Does Service Pack 2 slow you down?

13»

Comments

  • edited November 2004
    I winder who chooses screenshots format, author or website's CMS ?
    JPEG screenshots are very messy.

    It would be cool next time to see solid PNG screenshots.
    One can make them, for example, with www.IrfanView.com
  • edited November 2004
    Internal Windows firewall is almost not a firewall at all.
    I wonder if it has any chances to pass tests, say, one www.grc.com
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    If Microsoft were allowed to give away a decent quality firewall free with Windows, there would be much less of a need to buy other companies Firewalls. So, they just let you have the basics, it's not that they don't know how to make decent firewall software.

    As SP2 is all about security etc etc etc it helps for Joe Average who doesn't even know what a firewall is.

    ~Cyrix
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    If Microsoft were to incorporate the features that their user base demanded of them, they'd be under a johnnypile of antitrust suits. If they don't implement those demands, they get accused of having poor security. It's a pathetic double standard.
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited November 2004
    I winder who chooses screenshots format, author or website's CMS ?
    JPEG screenshots are very messy.

    It would be cool next time to see solid PNG screenshots.
    One can make them, for example, with www.IrfanView.com


    There are several contributing factors to this. What can contribute to the lack of clarity with screen shots is the overall size. Often these are images 800-1000 pixels wide that have been reduced to a standard 455 pixels wide. I've attached two such examples. One is in JPEG format and the other in PNG format. Neither is superior when an image has bee reduced in dimension.

    Although the PNG image has a file size 2.5 times larger than the JPEG shot.

    We aim to avoid what some other sites have done and that is to present very small thumbnails that must be clicked to be enlarged.

    This is done for several reasons. Personally I prefer an article that loads without the requirement to click on an image to see a larger, higher resolution image. This is balanced against the overall file size of the page. In order to have a page load quickly then the images must be small in file size.

    10 images in JPEG format that are 15 Kb each for 150 kb page load versus 1/2 a meg using PNG.

    Also...with so many users loading a page the bandwidth consumption can very quickly become expensive thus we try to stay "fuel efficient" with image file sizes.

    Your point is well noted and I'll try to make a habit of showing a larger screen shot then a secondary of the specfic area being refered to. Two 15 kb pictures will be better than one image 60 or 70 kb or that a user has to click to enlarge.

    I'm not here to debate the merits or downfalls of GIF, JPEG or PNG or the optimisations of any of the aforementioned. It shall be noted and you can depend on the fact that future articles will take steps to ensure that you see the big picture then get a secondary image that zero in on any specifics necessary to the article.

    Thank you for your comment. :)
  • edited November 2004
    I installed XP sp2 (slipstream) on my P4 3ghz 800mhz FSB with 1gig of ram ddr 400 and a ati radeon 9000 128mb, on a fresh install it can barely run need for speed underground 2 smoothly in 640x480 with minimum effects. My friend run the same game with the same video card on is laptop less performan than my pc and it's smooth with graphics effects at medium in 1024x768. And my girlfriend's sims 2 freeze my computer every 10 minutes. Conclusion: no need for benchmark here, service pack 2 S*CKS real bad.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Your conclusion is absolutely terrible. Just because SP2 exists on your computer doesn't mean that it's SP2's fault. What order did you install your drivers in? What updates did you pick for Windows? What drivers did you install? How did you configure your graphics card? What are your BIOS settings?

    Granted, the Radeon 9000 isn't exactly a powerhouse of a video card. Don't be so quick to point the finger.
  • edited May 2005
    here is something i noticed. With service pack 1 i could go do a bandwidth test and test at a 7 meg clip and download at awesome speeds. Before service pack 2 came out. On service pack 1 when you went to search for updates, An update for Network Adapters in general was available, It was some kind of software i cant remeber right off hand but once i downloaded it. I noticed my internet got slow, and i do mean alot slower, i would clock in at around 2 meg on a bandwidth test and downloads slowed 100-200 k slower. I uninstalled the software patch and all of a sudden i am back at flying speeds. Now when service back 2 came out it automaticaly had that patch in it and i again noticed slowing down on the internet. i took off service pack 2 and installed just the updates i pick with service pack 1 and i dont have a problem with viruses or spyware.
    Why would microsoft force you to take a known patch that slows you down on the internet? especially in something like a service pack which you may need?
  • Shadow2018Shadow2018 Northwest Missouri
    edited May 2005
    How do you know you don't have viruses and spyware? I have sp2 and my computer runs just the same. The loss, as MediaMan pointed out, is so minimal the average user can't tell. More times than not it will be user error in the setup process and not sp2 as some are claiming, this was pointed out by Dexter( or something very close to that).
  • edited May 2005
    you must have misunderstood my position on service pack 2 my main complaint is the NIC software update that slows down your pc on the internet, i was hoping someone else has experienced noticing a difference once that NIC software was downloaded on their pc when service pack 1 was out. It is included without anyone knowing in service pack 2. Viruses and spyware are protected enough with service pack 1 that you dont need service pack 2 as ;long as you get all the critical updates. Now again my only concern is why would microsoft put out a network software patch that slows you down? It sounds like they want to keep people at a slower speed, and my question is why? Service pack 2 will defeniatley slow a pc down, take for instance a pentium 3 700 mhz pc running only 128mb ram, install service pack 1 and it still seems to run ok but with service pack 2 you will see a major decrease. Now if you put service pack 2 on lets say a 3 ghz pc no you wont see a big change, so its really the speed of the pc that helps out on wether or not you see a difference in service pack 1 or service pack 2.. My only gripe is the software patch on NIC's
Sign In or Register to comment.