Obviously it would, in theory, be more secure.


My question is crashes and speed. Have either of these been significantly adjusted since The original XP Pro?


2 PCs (identical hardware) 1 running XP Pro (before SP1) and 1 running all updates.


Will there be a difference? (other than the SP2 bloat.)

4/18/2006 12:27:35 AM

Last time i did a windows update it crashed my computer, so i ahvent done one since...

4/18/2006 12:29:46 AM

is this a parody?

4/18/2006 12:30:19 AM

lol, no.

4/18/2006 12:30:38 AM

Considering XP Pro came out originally in 2001, kinda hard to compare speed between now and then

That would be an interesting set of benchmarks though. You are limiting it to XP Pro ... but that would probably be of most interest. Try it and blog it. Would love to see:
-Out of Box: XP, XP SP1, XP SP2
-Critical/Security Only: XP, XP SP1, XP SP2
-All Updates: XP, XP SP1, XP SP2

Thats 9 tests right there. Add more if you care to.

4/18/2006 6:02:15 AM

speed differences will only be seen if a patch changes the kernel or disables/adds services. drivers have a much bigger influence than anything else. I'd wager if you put all the current drivers on an xp sp0 machine, it would run faster than sp2 and the added security services.*


*provided the machines arent on the internet as the sp0 machine would be hacked in minutes.. ruining the whole experiment

4/18/2006 9:54:50 AM

Windows XP SP2 Performance Review

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-237-1.htm

4/18/2006 10:17:09 AM

^ summarized: sp2 is worth installing - in most cases, performance is the same as with sp1 except in some cases (they note gaming) where performance is better

4/18/2006 10:52:32 AM