SP2, not what I had hoped for


Recommended Posts

Mister Lamar
,Aug 10 2004, 16:11] Follow the instructions here.

I have been using this guide and recommending this guide for as long as I can remember. Use the attached file for the bootsector portion needed to make the bootable cd. It's not that hard guys. Just take your time, read through it, and make sure you understand everything.

Ok thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
[moribundi]

If you need any help, I'll be happy to bust out some abbreviated directions that are more tailored to SP2. I know that guide talks about SP1a and hotfixes and all that, just skim thru those parts and stick with the parts about slipstreaming specifically. I just don't want to type all that out if I don't have to.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmark327

It's really not that difficult,

1. copy CD to directory

2. install patches administratively with a command line switch that i can't be bothered to find

3. create bootable cd with contents of said directory and xpboot.bin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypoxiaicon

im formatting now, then going to install SP2. Is that ok?? Or do I have to slipstream?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rivers

As well as having the windows update error which means I cant access the site.

Does anyone know if its possible to get the media bar/icon back on IE6?

I actually used that..lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
rayjin
im formatting now, then going to install SP2. Is that ok?? Or do I have to slipstream?

slipstream first

Link to post
Share on other sites
[moribundi]
im formatting now, then going to install SP2. Is that ok?? Or do I have to slipstream?

slipstreaming works best, always.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rivers
As well as having the windows update error which means I cant access the site.

Does anyone know if its possible to get the media bar/icon back on IE6?

I actually used that..lol

Am I gonna have to start a new topic to get some help here? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bold_Fortune

I've been following along on the threads now being created with the installation of SP2. Kind of interesting stuff. I personally haven't had any problems with SP2.

I haven't slipstreamed yet...and I think slipstreaming merely makes it simpler to install the Service Pack along with XP, it doesn't add any increase in benefits as far as I can see. But I will slipstream eventually, only because of the "convenience" factor.

I don't think having had disabled certain Services before installing SP2 has much to do with some people's problems.

I'm going to have to go along with the "compatibility" reason someone gave. Maybe a clean install would be best for those who discover a few compatibility issues.

Though, for most, a clean install shouldn't be necessary.

Just my input toward what I've seen on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654
I've been following along on the threads now being created with the installation of SP2.  Kind of interesting stuff.  I personally haven't had any problems with SP2. 

I haven't slipstreamed yet...and I think slipstreaming merely makes it simpler to install the Service Pack along with XP, it doesn't add any increase in benefits as far as I can see.  But I will slipstream eventually, only because of the "convenience" factor.

I don't think having had disabled certain Services before installing SP2 has much to do with some people's problems.

I'm going to have to go along with the "compatibility" reason someone gave.  Maybe a clean install would be best for those who discover a few compatibility issues.

Though, for most, a clean install shouldn't be necessary. 

Just my input toward what I've seen on this thread.

IMO slipstreaming is not really to make it easier. Yes, it does make it quicker and easier when you were planning on formatting anyways. The thing is most people won't want to/know how to do a clean install but it is DEFINETALY the BEST way to install a service pack. It is well worth the effort to slipstream Xp.

Despite what you think there are advantages to using a slipstreamed copy of Xp. One of the benefits becomes apparent when you try to use the Windows System File Checker. When you run the sfc /scannow command Windows will ask for a Sp2 cd. If you do have one you will have to extract the service pack and then browse to the files. Not a big deal, but bothersome all the same. With a slipstreamed copy you only have one disc to keep track of. Another benefit is there a no chance for registry corruption during the install process. When you install a service pack over an existing install of Xp you are at a slight risk for registry corruption. Used too many registry cleaners?? Some people do. Can they guarantee one of them didn't remove something important? Yet another advantage to installing with a slipstreamed disc is tracing an app incompatibility down. If everything is already on your drive and something isn't working right it?s MUCH harder to trace it back to the real problem. One more advantage is that installing with a slipstreamed disc results in fewer files on your hard drive. The servicepackfiles folder is not created when you install this way. It even seemed like Xp itself installed faster. I cannot be sure though, it was running in VmWare.

The funny thing is you?re supposed to backup all your data before installing a service pack. And since you have all your stuff backed up you might as well go that extra mile and do a clean inst:Dl :D

On a side note, I am writing an auto slipstreamer. Nothing fancy but it does all the steps for you, including burning the cd. All you have to do is tell it what drive the Xp cd is in and which drive to burn with. I'll post a link to it here when it's finished in the next day or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VR6Pete

I also noticed that my PC was slow booting up after I installed SP2, however I ran bootvis.exe (I think it's a microsoft tool) tha just arranges all your boot files into a more optimized order, I reduced my machine (3.2Ghz P4, 1GB Dual Channel DDR400, 300Gb Raid 0 SATA array) from 4 to under 2 scrolls on the loading bar on the XP boot screen.

Just google boot bootvis, The tool also has performance breakdown graphs of your boot sequence, so you can see where the slow down if you are still having problems...

Rock on!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rivers

Tunexp works better imo.

"One of the benefits becomes apparent when you try to use the Windows System File Checker. When you run the sfc /scannow command Windows will ask for a Sp2 cd"

Mine still asks for the original Windows xp cd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
insanekiwi

no problems with sp2 here, quite a performance boost overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654
"One of the benefits becomes apparent when you try to use the Windows System File Checker. When you run the sfc /scannow command Windows will ask for a Sp2 cd"

Mine still asks for the original Windows xp cd.

I guess you have to run the sfc /purgecache command first before it will ask for the sp2 cd. Most people probably don't run this command but is shaves 300-400 megs off of your windows install. It's still a good idea in my opinion to have all your updated files in one place.

post-11-1092512641.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654

I did some checking and I have a couple of corrections. Running sfc /purgecache removes 563 megs off of your install when at the sp2 level. Even after replacing the files in the %windir%\system32\dllcache folder it asks me for the Sp2 cd. I don't know why it's asking me for the sp2 cd and not you. It may be just be a side effect of running the sfc /purgecache command.

Has anyone else tried running the command to see what happens? Hopefully someone that has installed from a slipstreamed disc and someone else who installed over Windows will comment so we can see if that makes a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmark327

Slipstreaming also allows you to use the hacked uxtheme right from the start without having to worry about patching it and (presumably) the occasional SFC dialog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ATLien_0

Ok well heres what ive noticed about service packs. When you are installing them a lot of stuff is being installed so naturaly when u reboot its gotta register all that stuff. So the first time booting up Will be Slow, but you gotta break it in. So after the 3rd or 4th boot it should be running faster. That is what ive noticed. Also try defrag and disk cleanup

Link to post
Share on other sites
DsnBehind
What I want to know is..will installing SP2 remove all these stupid hotfixes from the add/remove programs, since they should all now be rolled into SP2? Or did M$ not think of that? Or do they have to be removed manually?

Just delete the registry keys referring to them in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall and the backup files in X:\WINDOWS\

Link to post
Share on other sites
rvbfan
So, i laughed to myself thinking about many bad threads about SP2 there would be and here I am posting one.

Has anyone else installed it and noticed the increased boot time? Mines increased from anywhere from 15-30 seconds increase.

When it has eventually booted up, its really slow in the desktop for about 40 seconds after everything has loaded.

After that it seems very un-responsive.

Also, Internet explorer seems to hang often on web pages, like only loading half the page.

All of this has actually made me uninstall SP2, (Which I still believe is the BETA RTM released to windows beta on the 6th ;))

Im not installing SP2 till I see it on the SP2 Page..

:no:

Overall, im VERY dissapointed, Sorry MS. im not impressed. The way its has been inproved, but the way your handling the release leave a lot to be desired. there is so muc confusion.

Only problem I've had is with Halo being broken under sp2 :pc:

Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmark327
Just delete the registry keys referring to them in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall and the backup files in X:\WINDOWS\

That is not necessary; in SP2 there is a checkbox to determine whether they are displayed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeteWhite
I also noticed that my PC was slow booting up after I installed SP2, however I ran bootvis.exe (I think it's a microsoft tool) tha just arranges all your boot files into a more optimized order, I reduced my machine (3.2Ghz P4, 1GB Dual Channel DDR400, 300Gb Raid 0 SATA array) from 4 to under 2 scrolls on the loading bar on the XP boot screen.

Just google boot bootvis, The tool also has performance breakdown graphs of your boot sequence, so you can see where the slow down if you are still having problems...

Rock on!!!

Bootvis doesn't reorganise anything, its just a reporting tool!!!

Extract from Bootvis help file....

Bootvis is a tool for easily enabling capture and graphical display of boot and resume performance trace data in Windows XP. Bootvis by itself will not change a system's boot or resume performance. Bootvis is intended as an aid to allow designers and manufacturers to characterize their system's performance during Windows startup in order to identify areas for further investigation and opportunities for performance improvement.

LOL just noticed its version number....... 1.3.37.0

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hexlord

I am okay with it because bootvis does improve my booting time. I am not sure if SP2 will prevent it from working properly though..

Link to post
Share on other sites
R-Style

WARNING DON'T INSTALL SP2..........

SOON SP2a WILL BE RELEASED. (maybe about a few months)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lycan
WARNING DON'T INSTALL SP2..........

SOON SP2a WILL BE RELEASED. (maybe about a few months)

Source? where you got that from

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.