Registry Tweak Enables Updates for XP SP2

[tokenz]

[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]There is no SP3 for X64 version... I am so glad i moved to Win 7. People switch, it is awesome...[/citation]

That is a moot point here though, because Win x64 is still being supported, and this patch was released for that os.

 

[tolham]

thearm :XP SP3 is a little slower than SP2. But, that seems typical with SP upgrades.

Actually if you install it with a disc that has up to SP3 slipstreamed onto the disc it actually runs faster. Definitely boots faster.

are there benchmarks to back up either of these claims?

 

[beans4you]

yep sp2 users are usually using illegal copies of xp as you cannot upgrade further. win7 is where its at obviously... I wouldn't waste my time.. just download Ubuntu, its free as well.

 

[proxy711]

[citation][nom]excalibur1814[/nom]Please, PLEASE.... Just update to service pack 3.[/citation]
well because my old computer couldn't...Every time i would try to update it would update then give me an error saying it didnt patch right and had to restore and restart.

But then i built a new computer and got windows 7, which is awesome by the way.

 

[Guest]

I guess not all pirate software users are smart - they could easily just download an SP3 bootdisk...

So, that said; if it doesn't make sense for pirates to have SP2, and some businesses can't move away from SP2 (but businesses shouldn't use this mostly untested hack anyway), then almost nobody benefits from this hack 😀

That said, I do love little tricks like this. You never know when they might come in handy.

As for all you "upgrade to Windows 7 already" people, there are lots of situations when XP is more appropriate. Not everyone can waltz into a store and pick up a racy quad-core system. I like to refurbish P4 computers and install fully-updated XP SP3 systems onto them. For average Joe who just wants to check his emails and browse the net, these computers are ideal. XP is of course, far lighter than Windows 7, and can be made to look just as attractive with a few tweaks (such as XPize).

 

[nukemaster]

I had no issues with SP3 on all my XP systems. I can only see people with illegal copies of Windows XP doing this.

I never noticed any slow down with SP3(My main systems are Win7, but i still have plenty of older XP systems).

As for slip steamed being faster, I have also found this to be true. Most likely due to old junk left on the system before the update.

 

[adamboy64]

SP3 has given a few old computers here a new lease on life. They're still slow, but not as slow. But hey, a slight performance upgrade for free isn't too bad.

 

[doped]

i don't know why people keep telling xp users to upgrade to win 7, and some calling user's on xp all pirates. wth!, not all have ~$600(yes that's retail price in my country) for a new OS, which does nothing my xp doesn't.
I guess you meant "pirate"-upgrade to win 7?!

 

[pjmelect]

XP sp3 works fine if your computer has 512MB of memory or more, but if your computer has 256 or 128MB of memory you would probably be better at staying with SP2.

 

[nukemaster]

i don't know why people keep telling xp users to upgrade to win 7, and some calling user's on xp all pirates. wth!, not all have ~$600(yes that's retail price in my country) for a new OS, which does nothing my xp doesn't.
I guess you meant "pirate"-upgrade to win 7?!

.......and did you upgrade to SP3?

 

[dEAne]

it also possible to download the update manually then do the hack then run the update or download the shortcut exploit protection from sophos antivirus and run it on xp.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]There is no SP3 for X64 version... I am so glad i moved to Win 7. People switch, it is awesome...[/citation]
WinXP Pro x64 doesn't NEED an SP3 yet, if ever. It's not as old as XP. It's built on the Server 2003 64-bit codebase.

That's like saying you switched back to XP because Win7 was didn't have SP3 "so it's behind". I like Win7, but frankly WinXP x64 has been extremely reliable for all these years, so I won't be upgrading the desktop until I replace the entire box. The lappy is a different story though.

 

[kingnoobe]

Um why are people saying pirates.. Think about it for just a second. Ok somebody pirated xp sp2, was smart enough to be able to install it, and smart enough to not get sp3. Yet that same guy for some reason isn't capable of getting xp sp3? Um why? That makes no sense.

As a pirate I'm always stay up to date with windows it's just to easy. (And yes I do actually buy windows after I test them out, just like all software. I refuse to buy anything that I can't test, and it's not like you can rent software, and take it back if it don't work like you thought it was gonna. Although with win7 that wasn't really an issue with it's long beta aka demo)

 

[kitekrazee]

There is a program called Gigastudio 4 that will not work on an XPSP3 unless install it on a SP2 machine.

 

[antilycus]

Do you guys forget that 4gigs of RAM in Windows 7 is BARELY the same result of having 1gb in XP? It doesn't make any sense to update to Windows 7. If you are a smart inet user you wont have problems with Malware. I am not going to run out and spending upper hundreds of dollars for a pretty o/s that requires massive amounts of new hardware to get decent results. If I want a pretty and working O/S i'll use my mac os x system. But if I want a productive system I'll still with XP

 

[nukemaster]

I did not know the ram was directly related to speed. So if i have 2 gigs on a windows 7 system the entire system will perform slower then XP with what? 512?

Those are nice stats you just made up.

Or are you saying that 7 sitting idle take over 3 gigs?

I am just at 2 gigs with all kinds of crap running on this system(and windows is greedy on this one since it has 12gigs). Lots of memory is cached and waiting for me to run common apps faster

My other system with "Only" 4 gigs is idling at 1.2gb used.

Maybe you could say a 1gig XP system is equivalent to a 2gig 7 system in FREE memory.

But unless the system uses more then the available memory, the user experience will not suffer. 1gig is the absolute min I would want on my xp systems(they ALL have more)

and you forget that Aero, despite its slightly higher memory footprint adds hardware accelerated desktop features that just kill xp any day of the week. Since you have a Mac system you have to notice just how bad XP handles desktop composition(even dragging windows is not overly smooth and prone to lots of screen tear).

I am NOT telling people to run out and get 7 for all system. I still have plenty of XP systems. Those will never see 7, they where built with xp and they will keep it. Just like my Vista system will not be changed to 7 since it works fine with Vista 64.

 

[K-zon]

The new stuff cant run older programs very well, and some of the new programs just lack, but dont.

 

[Guest]

Just like Dell puts it like 1 to 2 years ago. The GOOD system configuration for Windows Vista of 512MB of RAM is ideal for booting the operating system with no programs or games running. The same can be said in a windows XP box with 96MB or RAM, it would barely be enough to boot up XP but if you try to run any other software performance will suffer due to lots of virtual ram activity. for Windows vista and windows 7, we still do not know what constitute "enogh ram" and "plenty of surplus" for them, since any ram you stick on these machines, windos 7 and windows vista will eventually end up consumming the mayority of it, and eventually will start using paging files (virtual ram) when there is not enough ram for "caching lots of progras" i the background. Hear this: In an attempt of vista and 7 in improving user quality experience by caching everything these OS thinks the user will be running in the future, it, inadvertently makes the system slow, and sluggish, eventually all of your 4 8 or even 12 GB of RAM will get ran out, and you all know what paging file does to your system.

is there any way to disable that "caching" feature, (super fetch), I never needed it in all the operating systems that I have used, and I certainly do NOT need it now, and much less forced upon me by Microsoft.

 

[nukemaster]

is there any way to disable that "caching" feature, (super fetch), I never needed it in all the operating systems that I have used, and I certainly do NOT need it now, and much less forced upon me by Microsoft.

Right click "my" Computer then select Manage.

Select Services and Applications

Scroll down till you find Superfetch.

Double click or right clock and select properties.

Change the Startup Type to : Disabled (you can even just stop it under service status, but without disabled it will come back again and again)

Restart and it should be all gone.

With this said, Supertech will let go off all the cached memory as soon as another application needs it. It will not go to the point of page filing because it.

In Vista for some reason they still had the memory section of the task manager labeled as page file(like it was in XP). In fact it was total memory used(not including superfetch since that ram still free instantly if needed and if you happen to call for an app from that memory, it will be vastly faster.) In 7 the task manager is more accurate to let users know there actual free memory.