Windows Xp Service Pack 3 - Whats wrong with this ?

[longtimeago 0]

I do agree that Microsoft is one of the Huge Corporate Giant which has been releasing Operating systems which every body looks upon, even he who hates Microsoft windows and uses Linux will say what is that it is in your windows , the same thing can be made available in Linux too, which simply means he too have used or have had a look at windows . This simply proves that no one can ignore Microsoft Just like that. But what ever i too love Windows and windows XP was a well reputed operating system that no one will ever leave that , even after the release of Vista and windows 7 . As every one is familiar once the operating system is released, bugs are found and they are fixed in the form of Service Packs. Service packs enhances the Operating system and service pack varies , 1st they release Service pack 1 then 2 and it goes on. Here the thing that has to be noted is that when the successor service pack comes it is gonna provide functionality better than the previous one. And that is what it means by version 1 version 2 and so on.But i dont know why it is the other way in windows Service packs . At times the functionality found in the previous service packs is not to be found in the newer ones and the newer ones have some big drawbacks, and this has some adverse effects . Let be make it clear with a practical example, If you are trying to install Visual studio 2008 you would have come across this problem. You can install and use visual studio 2008 in a windows xp operating system which has service pack 2 running along with that, on the other hand if you try to install visual studio 2008 in an windows xp operating system which has service pack 3 then it will throw you some error . You cannot install Visual studio 2008 in windows XP Service pack 3 . I dont know why it is so :oOn the other hand i dont know how to remove that service pack 3 alone separately as it was'nt installed separately. It was installed along with the operating system. Now that i cannot even install windows XP service pack 2 since im sure it will throw me an error saying that you have an higher version of service pack running on your system . Now this simply means that should i go formatting and reinstalling my operating system if i had to use microsoft visual studio 2008 ? Is there any other solution for this .And i am really confused why Microsoft has kept like this. If this is the case is this what you call it a Bug ? or is this done for any particular reason ? If there is any reason let me know

[Soviet Rathe 1]

I have been using XP SP3 for a few months without any problem, after I installed it, it actually ran smoother. so I suggest everyone get this update.

If you wish to revert to SP2 then follow these steps.

1) First, download SP2 from here
2) Restart your computer and tap F8 as your computer powers on. keep tapping until you hear a beep.
3) Go down to the option to start your computer in safe mode
4) Go to control panel and click Add/Remove Programs
5) Check the Show Updates box, then scroll to the bottom of the listing. Select Windows XP Service Pack 3 and click the Remove button.
6) Install SP2 from the installer you downloaded

Hope I helped

[The Simpleton 2]

I stopped at SP2 and then moved on to Ubuntu, but a lot of people gave some negative reviews about SP3 and that was enough to make me stay away from it! I think the debacle for MS started from SP3. First that and then Vista......well things look to improve with 7, but let's not go away from the topic.@nirmaldaniel: I actually had problems installing Visual Studio in SP2 I couldn't install it at all until I got the Windows 7 RC. I don't know why that happened though...

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

no problems what so ever with SP-3. Fact my computer runs a little better with it I have noticed too. but then again I try to run as few things as I can at any one time. but in all honestly XP is one of the best OS that Microlimp ever made. I say one of the best because I am not able to run windows 7, and honestly from what I have heard of it, Its was the 1st build of XP

[longtimeago 0]

at times microsoft windows confuses me , i have doubts am i crazy or is my computer crazy or the operating system which makes my system run is crazy . what ever , please is there any one who have installed Visual studio 2008 in Windows XP SP 3 , if so did you face any problems while installing or did you have a smooth install ?

[The Simpleton 2]

Well my friend once tried installing SP3 and he too wanted to install Visual Studio but remained unsuccessful. I think the best solution would be to go back to SP2 (try a different CD) or choose Windows 7 - both worked for me in the past

[FouGilang 0]

Though that windows xp sp3 failed my machine with those burning failure, slow booting, blue screen, etc. i don't have any trouble installing visual studio 2008 on it. I wonder why you can't install it... - -'

[anwiii 17]

i installed sp3 and had no problem with it. the only reason i had a need to install it was because certain programs wouldn't run without it. anyway, i always felt it was a welcome addition but i installed it a year after it was released. were there different versions of it? actually, i went from sp1 to sp3 but i couldn't install sp3 without sp2 for some reason so i had sp2 for a whole 2 minutes

[The Simpleton 2]

I won't be able to use Windows 7 RC after April 10 and certainly can't afford to buy it, so I'll have to go back to XP for a while. And looking at all this talk about SP3, I think I'll stick with my old copy of SP2!

[index.html 0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy

[k_nitin_r 8]

@nirmaldanielHi!I'm not sure why you are unable to run Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. I'm running Windows XP with Service Pack 3 and it runs perfectly well for me. In fact, I also installed the Beta 2 release of Visual Studio 2010. The VS 2010 Beta 2 does have more bugs than I can deal with in course of my regular software development activities so I would be uninstalling it till the Release Candidate version of Visual Studio 2010 becomes available. Generally, the Community Technology Preview releases are simply a glimpse of the new product and do not provide sufficient functionality for regular use. The beta versions have basic functionality, but if you are planning to use a beta version for development you would be spending more time debugging than you would with a Released-To-Manufacturing product.In either case, you might want to try installing Visual Studio 2008 Service Pack 1 over Windows XP Service Pack 3 before you decide to completely give up on Service Pack 3.If you do make the move to Microsoft Windows 7, you can't have SQL Server 2008 Express running without the Service Pack (for SQL Server) so irrespective of which version of Windows you use, XP or 7, you've still got to deal with the installation of Service Packs before you can get your development environment up and running.@FouGilangIf you have a problem with installing Windows XP's Service Pack 3 over Service Pack 2, you also have the option of going directly from Service Pack 1 to Service Pack 3 (although you cannot go from having no Service Packs to Service Pack 3).

[room2593 0]

And i am really confused why Microsoft has kept like this. If this is the case is this what you call it a Bug ? or is this done for any particular reason ? If there is any reason let me know

Anytime you release a massive product, it's incredibly difficult to work out all the bugs before release, especially in software. Video games have had this problem for years. Games, especially PC versions, have had patches to fix bugs. Why can't operating systems?

I run OSx, and it's not bug-less. It merely has fewer bugs and far less publicity. For example, today I installed an update to my OS. It's not as major as a service pack, but it's definitely the same idea.

Every OS has these problems. Linux doesn't have updates, it just releases a new distribution. OSx has updates too. So your concern with Windows is a bit unfair. Don't be mad at them. They try their best.

[rvalkass 5]

Linux doesn't have updates, it just releases a new distribution.

Going slightly off-topic, but Linux has probably the best system of updates of any OS. All your software is checked for new versions every day in most distributions, updates can be downloaded in the background and applied with your confirmation. That applies not only to your software, but to the OS, kernel and libraries too. For example, yesterday I upgraded to the latest Linux kernel which had been downloaded in the background for me (an option you can disable if you want) and just popped up and asked me if I wanted to install it. The reason Linux distributions don't have "service packs" is because they constantly release updates when they're ready - so there's no need to throw out a massive troublesome bundle of updates all at once. Also, most follow roughly 6-month release cycles, whereas Microsoft took half a decade to get from XP to Vista...

[k_nitin_r 8]

@room2593Hi!I would like to add that Linux is not all that different from Mac OS X. Linux has the same updating system as Mac OS X does and they even use the same packaging for the updates. When you mention about Linux releases, you would also have to mention about Mac OS X also being available as releases. Snow Leopard is a release of Mac OS X, just as Jaunty Jackalope is a release of Ubuntu Linux.Windows does deliver releases too - we have release 2 of Windows 2008 which includes IIS 7.5 among other additions to the operating system.

[mahesh2k 0]

Linux doesn't have updates, it just releases a new distribution. OSx has updates too.

Linux does have updates and it with ubuntu or suse you'll get desktop notification for the updates. So it's not that they don't have updates. It does have updates. Perhaps you didn't turned on desktop notification for updates. If you do that you'll see the updates poping up whenever there is issue with security or some other package. OSX is based on UNIX, so even that OS has updates. I'm not going to put OSX and linux distro in same category because of apple's own features inside it. That way it differs a lot.