How can it be? (Windows Service Pack 2)

Discussion in 'Community' started by iQuit, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. iQuit macrumors 6502a

    iQuit

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    #1
    I bought a new Windows PC with an AMD processor, and it has Windows service pack 2....I haven't used Windows since like last September when I switched to Mac...and I got this to hold me off till a new PB is released. What is wrong? It has been running fine for weeks, no crashing,responding....and smooth...why? Is service Pack 2 really that good? I had never used SP2 before...and my PC runs like a charm...it is weird.
     
  2. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #2
    sp2 has some annoyances (wifi utility and security center :mad: ) but on the whole, yeah, it's better.
     
  3. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #3
    Yes, since SP2 along with a lot of the security updates they've released Windows is pretty stable. Although, not as stable as Mac OS X, but its still pretty stable. The main drawback to SP2 at first was security, anyone could take control of your computer. Congrats on the AMD Processor, if its a 64-bit and has the data execution block code on it then it'll stay really stable, some virus's won't even harm it. SOME not all, some take control of a buffer zone which allows it to spread.
    I missed OS X, I'm back from the Linux world. Now I need a new iBook. (I know I'm trying to decide, do I get a new PC Laptop or do I get a new iBook, its scary knowing that they're moving to intel next year at the end of the year.)
     
  4. iQuit thread starter macrumors 6502a

    iQuit

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    #4
    Well I also have some good programs that keep it good like registry cleaner,avast,and some others....Intel was a badd idea...AMD if any x86 architecture.
     
  5. iQuit thread starter macrumors 6502a

    iQuit

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    #5
    The way I see it....one day Mac will just be like any other PC....they look like they're headed downhill....I loved the PPC. :'(
     
  6. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6
    I've been using an Apple computer since 2001, and have been very happy with it. In the meantime I've not been much interested in MS. Perhaps a MS friendly forum would know more about MS? Just a guess. How has OSX compared?
     
  7. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #7
    I surprised my teacher today, I went up to him and I said, the more I use PC's the more I hate them. I have to reconfigure 24 computers for one single printer, here's how I have to do it, they're soooooo slow too:
    Login as a specific user, install iPrint, install the printer, reboot, copy the profile onto default user and finally I'm finished. 24 computers that take 15 min. to login.
     
  8. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    That sums it up for me. I've been so untroubled through using an Apple, I've not payed much attention to what the competition is doing. Unless that changes, I am a content computer user. I can focus entirely on what I want to do.
     
  9. dotdotdot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #9
    Yeah XP SP2 is amazing... everyones that hates microsoft is like "Oh yeah, service pack 2, huh? Won't do anything" And they are wrong - its amazing Microsoft offeres it for free, it improves so much and makes it so much more stable - its nothing like XP SP0 or SP1. Totally different OS.

    All they tout is the security features, and yes, while they are improved (havent gotten spyware/virus since SP2) I think they should have been saying how much better it is.

    SP2 is the reason why my wanting to buy a Mac has decreased - I still want one, but not as much.

    Its stupid how Vista isn't based on SP2 though...
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    As I fight with XP SP2 to try to get my wireless network working, I am reminded why Windows is not as good as a Mac. And yes, I know what I'm doing. I do this for a living. I've done this a hundred times at work, but this is just not doing it. There are still a few things I have yet to try, so I'm sure I'll figure it out, but it's very time consuming and more work than it should be. As long as you have to fight with Windows for every little thing, it will never be anywhere near the Mac.

    Not that OS X is perfect mind you... just looks that way by comparison. :D

    Edit: Okay, I kinda got it working. But it won't connect with SP2's firewall on. So I turned it off, and it keeps warning me it's off. Yes, thank you, I know... and now it's blue screening. :rolleyes: Yeah, Windows is great. I'd follow that with when it works, but I can't say that either. I think I'll stick with Win2000 on my PC for now.

    And I'll appreciate my shiny new G5 even more. Any day now Apple. Cash in hand.
     
  11. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #11
    Windows XP SP2 is great - especially the Pro version. It's stable and, IMO, just as secure as OS X. People think that OS X is bulletproof or something. However, nearly once a month there is a security patch which means that OS X has regularly found vulnerabilities. It just so happens that ~5% of the market hasn't enticed any hackers to exploit those security flaws. Having users enter admin passwords for certain tasks really helps. I think OS X security is better than Windows but I don't think it is by a huge margin.

    As far as stability, my Windows XP box that's been running WinXP Pro for the past 2.5 years, mostly 24/7 with reboots about once every 3-4 weeks, hasn't had any malware. I have received one BSOD and that was caused by a flaw in an nVidia GPU driver that was triggered when playing BF1942. Aside from that, no crashes, no system hangs that required a hardboot. The Mac Mini I have has required me to hardboot it at least half a dozen times, maybe as many as ten - and I've only owned it for six months. I'm not complaining, it's still rather stable and I prefer using OS X to Windows if I had to choose. I do enjoy using WinXP as well though.

    On the topic of features I have mixed feelings. Mostly, I think OS X wins in this arena - it certainly kills WinXP Home. The little things like iCal, Address Book, Mail, iSync and Preview are great. Dashboard and Spotlight are excellent features - they are not must-have items, but when you do need them, they are very helpful. Then, with most new hardware you get iLife which is excellent for what it does and what it costs, even if you don't get it with new hardware.

    The one thing I have to say I really do like about Windows XP over OS X is that you get Remote Desktop for free with XP Pro, I wish OS X had that built-in and had a client for Windows. I know you can use VNC, but it's not as responsive as Remote Desktop is on Windows. If I need to get to my Mac when I'm away I just use ssh via command line. The other thing I still have never been able to shake is that I like to resize my windows from which ever border I choose. I hate how OS X makes me resize from the bottom-left corner only.

    Okay, enough of my babbling. I like both OSes and they both have their strong suits. I have always felt and still feel that OS X is easier to use and more intuitive. Plus, OS X has more features/built-in apps that are geared towards the average consumer. For the consumer market I think Macs are just better. I still think Windows is better for business - at least for medium to large sized companies.

    Windows XP, especially SP2 is a great OS. I think most who bash it haven't really used it much. Windows 9x sucks ass... HARD! But WinNT came into its own with Windows 2000 and XP put the polish on it. They locked down security better with SP2 and with that... you have yourself a damn good operating system.
     
  12. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #12
    Interesting that you say this since I think much the same. The things that makes me long for my Mac in the office, where I have to use XP Pro which is so locked down it hurts, are all those little things which slowly add up over the course of a working day. It's reasonably stable although it does occasionally just decide to reboot itself (but since 10.4.2 so does my Mac)

    XP's search takes forever unless you're sure of a file name. I was hunting for a file last week and I swear I was about ready to offer that little sniffing cartoon beagle to the testing labs. And no, I can't add Google's desktop search to it since we don't have any admin rights over the PCs. Outlook's search seems even worse - but I'm kinda used to typing in a couple of letters in Mail and it just finding things.

    The drag and drop in Windows is so inconsistent too. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And how it pops up annoying messages about how it's connected to the network - well, duh, I know that. Only tell me these things when I ask you or when it changes state. Not just because you're still doing what I expect you to be doing!

    Stealing window focus is another one that does my head in particularly in IE (no, we're not allowed Firefox either) along with how XP takes it upon itself to suddenly group all your open applications together in a popup list from the task bar when you get a few windows from the same app.

    Another bugbear is how it handles non-fullscreen windows. I've got used to working on my Mac with windows that are just the right size for what's in them. And being able to work with the windows behind them - I hate how Windows handles that. With the size of the screens and resolution we have these days, we don't need to work full screen in most things - you just end up with oodles of white space to the right but if you want to use two apps, it takes ages to rearrange and resize all the windows so you can work in one and see the other - particularly if one of those apps has several windows open in it.

    Yeah, they're all very minor things but the cumulative effect is such that my OS of choice will remain OS X.
     
  13. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #13
    One day, there will be a day where I find that there is no benefit to using OSX. The only difference will be in the iApps, but I'm sure MS will start including better software with their computers.

    Anyway, when that day comes, I will reconsider going back to Windows computers if Mac users are still being charged a premium to own a regular PC, but with OSX installed. If they're the same price, I'd stick with OSX.
     
  14. dotdotdot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #14
    Really? I had XP SP2 Pro and that was pretty good, then my HD died (not b/c of Windows, long story, removed it from computer to try linux... won't be detected now) so I got a new, awesome HD and put XP SP2 Home on it (XP Pro I have is SP0 and SP0 will automatically partition HDs over 129 gigs - and my HD is 300 gig, so I used the XP disc that came with my dads new laptop) and it has worked flawlessly. Nothing has crashed, nothing hasn't worked, and I really don't notice that big of a difference between the two...
     
  15. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #15
    Yes, y'all have to face up to the harsh reality that despite all of your naysaying, Windows is catching up to Mac OS X... not in all respects, perhaps, but with respect to viruses, spyware, and system stability, they've made some giant improvements recently.

    My XP SP-2 machines haven't seen a single spyware infection or virus in longer than I can remember. Crashes, when they occur, are usually the fault of a program misbehaving... I haven't had an involuntary reboot in several months.

    Windows XP SP-2 + good anti-virus software = a pretty good combination.
     
  16. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #16
    when teh bugs are worked out of intel Macs they will be as good or better then PPC most likly you will hardly know the difference.

    Vista will likly get rid of that stable part of windows :D juts like tiger 4.0 was less stable then 10.3.9
     
  17. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #17
    Spotlight is amazing. I was just showing it to a friend of mine when he was over last night and he was practically drooling. He was shouting out things like "Type eggs!" Two items came up and he made me verify they contained eggs. Then he requested I search for ketchup which had one hit and he's like "It found the one and only reference to ketchup on your computer in about a second, that's amazing." :) He was already considering a Mac recently and with all of my talking it up about what it can do and how it compares to Windows he really wants to get a Powerbook. He has a decent computer so I'm advising him to wait for the switch to Intel. Hopefully new Powerbooks will be out early next year on Intel. Yonah is due out 1Q '06.

    I'm very organized when it comes to files on my computer so I only use Spotlight once every week or two, but when I use it always puts a smile on my face when within a second or two it has found all the relevant items for me. When I search with XP it pisses me off how slow it goes. These little moments of being made happy or angry really affect you when it comes to thinking about what OS you prefer using. As for the beagle... I hate that f*cking dog! First thing I do on a new install of XP is make the dog go away. I don't care if I'm just on a test box image in our testing lab at work, if I need to search the dog goes bye bye! :mad:

    By the way Windows Vista search is far slower than XP's. I've used the first beta of Vista several times now. Their search better just be broken at the moment because it is far slower than previous versions of Windows at the moment - simply pathetic.

    That's not Windows fault so much. It's more the fault of programmers, like myself, that cause that to happen. Although, I suppose Microsoft could design their OS and application architecture to deliberately prevent that, which they don't. They make it very easy for an app to go ahead and become the active, top-most window, stealing you away from whatever you are doing.

    You can turn this off easily. That is, if your IT dept lets you. I don't see why they wouldn't as it is a simple UI preference. Just right-click on the Taskbar and click Properties. Unmark the checkbox to "Group similar taskbar buttons". Voila!

    Strange as it may seem (and I find it strange too) I don't have any issues with that. I thought I'd have problems when I started using Macs again (I used Mac OS 7/8/9 in college, ~5 years ago). However, I grew accustomed to not having Windows full-sized on the Mac and use it that way with many windows opened and overlapping just so. But when I work on PCs I run most apps fullscreen with a few exceptions like Explorer, Notepad, command prompts, etc. I use Alt-Tab much more than I use Command-Tab on the Mac, then I again I have Expose on the Mac. Still I find I naturally use Macs how they are best used and Windows the way it has been designed to be used. I don't have to make an effort, I just do it.
     
  18. dotdotdot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #18
    Vista seems like it will be unstable because of how much you need to run it. The biggest thing is the whole graphics system which won't work with my 2.4 GHz P4 and 1Gig of RAM and 128 Video RAM... :(
     
  19. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #19
    I've got that set but as soon as you hit more than about 5 or 6 windows in more than one program, it seems to decide to regroup them rather than just make them smaller like in earlier version of Windows. I'd rather have lots of tiny windows in my Taskbar than it suddenly rearrange them to group them together. It's really only a problem in IE and Excel since I often end up with multiple windows in each of them and it seems to randomly group one or other, even with the 'group similar' unchecked.
     
  20. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #20
    Feakbeak, a lot of Windows Vista code (and other Microsoft beta code you may encounter) will be slower than it should be because right now it's loaded full of debugging code designed to help analyze problems.

    Right before RTM, they'll strip out all of that code, do a few builds to make sure it's all still stable, and then RTM it.
     
  21. thedude110 macrumors 68020

    thedude110

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    #21
    Yeah. And SP 2 would never have any vulnerabilities like this ...

    Sorry if that's a repost, but seems fitting in this thread ...
     
  22. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #22
    It's more for power-user features, below are the highlights.

    - Remote Desktop (this is huge for me)
    - IIS (Web, FTP, SMTP server) I run my website from my home PC
    - Enhanced security setup, with direct control over the ACLs for objects
    - Group Policy support

    As for your hard drive woes, it is simply because you were using an old copy of Windows XP Pro. Here's the low-down on why:

    I got this off of Seagate's site. Linky
     
  23. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #23
    You have a very good point. I am aware of that though, I'm a programmer myself so I have a lot of experience with debug code and know how it can run slower, sometimes significantly so. However, the Vista search seems to be far worse than that. You may not have used the Vista beta search yet. As a test I searched for a one word term on the Program Files folder and it took well over an hour to complete. I'm sure it won't be like this when it ships but the search functionality is on the floor in Vista at the moment. Considering how publicized desktop search capabilities have been recently with Spotlight, Google Desktop Search, etc you would think they would want the searching capabilities of Vista to look good, even for a beta. I was just shocked at how bad it was.

    Edit: Went to look at reviews of Vista beta and Paul Thurrott says the searching is good... checking it out. Perhaps they have a new interface to use the new search engine that I missed. I was searching through Explorer as I am used to doing. *loading VMWare image of Vista beta now*

    Edit Again: It would seem the searching is not as slow as I first experienced, but still pales in comparison to Spotlight's speed. I am thinking that the first time I tried searching in Vista that it may not have finished indexing the drive yet, which may account for the complete lack of speed I had when searching. It's much better now, but not great.
     
  24. dotdotdot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #24
    I knew all of this. Thats why I did the SP2 Home, I didn't try my copy of XP Pro because I knew it wouldn't work with it until after I installed it and had to do a lot of work. I just wanted it up and running. And the Power user features I have used on XP Pro that are not on XP Home (more than the ones you just mentioned, but those are important, too, especially Remote Desktop) are not as important to me for the time being, and won't be for a while. Plus, in 2006, I'll most likely have Vista Ultimate Edition installed.

    I was basically just saying that MY versions of Pro and Home, home is much more "smooth" and a better computing experience.
     
  25. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #25
    Microsoft says that what you are getting is the expected behavior:

    (linky)

    However, I don't get that behavior at all. When I keep opening more windows, eventually I get a little scrollbar that appears and then I have multiple rows of taskbar buttons. I sifted around for a setting that might control this behavior, or even a registry hack, but couldn't find anything. I also tried playing around with locking, unlocking, re-arranging my taskbar, making it one line rather than two which I normally use. Doesn't seem to matter though, I always get the mini-scrollbar to view all my taskbar buttons, they never group on me. (see attachment)

    I'm not sure if you use the Quick Launch bar or how you layout the taskbar, but you could try to widen your taskbar to allow for more taskbar buttons. Just an idea, I know most poeple like to keep the taskbar to one line, I like to use two, one for Quick Launch and other taskbar controls, like the iTunes toolbar.

    Anyone else know what's going on here or how to change this behavior?
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page