>The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>(whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
right? Please.
Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>
> The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
> updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
> Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
> released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
> amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
> fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
> updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
> right? Please.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf
I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at least,
I am sure.
On Wed, 7 May 2008 14:45:29 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>
>> The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
>> updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
>> Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
>> released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
>> amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
>> fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
>> updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
>> right? Please.
>>
>> - Thee Chicago Wolf
>
>I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at least,
>I am sure.
OK, sorry. But I hate seeing everyone blindly jumping on the SP3
bandwagon as some (alleged) "necessity" (or in bringing "such great
benefits"), when it really isn't.
(I'll concede the point it likely tightens up a few more alleged potential
security leaks, but THAT is just a neverending story that seems completely
out of hand now). "True security comes from within": how YOU use your
machine, and what sites YOU visit. The responsibility should be placed
where it belongs: on the user, and his own habits. And if he ventures out
of there, that's on him. In short, you'll never make any computer
perfectly safe from the user's use or abuse. And what's worse, every time
they come up with a new "patch", problems *always* surface. (I've been
around the block just too many times on this one).
Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> My point is the ad hominems, Bill.
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23MY8ZIBsIHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> Bill, the ad hominems just aren't helpful. Users are not sheep. Show
>>> your
>>> superiority with factual advice.
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23ZNdkx$rIHA.5724@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> No, it is NOT necessary. (But you can always join the sheep who are
>>>> blindly doing it, if you want! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Christie wrote:
>>>>> I recall big problems when machines were updated to SP2. My Dell
>>>>> works
>>>>> great and I don't want to chance f'n something up. Is it really
>>>>> necessary
>>>>> to upgrade to SP3? What if I don't? What do I have to gain by
>>>>> upgrading?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, if I upgrade, can I use System Restore to go back to SP2?
>>>>> Probably not, ey?
SP3 is not the security upgrade that SP2 was. There are some new and some
enhanced functionalities in it. It's actually very helpful in a network
with Vista computers, for example.
You aren't going to dam the tide of folks wanting the latest thing so all
anyone can do is advise moderation.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23uU0wSIsIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> OK, sorry. But I hate seeing everyone blindly jumping on the SP3
> bandwagon as some (alleged) "necessity" (or in bringing "such great
> benefits"), when it really isn't.
> (I'll concede the point it likely tightens up a few more alleged potential
> security leaks, but THAT is just a neverending story that seems completely
> out of hand now). "True security comes from within": how YOU use your
> machine, and what sites YOU visit. The responsibility should be placed
> where it belongs: on the user, and his own habits. And if he ventures out
> of there, that's on him. In short, you'll never make any computer
> perfectly safe from the user's use or abuse. And what's worse, every
> time they come up with a new "patch", problems *always* surface. (I've
> been around the block just too many times on this one).
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> My point is the ad hominems, Bill.
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23MY8ZIBsIHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>>
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>> Bill, the ad hominems just aren't helpful. Users are not sheep. Show
>>>> your
>>>> superiority with factual advice.
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23ZNdkx$rIHA.5724@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> No, it is NOT necessary. (But you can always join the sheep who
>>>>> are
>>>>> blindly doing it, if you want! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Christie wrote:
>>>>>> I recall big problems when machines were updated to SP2. My Dell
>>>>>> works
>>>>>> great and I don't want to chance f'n something up. Is it really
>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>> to upgrade to SP3? What if I don't? What do I have to gain by
>>>>>> upgrading?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lastly, if I upgrade, can I use System Restore to go back to SP2?
>>>>>> Probably not, ey?
>
>
> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
> least, I am sure.
Well, at least you are sure of not being sure.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eDH1LNIsIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW me.
>>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>
>> The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
>> updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
>> Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
>> released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
>> amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
>> fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
>> updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
>> right? Please.
>>
>> - Thee Chicago Wolf
>
> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
> least, I am sure.
>
Truth be told, the only certainty in this universe is .... uncertainty.
Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
>> least, I am sure.
>
> Well, at least you are sure of not being sure.
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eDH1LNIsIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>>>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW
>>>> me.
>>>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>>>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>>
>>> The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
>>> updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
>>> Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
>>> released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
>>> amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
>>> fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
>>> updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
>>> right? Please.
>>>
>>> - Thee Chicago Wolf
>>
>> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
>> least, I am sure.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eAL3o5IsIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Truth be told, the only certainty in this universe is .... uncertainty.
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
>>> least, I am sure.
>>
>> Well, at least you are sure of not being sure.
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:eDH1LNIsIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>>>>> The "factual evidence" for wanting or needing SP3?? Well, you SHOW
>>>>> me.
>>>>> Bottom line: there isn't any (except for wanting to "stay up-to-date"
>>>>> (whatever that means) - and that's not *factual* evidence of anything.
>>>>
>>>> The factual evidence is that if you believe SP3 only contains the
>>>> updates released to Windows Update, then you need to switch to using a
>>>> Mac or something. There were hundreds of updates that never were
>>>> released to the public that are included in SP3 that fix an inordinate
>>>> amount of issues. So yes, SP3 is a needed update. Last time I did a
>>>> fresh install of SP2, there were some 90+ updates. SP3 contains 1100+
>>>> updates in total. I'm sure no one needs those 1010 other updates
>>>> right? Please.
>>>>
>>>> - Thee Chicago Wolf
>>>
>>> I am sure not everyone needs (or wants) those updates. Of that, at
>>> least, I am sure.
>
>
>"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:eAL3o5IsIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Truth be told, the only certainty in this universe is .... uncertainty.
>
>I dunno about that...
>
Bill - in case you've not noticed - lives in a different universe.
"PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8of424d19qk1n3e9pap6hb7m2hgkjceak5@4ax.com...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:eAL3o5IsIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Truth be told, the only certainty in this universe is .... uncertainty.
>>
>>I dunno about that...
>>
> Bill - in case you've not noticed - lives in a different universe.
Re: wise and/or necessary to SP3 ? 
Linear Mode
