktop/consumer version) as a starting point. Then it probably would've been ported to the various different CPU architectures. (x86 and x86x64 aren't the only CPU architectures out there, obviously.)

Server 2008 will be an extension of Vista's codebase, obviously.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Dec 2007, 16:13

You're right there is. I've installed it, doofus

Server 2008 will be an extension of Vista's codebase, obviously.

I'd imagine UAC is either disabled by default or at lot less enabled though. The firewall service on 2003 is disabled by default.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 Feb 2008, 04:52

Windows XP SP3 FAQ. This lays out well what's going to be included:

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xp_sp3.asp

Do NOT expect a major update like SP2, unlike Vista SP1 it's mostly Hotfixes. I still find it strange IE7 or WMP11 aren't being included but there you go, especially when IE7 was rolled out over Windows Update some time ago. I'm not sure on WMP11.