XP SP1 vs SP2 Performance

[WobbleWobble]

Does Service Pack 2 slow you down?

It doesn't say that they ran the tests multiple times, so I'm assuming they only ran each test once which could lead misleading numbers...

 

[KoolDrew]

The onyl reason for that is because of the new services in SP2. Those can easily be disabled and you won't ntoice a difference. Some people have actually claimed it being faster. I ahve not noticed a difference at all but I also tweak the hell out of my system and dsiable alot of services.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's a pretty silly, and kind of useless benchmark. I'm wondering if the SP1 system also had the post-SP1 fixes for HT support, UnmapViewOfFile slowdown fix, and a few others.

Also, nearly all of the binaries in XP SP2 are supposedly compiled with "software-based DEP", which is AFAIK equivalent to VC's /GS compile switch, which generates stack probes, which slows down function calls by a small percentage.

3D games really aren't a very good benchmark to use either, as they are primarily dependent on the raw speed of the CPU, GPU, and memory subsystems. Something like a synthetic desktop business app benchmark would be a much better way to judge.

 

[iseethemtoo]

I agree with Larry but FYI, I Ran 3dmarks and Aquamark before and after SP2, and after SP2 my scores where slightly lower. So slightly that I couldnt really be sure SP2 is the cause.

 

[spyordie007]

I agree, if the benchmarks were something that makes the new services stay busy than you might see a nominal differance; however generally speaking you shouldnt see any signifigant differance in applications that are CPU/GPU, memory or I/O dependant.

-Erik

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

I installed SP2 and my tape drive wouldn't work, so I went back to SP1 and now the drive works.
With SP2 - AMD FX53 with BFG Ultra OC Waterblock.
3dMark05 450/1100 = 4481
3dMark03 450/1100 = 12865
Back to SP1
3dMark05 450/1100 = 4516
3dMark03 450/1100 = 12807

Scores are about the same. SP2 nags about not having a virus checker until you turn it off. It has a built in firewall, but my router blocks everything. I've checked this with Sheilds Up. I wouldn't rush to install SP2 after my tape drive didn't work.

Complete description of my computer is here.
http://www.nogodforme.com/MyBabyTera.htm

 

[mikecel79]

Originally posted by: NoGodForMe
I installed SP2 and my tape drive wouldn't work, so I went back to SP1 and now the drive works.
With SP2 - AMD FX53 with BFG Ultra OC Waterblock.
3dMark05 450/1100 = 4481
3dMark03 450/1100 = 12865
Back to SP1
3dMark05 450/1100 = 4516
3dMark03 450/1100 = 12807

Scores are about the same. SP2 nags about not having a virus checker until you turn it off. It has a built in firewall, but my router blocks everything. I've checked this with Sheilds Up. I wouldn't rush to install SP2 after my tape drive didn't work.

Complete description of my computer is here.
http://www.nogodforme.com/MyBabyTera.htm

Was it the tape drive or the software you were using didn't work with SP2?

 

[Brule]

Today I finally got fed up with SP2 and uninstalled it. While I didn't benchmark before/after it certainly felt slower for many apps with minimal effect on games.

The service and security may be worth it to most users but when one takes good care (firewall, AV, update, and check spyware) SP2 throws a wrench into the equation. Even after tweaking with the services my machine would hang at startup 1/3 of the time for no apparent reason, no help in the logs. The loopback style of internet connection seems to be the worst culprit. *nix uses this to its advantage (great for writing code) but it seems forced in XP.

 

[Phoenix86]

You folks realize SP2 isn't some sort of "optional" patch... It's a service pack. What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary? You can do what you want with your computer, but your going to be vulnerable to exploits that don't affect SP2. There have ALREADY been exploits released that affect WXP gold and SP1, but not SP2.

If you don't patch your putting yourself in the same boat as all those people who got hit with blaster/sasser. If they had SP1, they would have been protected. You will be in a similar situation at one point.

Remember, most all exploits are known and patched BEFORE the malware writers use the exploits. If your patched, your MUCH safer. Secutiry is practiced in layers, you may be doind just fine on other layers, but if you skip the SP, your software layer has holes.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
You folks realize SP2 isn't some sort of "optional" patch... It's a service pack. What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary? You can do what you want with your computer, but your going to be vulnerable to exploits that don't affect SP2. There have ALREADY been exploits released that affect WXP gold and SP1, but not SP2.

If you don't patch your putting yourself in the same boat as all those people who got hit with blaster/sasser. If they had SP1, they would have been protected. You will be in a similar situation at one point.

Remember, most all exploits are known and patched BEFORE the malware writers use the exploits. If your patched, your MUCH safer. Secutiry is practiced in layers, you may be doind just fine on other layers, but if you skip the SP, your software layer has holes.

:thumbsup:

 

[spyordie007]

Yes, SP2's major increase in security is something you cant even see through the GUI. Practially all the executable code has been recompiled and reconfigured to make it much stronger against future attacks.

If you don't patch your putting yourself in the same boat as all those people who got hit with blaster/sasser. If they had SP1, they would have been protected.

I agree that unpatched SP1 machines are quickly becoming unsafe. There are bound to be plenty of people out there with malicious intent that are looking for things that SP2 fixes in hopes that they can exploit more of the unpatched machines. Though you might want to update your example because XP SP1 is volunerable to most (if not all) variants of Blaster.

-Erik

 

[Brule]

I'd say a strong firewall setup and running AV software is more important than SP2. Throw in Spybot, Adaware, tweaking of services, and periodic manual checks in startup locations and one's about as "secure" as possible. (there's always a way around any measures of course) Switching to Firefox and a better mail client than OE will crush the horrible ActiveX issues.

What about cases such as mine where SP2 cripples my system? I recently worked on a system with a Canon printer that simply *does not work* with SP2, Canon's site confirms the problem and can only reply that they're working on a patch. In a perfect world SP2 would work flawlessly and would be installed everywhere within it's first week of release. For %90 percent of systems running XP it should be installed. However there are exceptions where it is either not practical or counterproductive. Hopefully in a few months many of these issues will be fixed.

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
You folks realize SP2 isn't some sort of "optional" patch... It's a service pack. What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary? You can do what you want with your computer, but your going to be vulnerable to exploits that don't affect SP2. There have ALREADY been exploits released that affect WXP gold and SP1, but not SP2.

If you don't patch your putting yourself in the same boat as all those people who got hit with blaster/sasser. If they had SP1, they would have been protected. You will be in a similar situation at one point.

Remember, most all exploits are known and patched BEFORE the malware writers use the exploits. If your patched, your MUCH safer. Secutiry is practiced in layers, you may be doind just fine on other layers, but if you skip the SP, your software layer has holes.

There will always be holes, hince the reason for layers. Since Windows software is constantly compromised MS "patches" are not something I'd put infinate trust in.

"What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary?"
The part that cripples systems and configurations. The part where I get calls from EVERY single friend who has installed SP2 wanting help because things no longer are working. MS should have had the firewall on by default when XP was released in the first place. Laziness is the biggest single factor in undermining security, no critical update can solve that.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Brule

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
You folks realize SP2 isn't some sort of "optional" patch... It's a service pack. What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary? You can do what you want with your computer, but your going to be vulnerable to exploits that don't affect SP2. There have ALREADY been exploits released that affect WXP gold and SP1, but not SP2.

If you don't patch your putting yourself in the same boat as all those people who got hit with blaster/sasser. If they had SP1, they would have been protected. You will be in a similar situation at one point.

Remember, most all exploits are known and patched BEFORE the malware writers use the exploits. If your patched, your MUCH safer. Secutiry is practiced in layers, you may be doind just fine on other layers, but if you skip the SP, your software layer has holes.

There will always be holes, hince the reason for layers. Since Windows software is constantly compromised MS "patches" are not something I'd put infinate trust in.

"What part of "critical update" did you think was unnecessary?"
The part that cripples systems and configurations. The part where I get calls from EVERY single friend who has installed SP2 wanting help because things no longer are working. MS should have had the firewall on by default when XP was released in the first place. Laziness is the biggest single factor in undermining security, no critical update can solve that.

SP2 does not cripple systems. Load it on a clean system and see show me what's crippled.

Sure there are 3rd party apps that choke, and for those, look to your 3rd party provider and ask "Why the fvck did you not patch your softwate to work with SP2 in the MONTHS AND MONTHS MS provided it to you before it was released to the public?"

As far as holes, yes, there will ALWAYS be holes in EVERY software. IF you don't trust the provider of your OS, ditch it. If your running the OS, however, you ARE trusting it. Are you telling me your qualified to test every patch and see if it's bullet proof? I think not.

So, since you don't trust MS' patches, what OS are you running? Better not answer with a MS solution, or perhaps you should rethink your stance on where you place your trust.

I agree laziness are a BIG factor, that's yet another reason to run SP2, it enables auto-updates.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
SP2 does not cripple systems. Load it on a clean system and see show me what's crippled.

It's been fairly-well discussed here that SP2 does "cripple" a small subset of the systems out there, and some functionality on some systems.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Sure there are 3rd party apps that choke, and for those, look to your 3rd party provider and ask "Why the fvck did you not patch your softwate to work with SP2 in the MONTHS AND MONTHS MS provided it to you before it was released to the public?"

True, although MS is always making last-minute changes to things, and many 3rd-party developers took the line, that they would start upgrading their software, when SP2 was "final", so that MS didn't tweak it any more. Given MS's past history about these sorts of things, I think that stance is completely warranted. Unfortunately, it also caused, in some cases, problems for their customers, that went ahead and installed SP2, without contacting all of their 3rd-party software vendors first to verify tested compatibility.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So, since you don't trust MS' patches, what OS are you running? Better not answer with a MS solution, or perhaps you should rethink your stance on where you place your trust. I agree laziness are a BIG factor, that's yet another reason to run SP2, it enables auto-updates.

Hey, I'm running SP2, and I have no problems. W2K SP2, that is.

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Sure there are 3rd party apps that choke, and for those, look to your 3rd party provider and ask "Why the fvck did you not patch your softwate to work with SP2 in the MONTHS AND MONTHS MS provided it to you before it was released to the public?"

Very true, it is mostly their fault although MS must take these issues into consideration.

As far as holes, yes, there will ALWAYS be holes in EVERY software. IF you don't trust the provider of your OS, ditch it. If your running the OS, however, you ARE trusting it. Are you telling me your qualified to test every patch and see if it's bullet proof? I think not.

No, one should assume there are holes no matter how good a patch is. SP2 is more than a simple patch when there are such vast changes.

So, since you don't trust MS' patches, what OS are you running? Better not answer with a MS solution, or perhaps you should rethink your stance on where you place your trust.

I run XP and 98SE for games and certain apps, Red Hat and Fedora installs are still my preferred OS when able. Still have FreeBSD installed on an older box but haven't used it for awhile. I never said Microsoft patches are evil or uneffective, just stated my observations around SP2. I like linux but am not a zealot cursing window's existance. Any OS can have holes, my point is patches, although obviously needed to plug holes, should not be depended on to solve all problems. SP2 has had the publicity and hype of solving so many security issues. The same thing happened in the switch over from 95/98/ME line to the NT/XP line, yet security threats still came out in mass. SP2 does much babysitting (turning on services, etc) but a power user can remain secure with SP1 (and full functionality) until further updates make the switch practical. (I installed SP2 within a few days of it coming out, it was only after problems and many attempts at solutions that I switched back)

I agree laziness are a BIG factor, that's yet another reason to run SP2, it enables auto-updates.

I agree 100% for 90% of users.

 

[Phoenix86]

It's been fairly-well discussed here that SP2 does "cripple" a small subset of the systems out there, and some functionality on some systems.

There is a key word in my statement, CLEAN load. How many people formatted their systems, loaded SP2 and still had "crippled" system?

True, although MS is always making last-minute changes to things, and many 3rd-party developers took the line, that they would start upgrading their software, when SP2 was "final", so that MS didn't tweak it any more.

It would be prudent, and in the interest of the companies users (the ones paying the company for their products) for them to have done testing at all levels of the SP, even if it got revised. Waiting until the patch was released was not doing any service for the customer. Dropped ball by the vendors.

Very true, it is mostly their fault although MS must take these issues into consideration.

Which is why they gave the RTM extra time before going public.

Any OS can have holes, my point is patches, although obviously needed to plug holes, should not be depended on to solve all problems. SP2 has had the publicity and hype of solving so many security issues.

Which is why security is layered... Hype is hype, fact is fact. It's a patch with LOTS of security updates, not the cureall.

 

[Gamingphreek]

That was an interesting read :thumbsup: !!!!

-Kevin

 

[Brule]

Looks like the benchmarks show very little. Although SP1 won more I was surprised that Aquamark showed such a difference with SP2 that far ahead. Because of the other test results being near equal, I assume some setting produced the result instead of the benchmark. The extra SP2 services are easily disabled as mentioned above, if anything the tests show a lack of a difference.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

It's been fairly-well discussed here that SP2 does "cripple" a small subset of the systems out there, and some functionality on some systems.

There is a key word in my statement, CLEAN load. How many people formatted their systems, loaded SP2 and still had "crippled" system?

Probably the same subset of people that I was talking about, those with incompatible hardware.

(Prescott/Celeron 'D' systems, with older BIOSes, certain Dell Inspiron laptops that are incompatible with the updated "SpeedStep" power-management CPU driver in XP SP2, and those that have certain Firewire chipsets, that have reduced functionality under XP SP2 as compared to prior XP releases. At least that's the "score" thus far, that I've been keeping track of.)

 

[faenix]

I'm in love with SP2. I wouldn't mind if it slowed me down a bit, for the peace of mind I'll take it.

/me puts flamesuit on

 

[Unforgiven]

sp2 actually made my windows xp pro install much more stable. without sp2 i would be back running win2k in a heartbeat to avoid all the issues i had with xp sp1! from what ive read and been reading on forums and hearing from friends is that its really about 50/50 on whether it works great or people absolutely hate it. the only way to find out for yourself is to run a test box with sp2 installed and see how you like it, other than that you can always use true image or ghost to backup your system first and if you find that you dont like sp2 just reinstall your old images...

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: faenix
I'm in love with SP2. I wouldn't mind if it slowed me down a bit, for the peace of mind I'll take it.

/me puts flamesuit on

Glad it worked for you. I doubt a flamesuit is needed; if SP2 works good there's no reason not to install it. So far any impact on speeds seem to be minimal.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

It's been fairly-well discussed here that SP2 does "cripple" a small subset of the systems out there, and some functionality on some systems.

There is a key word in my statement, CLEAN load. How many people formatted their systems, loaded SP2 and still had "crippled" system?

Probably the same subset of people that I was talking about, those with incompatible hardware.

(Prescott/Celeron 'D' systems, with older BIOSes, certain Dell Inspiron laptops that are incompatible with the updated "SpeedStep" power-management CPU driver in XP SP2, and those that have certain Firewire chipsets, that have reduced functionality under XP SP2 as compared to prior XP releases. At least that's the "score" thus far, that I've been keeping track of.)

I'm not aware of these specific examples, I'll just take them at face value. On first update the bios, simple. The second would seem to be another BIOS issue, since the problem is not with all SpeedStep procs, that's a Dell problem (3rd party issue). The last is, at worse, a driver problem with certian chipsets. While it could be a problem I don't think it's fair to judge the whole relase becasue of an incomaptibility with a chipset. At any rate, this does indeed look like a small subset of machines.