In news:h2bjt1$3pj$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:52 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient
>>>>>> and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
>>>>> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2
>>>>> and SP3.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6
>>>> auto-compacing mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And
>>>> Microsoft doesn't support OE at all anymore, so there will never be
>>>> a Microsoft fix for it. Which might be one reason to stick with
>>>> SP2. <grin>
>>>
>>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
>>> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>>
>>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>>> fine.
>>
>> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed
>> anyway. And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much
>> smaller. Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install
>> SP3 on my 4G SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even
>> if I use the recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB
>> worth of room. SP3 claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe
>> it actually needs at least double this amount when I installed it on
>> one of my 8G machines.
>
> Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice safe
> hex I still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so have
> sp3 on all of them. I take an Acronis partition image of the boot
> partition immediately before install, then delete the uninstall files
> (which I put in my own folder so I can find them easilly). Or I
> should say I did do that with my first few sp3 installs. As I haven't
> had a problem with it and I image my boot partitions regularly anyway
> it's no longer SOP.

Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any major
changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC bootable
cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to another drive,
is this true? Ghost is okay with this.

I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much better.

And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as well.
I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every other
update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on for
years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.

Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I don't
close two programs running in the System Tray first. This started after
one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it again. Next one
fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all updated and it is
broke once again.

> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
> that extra room.

Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is the
worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older hotfix
doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier. This folder
on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.

>> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
>> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE
>> newsgroup.
>
> Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for
> me. <grin>

Well it was desktop users who was complaining about it actually. Two of
my XP machines has SP3 on them and I am thinking about doing it for
another one. Although one is on a 4G SSD and I don't see that one of
ever having SP3 on it. At least not with the Asus Windows XP SP2 OEM
version anyway.

As for that OE6 autocompacking problem with SP3. I have to wait until
the counter hits on one of them to 100 and then I'll see if I am
effected. Well I guess I can edit the registry to make it 100. <grin>

>> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>>
>> SP2 v5.1.2600
>> SP3 v5.1.2600
>>
>> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange
>> to you?
>
> No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which
> doesn't change with a service pack added, hence the service pack
> status is indicated at the start of the report. (At least that's how
> I understand it.)

That is pretty strange to me. That isn't how I remember it. For example,
I just did this for one Office 2000 machine. Here is the build record.

Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.3821 SR-1)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP-3)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.8968 SP-3) after 13 more updates

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP Home SP2