Catharsis Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I've recommended it since the beta (release client, whatever). It's always worked great for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten T Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I installed sp2 as soon as it came out. Personally haven't had any "horror" stories to speak of...I would say go for it. :yes: 585958170[/snapback] I installed the final b4 it came out ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rojack Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 i installed the damn thing without a single problem - and it's been running smoothly, without a single problem ever since - go for it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I installed sp2 as soon as it came out. Personally haven't had any "horror" stories to speak of...I would say go for it. :yes: 585958170[/snapback] It works for most people, but its still slower and contains unneeded bloat then SP0/1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon2611 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Corporate version aye, I'm sure you acquired that legally :whistle: If the Windows XP CD is original/authentic then you should be able to slipstream without a problem. There are plenty of detailed guides on the net to assist you. ;) 585960687[/snapback] download the full 266mb sp2 installer then download and install nlite which you can just press a button and it will slipstream sp2 into xp for you it will also allow you to customise your xp cd. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exotoxic Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I installed sp2 as soon as it came out. Personally haven't had any "horror" stories to speak of...I would say go for it. :yes: 585958170[/snapback] same here :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvo Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I would recommend SP2 even though there may be a slight performance hit. With computers being so powerful these days and memory so cheap, the requirements will continue to go up while time moves a long. People complaining about a performance hit and such just aren't ready to face reality that technology progresses and requirements will continue to go up. Plus isn't a little safety on your computer worth a little bit of performance. I think so. So your game wont do 80 fps but 72fps, but at least your computer is safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Like me. :shifty: 585953966[/snapback] Then again maybe its not so smart for pirating your operating system. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Definately install Service Pack 2. There's really no reason not to. I would also recommend keeping the security center running and make sure it reports everything as being secure. All that it required for the Security Center to report your computer as secure is Automatic Updates enabled, Firewall enabled, and an Anti-Virus program running and up-to-date; nothing drastic. You should already have your computer configured this way. The fact that people are just now getting around to installing SP2 tells me that they should have automatic updates enabled, which it will be once you install SP2. I hate hearing people cry about how it connects to Microsoft's servers like it's an invasion of privacy, that's stupid. If you have actually purchased your copy of Windows then there's absolutely nothing for you to worry about. If you're using a pirated copy of Windows then go purchase it. The firewall will not interfere with any of your programs and is enabled by default. When you launch an application for the first time, you will be asked if you wish to allow the program to access the Internet. You don't even need to configure it, it'll configure itself around how you use your computer. This can be a little bit annoying at first but once you have run most of your commonly-used programs then the annoyance will disappear and you might even be thankful because you'll realize some programs use the Internet and don't advertise this fact anywhere. It's better to be safe rather than sorry. An anti-virus program should also be installed on your computer, you'll have to find one of these on your own. Kaspersky Anti-Virus has the highest detection and fix rate in the industry and it's cheap, so I recommend it. If you take a second to become familiar with Kaspersky Anti-Virus, you can have it also protect you from spyware and have it update hourly. If you have an AMD64 rig and don't want to take the plunge for the 64-bit Windows, then that's all the more reason to install Service Pack 2. By default SP2 has enhanced virus protection enabled for core operating system components. You can, of course, change this behaviour so that it's enabled for everything on your computer (which I'd recommend.) As for those who say that the security center is annoying, it's not. If your computer was secure then you would never notice it. In fact, I only seen the security center icon in the task bar for the first 15 minutes after installing SP2 and that's because I done a clean install and didn't have Kaspersky Anti-Virus installed and updated at the time. If you're computer is secure then you will not be "annoyed" at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 I would recommend SP2 even though there may be a slight performance hit. Which component of SP2 affects the performance hit that you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) Which component of SP2 affects the performance hit that you are talking about? 585964695[/snapback] Many SP2 files were recompiled with additional runtime checks against buffer overflows etc, and it can cause a performance hit of some fraction of a percentage. Don't remember exactly, but I think it was less than 1%. So it's many components contributing, but the hit is neglible. Can anyone explain the big drop in hard disk performance in sp2? No, I'm talking about a CPU hit. I personally recommend SP2 to anyone using XP, it's far worse to be without it IMHO. Yes, you may run a firewall yourself, but it takes care of a lot of security holes firewalls and antivirus can't fix. I actually haven't installed SP2 yet, knowing the problems that some people had and hearing the horror stories. That's only because the only time people write about it is usually when they have problems, while you don't hear a thing from the huge masses of people having it and working for them. Never rely on a forum or newsgroup to read about reliability, UNLESS the problems are somehow connected to a specific software/hardware you use. If it's just unspecific "aaah, SP2 broke my computer!" it can be anything, like a computer that was infected with spyware at the point of installing SP2. It giving problems for P2P tools are also greatly exaggerated. It doesn't slow down up/downloads, just make them take a few seconds longer to get going because it queues very frequent connections (and that usually only happens when starting up a client), that's all. I'm up/downloading at 10 Mbps so trust me, there's no "cap" you'll reach on speeds. In that case it isn't at all about that specific feature they added in SP2 but rather some hard/software issue. Edited May 24, 2005 by Jugalator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark-NL Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 The firewall will not interfere with any of your programs and is enabled by default. When you launch an application for the first time, you will be asked if you wish to allow the program to access the Internet. Well, XP SP2's firewall only does inbound protection. So for example...if Outlook Express tries to connect to your ISP's mailserver to get your mail (= outbound connection), the firewall will not come into action. For the rest of your story: Well put! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniacidz Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 There's no reason not to update to SP2. It provides a level of security and stability never before seen in Windows. If you're worried about it, make a slipstreamed CD w/SP2 already integrated, and clean install. It's the most efficient way to install SP2. 585953953[/snapback] Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Well, XP SP2's firewall only does inbound protection.So for example...if Outlook Express tries to connect to your ISP's mailserver to get your mail (= outbound connection), the firewall will not come into action. For the rest of your story: Well put! You're right, my explanation-skills leave a lot to be desired :p I am editing the post now to avoid any confusion... [Edit] Nevermind, I can't edit it now, too much time has passed since I posted it :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiveMasterT Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Well, XP SP2's firewall only does inbound protection.So for example...if Outlook Express tries to connect to your ISP's mailserver to get your mail (= outbound connection), the firewall will not come into action. For the rest of your story: Well put!?:cool:: 585964736[/snapback] not true. i have several applications black listed in the firewall so that they cannot have access to the internet at all. the old windows firewall was only for inbound stuff. sp2's does both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts