Does Service Pack 2 slow you down?

MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
edited May 2005 in Science & Tech
Microsoft released Service Pack 2 and millions installed it. Did boat anchors come with the enhancements? We threw 108 benchmarks at Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 in an attempt to declare a winner.

Read it here
«13

Comments

  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    good article, but the graphs seem to look like you're comparing XP to XP SP1 instead of XP SP1 to XP SP2.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    What inspired you to do these tests, Mediaman?
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited October 2004
    What inspired you to do these tests, Mediaman?


    I re-vamped my benchmark suite and in the process of re-re-benchmarking I noticed numbers that led me further down the garden path. It seemed only logical to pursue it.
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited October 2004
    I have found that SP2 has fixed a few problems on my laptop, and it actually seems faster now. :scratch:
  • edited October 2004
    Well, I'm personally not too worried about a 3% (or less) decrease in performance. The difference is negligible, to say the least.
  • edited October 2004
    This is sick and makes short-media.com a lough off you say that 2,5% aren't worth all the security improvements that SP2 brings ? then this test is absolutely worthless and i advice any Gamer in the World to take Security into Account. Just as an example i was on a LAN and scanned throug it and found alot of XP Pc's didn't even used a Administrator password such things are scarry as hell and short-media.com should better releases such information instead of this bullshit btw did you tried to deactivate DEP in SP2 to get more Speed this should give a Speedup still you have a more secure Windows then SP1. So please every user with a Brain see this test as worthless it is absolutely and i dont know what the Author thought about releaseing such an useless Article every well informed Windows user can only lough about this, but me is scared that Gamers take this into Account when they decide for Sp1 or Sp2 and this is absolutely fatal for the Security of the Internet.
  • edited October 2004
    Mediaman, please do your homework before writing such silly comparison.
    Really hate those amateur kids :(
  • edited October 2004
    hmmm I wonder whats used here ...
    some cool splipstream installation ?
    or has the windows been upgraded ...
    I advise ANYBODY to do a slimpstream install this will give you a totally different windows feeling ... upgrading sucks

    Mertsch
  • edited October 2004
    Hmm, where are you getting an average of SP1 2.5% faster than SP2 from the numbers you posted? I get -0.5%, or 0.5% slower, which would be negligible as it's probably within the margin of error. 2.5% might even be in the margin of error, but just for the sake of accuracy.
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited October 2004
    Guest, it sounds like you think sp2 is some magical package that will somehow make your computer impervious to being attacked. ;D
    With regards to admin passwords on a lan, no service pack can help cure users stupidity.
  • edited October 2004
    I don't know what conclusion you would like to reach? Recommending people not to patch their computer with SP2 that fixes HUNDREDS of bugs in XP?? This is a SERVICE PACK: a cummulative patch to address lots and lots of problems in SP1 and not installing it means you are blocking your way for any future bug-fixes too!
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited October 2004
    To the unregistered comments above: first of all I don't know if the comments are from 3 separate unregistered guests, or from one, but I am going to address all at once in defence of MediaMan.

    This is sick and makes short-media.com a lough off you say that 2,5% aren't worth all the security improvements that SP2 brings ?

    The security enhancements of Service Pack 2 are really minimal if you are an experienced user.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

    SP2 features such as an full integrated firewall, built in IE pop-up stopper, and a revamped Security Centre are not that ground-breaking. A 3rd party software firewall or, as most users these days prefer, a hardware firewall, make the built in XPSP2 firewall pointless. A Pop-up stopper is hardly a new invention from Microsoft, there are very good 3rd party pop-up stoppers available, and many users just use those or free toolbars with integrated pop-up stoppers from Google, MSN or Yahoo. The Security Centre is just an integrated alerter, which if you are using any of the above mentioned alternatives makes it pointless as well. For instance, since I use Norton Antivirus with automatic updating enabled, a hardware firewall, and a 3rd party software pop-up stopper, plus the Firefox browser, I have completely disabled every feature of the security centre, because they are irrelevant. Except, of course for automatic Windows Updates, which are not a new feature of SP2. Any critical security updates are still available for SP1, and wil lbe for a very long time, so there is no pressing need to update to SP2 for any of the security features mentioned above.

    Just as an example i was on a LAN and scanned throug it and found alot of XP Pc's didn't even used a Administrator password such things are scarry as hell and short-media.com should better releases such information instead of this bull****

    This would be a user problem. You can have an Administrator enabled account without a password on SP2 just as easily as you can on SP1. SP2 does not make a user any smarter about password security, nor does it force them to use a password. Therefore this comment is pointless and uninformed.

    btw did you tried to deactivate DEP in SP2 to get more Speed this should give a Speedup

    Data Execution Prevention (DEP) helps prevent damage from viruses and other security threats that attack by running (executing) malicious code from memory locations that only Windows and other programs should use. By default, DEP is only turned on for essential Windows operating system programs and services. Turning DEP off is, by definition, making your OS less secure. Since you are blasting MediaMan by saying his article will entice users to be less secure, why are you suggesting doing something that would make their boxes less secure! If you are going to be critical, please be consistent. Do you want them to be more secure or less secure??? ;D
    nd i dont know what the Author thought about releaseing such an useless Article every well informed Windows user can only lough about this,

    Every well informed Windows user did not need most of the security enhancements of SP2 a I explained above. SP2's security enhancements were targetted for the "average user" who does not know a lot about security to begin with. Most of the core users of this site had systems much more secure on XPSP1 than the average user on XPSP2...and many use FireFox for their primary browser as well, to reduce the risk of Active X enabled security problems.
    this is absolutely fatal for the Security of the Internet

    Well, if the internet stops working tomorrow, you can blame MediaMan. ;D
    Mediaman, please do your homework before writing such silly comparison.
    Really hate those amateur kids

    For your information, MediaMan is in his late 30's (sorry MM ;)) and is a very experienced and respected computer user. Your comment is an ad hominem attack, and an incorrect one at that. That comment is not even worth the number of bits it takes to store it.
    I advise ANYBODY to do a slimpstream install this will give you a totally different windows feeling ... upgrading sucks

    Slipstreaming is a bit more advanced process, and not one likely to be tackled by the average user. It is a bit more work, and is better suited to corporate installs, or people who re-install their OS quite often. The amount of work required to create a slipstream install is roughly equal to the amount of time it takes to run updates separately after an upgrade. For an average user with one system, why bother?

    Finally, if you are a gamer please note carefully the last page of the article:

    http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=265&p=6

    Note the numbers for the games used to benchmark, which show performance differences of 0.0%, 3.0%, -1.0%, 0.8%, 1.4%, -2.7%, -3.8%, and -0.9%.

    Average those out and you will see a .4% increase in performance when you only look at the games! So if you are scared that gamers will be afraid opf SP2 based on this review, I suspect you didn't pay attention to the numbers very well, you only read the closing line. The biggest impacts were done using benchmarking programs with higg graphics details. Average gamers do not have high details turned on, they go with defaults. Advanced gamers have suped up boxes and high-end graphics cards, so they are not going to be too worried about a small 2.5% possible performance hit...and if they are, they are smart enough to know how to disable some background processes to speed things back up.

    Dexter...
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited October 2004
    Not being a duambass user is way better than upgrading to any Service Pack.
  • edited October 2004
    Slipstreaming is a bit more advanced process, and not one likely to be tackled by the average user. It is a bit more work, and is better suited to corporate installs, or people who re-install their OS quite often. The amount of work required to create a slipstream install is roughly equal to the amount of time it takes to run updates separately after an upgrade. For an average user with one system, why bother?

    just because an updated and slipstreamed install do not equal ... right from the start windows behaves quite different in numerous situations ... it was the same way when SP1 was release a fresh slipstream install will top anything in real-life-performance

    and it should at least be mentioned ... also look at the new XP CDs you can buy/you get with your new PC ... they have SP2 integrated ... so it must really be considered
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited October 2004
    Well.

    It seems as though I have annoyed and offended at least one reader. There are always two sides to the coin.

    For the record Windows XP was installed. Then Service Pack 1. Then the Windows Update site to update the installation. Tests were conducted. Then Service Pack 2 was installed and tests were run. I did it this way to emulate what a typical user would do. Slipstreaming Service Packs is not typically done by the majority of users.

    The unregistered guest is entitled to his/her comments. I just wonder if he/she conducts himself/herself like that in person?



    I never said that Service Pack 2 was not worth it. I never said not to install it. I never recommended any step. I made observations based on a test system that is why I stated "the test system showed..." I never said or inferred that this was typical of all systems.

    The typical user should not notice any significant change in their computer's performance between service pack 1 and 2. As I did state the 2-3% was not much to be concerned about.

    What I did say was that gamers, who may want to find ways to get every additional frame per second, may consider my results and apply the theory to their own system.

    This was a "digital food for thought" article and made no recommendations for any user to apply Service Pack 2 or not.

    Thank you for reading and commenting.
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited October 2004
    Did anyone else notice we were linked on the front page of [H]? Maybe that's why the whole site seems real slow lately, and would explain all the Guest posts, too. Congrats, MM :D
  • edited October 2004
    not only [H]
    W2S
    ,too
  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited October 2004
    entropy wrote:
    Did anyone else notice we were linked on the front page of [H]? Maybe that's why the whole site seems real slow lately, and would explain all the Guest posts, too. Congrats, MM :D
    Phew! I thought it was just me! ;D

    Unregistered, please stop, you sound like a child. :shakehead
  • edited October 2004
    Another unregistered user, from W2S.
    While I see your point in emulating a typical install, I believe a slipstreamed install should be considered for benchmarking pruposes as well. Also, a SP2 install DOES have the firewall among other things enabled by default.
    It has been said that an expirieneced user would have a software firewall activated anyways, but would't this mean that the SP2 is at a disadvantage, since it already provides this feature by default and uses more system resources with the firewall.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    It's a difference in your target audience.

    If you want to emulate an enthusiast environment for benchmarking, by all means, slipstream your service pack and go from there.

    However, the majority of the internet is not enthusiast, and so, for once, the internet gets tech article designed for their installation habits. No big deal.
  • edited October 2004
    Well I for one will not use sp2 untill the bugs are worked out. Thank god that I use a spare machine for experimenting with updates.Ran sp2 over sp1 and Diskeeper 8 corp edition quit working even after I installed their update. Mcafee corp adition quit etc etc. This time I did a fresh install again, and decided to just go to Microsoft update and pick what updates I wanted, right off the bat it starts loading up the firewall with out letting me know, which was ok I figured since I could disable it and stay with my router and other software to protect my machine. Well guess what rebooted and xp says my ntldr is missing or corrupt. Well that was enough for me, I will not be using sp2 on my main machine untill its fixed. Since Im one that makes sure my machine is secure I dont think I really need it untill some new technology comes along where I do need it. The main thing I stress to my Customers is get a router for the same price as the software firewalls which can be shut down by a Trojan, I could go on but you get my drift. But for the noobie go for it instead of doing some reading and research, and when your machine gets borked just do the old reinstall routine that other noobies always seem to recommend.
  • edited October 2004
    This article is bogus!

    I immediately became skeptical upon seeing the claim that 4 new processes were in the task manager process list - msiexec.exe being one of them. MSIEXEC.EXE is used by Windows Installer to install programs or updates. The author must have finished installing a buggy program that did not close msiexec.exe properly, or was in the middle of an install!

    Also the WUAUCLT.EXE process is only active while the system is updating or searching for product updates to Windows.

    Logically, one would assume the author of the article recently booted this computer, the computer was downloading the post-SP2 patches (as is the default setup) and took a screenshot.

    Therefore, these screenshots and the suggestion that 4 new processes is running on his machine due to SP2 is a minor form of sensationalism as they were probably activated by the SP2 update.

    This oversight causes me to wonder how "clean" the tests were. Did he consider prefetch data? Did he ensure before / after settings in Windows were the same?

    I ran my own tests on a system by installing a Windows XP Pro SP1 OEM install, formatting and then installing Windows XP Pro SP2 OEM (both from the manufacturer), running Sandra, 3DMark 05, UT 2004, and Wolf ET tests and found
    differences to range between 0.05% on total average between both installs. In fact, I ran the same test Pre and Post SP2 on the system three times and found a 1% change on the system between reboots!

    The moral is - take these minor percentage in performance changes with a grain of salt. With the benefits that SP2 offers over this suggested performance decrease, it's not worth it to hold out.
  • edited October 2004
    To clarify my comments above, when I state that I found a 1% difference between reboots, it means that on the system with SP1 I ran a test, rebooted the computer and still with SP1 found a performance change.
  • edited October 2004
    User from W2S here,
    The tests are mostly all synthetic, therefore they dont represent what a 'real' user will experence.

    A 'real' user uses an upgrade, not slipstreamed install, therefore

    for synthetic tests, a slipstreamed install should have been used.

    Also, all the improvements of SP2, wireless included, considerbly outweigh the aparent 2.5% loss SP2 has.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    No one ever said they didn't outweigh the 2.5% loss.
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited October 2004
    The author (me)

    1) Installed Windows XP Professional from a disk. The SP1a Service Pack network installation package was already downloaded. It was installed and after the installation completed the Windows Update site was utilized to install the remaining patches.

    A screen shot was then taken of what processes were active.

    2) The SP2 network installation was already downloaded. The installation was completed, the computer rebooted and a screen shot was taken.

    I never said this was true of all systems and reported only what the test system showed. Again I never recommended against the installation of SP2 nor made any comments to infer that the service pack was not beneficial.



    The genesis of the article came from wondering if there was a difference in performance from SP1 to SP2. The drive was formatted and Windows XP was installed then SP1 plus the updates, the necessary sound, chipset and video drivers and all the benchmark programs. Benchmarking was conducted.

    The drive was then formatted, Windows XP installed then Service Pack 1, then the updates then SP2.

    The difference in this route and that of a typical user is that the typical user may choose the web install route for SP2 and not download the entire service pack.

    The article makes no concrete claim that Service Pack 2 does slow down all systems. It makes no comments as to the operational usefulness of Service Pack 2. I do find the security enhancements very beneficial for the average user. By "average" I mean the user who turns on their computer, uses it and then turns it off and does not "tinker" with it near the extent that an enthusiast would. I would hope that a knowledgeable user would have taken other steps for security and virus protection or have considered those steps.

    An enthusiast or gamer looking for more FPS should CONSIDER the option that some games may run faster in one or the other environment. Which would be best in that respect can only be determined by setting up and benchmarking their own particular system.

    Any enthusiast is aware of security issues and when streamlining their system does so at their own risk.

    Thank you all for your comments. How else are we to find answers except by asking questions.
  • edited October 2004
    IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE BOTH O.S. WITH SP1 AND SP2, but BOTH OF THEM OPTIMIZED, COMPARED!

    WITH ALMOST EVERY SERVICE SHUTDOWN!
    MAYBE ALSO ATI & NVIDIA comparation!

    Thanks for you article, thought

    By .:Gian-Pa.com:.
  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited October 2004
    IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE BOTH O.S. WITH SP1 AND SP2, but BOTH OF THEM OPTIMIZED, COMPARED!

    WITH ALMOST EVERY SERVICE SHUTDOWN!
    MAYBE ALSO ATI & NVIDIA comparation!

    Thanks for you article, thought

    By .:Gian-Pa.com:.
    The average user doesn't spend hours optimizing the OS for their particular system to get every last drop of performance out of it.

    The point of the article is to compare Service Pack 1 and 2, not ATi and nVidia.
  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited October 2004
    I see we have quite a few guests... Welcome to Short-Media! Register an account, make yourself at home! :wave:
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited October 2004
    just because an updated and slipstreamed install do not equal ... right from the start windows behaves quite different in numerous situations ... it was the same way when SP1 was release a fresh slipstream install will top anything in real-life-performance

    But the original point of the first unregistered guest's comments was that a 2.5% speed difference might entice a gaming enthusiast user to forgo SP2, and therefore be at a higher security risk. The slipstream comments are totally irrelevant to that discussion. Slipstreaming does not make your system any more or less secure, it simply includes all the new critical updates at the same time as the service pack is installed. Whether a slipstream install was done on this article's test system or not will not make any difference to the end results of the test, assuming that the critical updates were applied after the service pack. The resulting OS will be identical if you slipstream or if you do a regular upgrade then do the updates via the Windows update site. All you are doing s making the installation process a little faster using a slipstream CD. You are not making the resulting OS any faster. Slipstreaming is only a benefit to people who re-install their OS on a regular basis, and the average user just does not do that.

    So once you wrap your head around the fact that usually only more experienced users will do slipstreaming, then you have to accept the obvious fact that these more experienced users are much more likely to have a much better security setup on their PC to begin with, so are much less likely to see any benefit from the new security features SP2 offers. It's a simple thing to see, really.

    It has been said that an expirieneced user would have a software firewall activated anyways, but would't this mean that the SP2 is at a disadvantage, since it already provides this feature by default and uses more system resources with the firewall.

    What was said was "A 3rd party software firewall or, as most users these days prefer, a hardware firewall, make the built in XPSP2 firewall pointless."

    That does not put SP2 at a disadvantage, because you would assume that an experienced user would turn off the built in firewall. They will know that it is on by default because the Windows Security centre will show up immediately after the service pack install, and will tell the user that the built in firewall is on. With 2 clicks of the mouse, the firewall is disabled.

    Just for the fun of it, I just tested my system with the Windows firewall on, then off, while watching the task manager's performance monitor. The difference was pretty negligible.

    While we welcome any guest's comments on any of our articles, we would hope that you take the time to make informed comments rather than bash articles with what appear to be uninformed random comments (case in point, the user who cited security concerns while bashing the article, then in the same post recommended disabling DEP.) Some of the later guest comments here are better thought out and better stated, but the early ones are not.

    We also encourage users to do their own benchmarking and post their scores for comparison, we have an entire forum section dedicated to benchmarking: http://www.short-media.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=39

    Dexter...
Sign In or Register to comment.