In news:h2jg32$ale$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option, although
> that works fine too.)
> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put
> the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the
> new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference
> (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots more room).
>
> I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.

Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy to
somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.

>> 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.
>
> I've found that MS have got better at this. It used to occur often
> but now I find it rare.

Yes they normally do get better at this. Although they are still
breaking stuff. But it isn't just Microsoft, everybody else has the same
problem. Although Microsoft is usually easier to deal with. <grin>

>>> 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've always deleted the "$hf_mig$" folder and have never had a
> problem.

If you only install updates in order only, it should be okay that way.
Although if you install an older hotfix for something, it might be very
bad.

>>>> 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
>
> I have XP Powertoys and Tweak UI installed and have chosen the option
> to show my Windows version on the desktop. I've installed every
> update offered and currently, in the bottom right of my desktop there
> is written:
> "Windows XP Professional
> Build 2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234 (Service Pack 3)"

I too use TweakUI, but not that option. Previous versions of Windows
changed after updates. Keeping the same build after updates doesn't tell
anybody anything. And thus I have no idea why reporting anything at all
is worthwhile under XP. So what good is it? It used to be a sign if you
were up-to-date or not. Now it means nothing at all.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC