Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Windows XP SP3 Creating Havoc

Posted by kdawson on Fri May 09, 2008 08:40 AM
from the shun-the-frumious-bandersnatch dept.
Operating Systems Software Windows Microsoft Upgrades
ozmanjusri writes "According to Information Week, within hours of its wide availability Windows XP SP3 had drawn hundreds of complaints from users who claim the update is wreaking havoc on their computers. One user said in a Microsoft newsgroup: 'I downloaded and installed [the SP3] package for IT Professionals and Developers on one of my computers. Now I can't get the computer to boot. I don't think Microsoft should have made this a critical update.' Other sites including IT Wire are also reporting problems, which include include random reboots or the inability to boot at all." Note that XP3 won't install on systems running beta IE8; and after a successful SP3 install users will no longer be able to downgrade from IE7 to IE6.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Windows XP SP3 creates havoc. by ozmanjusri (601766)
[+] XP SP3 Crashes Some AMD Machines 267 comments
Stony Stevenson alerts us to new information on the XP SP3-induced crashes that we discussed a few days back. Jesper Johansson, a former program manager for security policy at Microsoft, is maintaining an ongoing log and support site for users affected by any of several problems triggered by XP3. Machines using AMD hardware, particularly HP desktops, seem to have several modes of failure; others affect Intel machines.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Windows XP SP3 Creating Havoc 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fez (468752) * on Friday May 09 2008, @08:42AM (#23349108)
    I have installed SP3 on several systems, and I have only had problems on one. It was my laptop, and I had known there were problems with the underlying Windows installation for months but wondered if SP3 might fix them. It did not. It ended up in an endless cycle of BSoDs from which it never did recover. I ghosted the drive, wiped it clean, and installed from an XP CD with SP3 slipstreamed. Now the laptop is running better than ever. I am not sure if SP3 has anything to do with that, or the fact that it's a fresh install with new, recent drivers. (most likely the clean install.)

    The BSoD/stop errors I received pointed to a driver issue with DEP, but without being able to boot even in safe mode there was no easy way to debug the problem. I could have tried a repair install, but I felt more comfortable starting from scratch.

    • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ppz003 (797487) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:03AM (#23349378) Homepage
      Windows service packs have never helped broken systems. They have only made them worse. See exhibits SP1 and SP2.

      If you suspect the SP won't take, just go straight to slipstream, wipe, and reinstall.

    • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by number6x (626555) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:35AM (#23350756)

      I agree.

      I use linux not Windows, but this is ridiculus!

      WinXP sp3 is causing hundreds of complaints?

      HUNDREDS?

      How many millions of XP users were automatically upgraded to sp3?

      Hundreds are complaining. That is a pretty good outcome.

      There are plenty of things to bash MS about.

      This seems like a non-issue to me.

      • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JediTrainer (314273) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:20AM (#23349640)
        Look, I'm a Linux fan too, but this isn't a problem necessarily with Windows alone. I have certainly dealt with my fair share of Gentoo, RedHat, Fedora distros that cacked up the big one after an upgrade. Sometimes a reinstall is just easier than trying to figure out what broke, especially on a non-critical machine.
      • It's not just Windows where this is the accepted practice. On multiple occasions I've brought in ailing MacBooks (and MacBook Pros) to the Apple store and the only advice the "geniuses" have had for fixing the problem has been a clean reinstall.
        It's frustrating, yes. But I don't think the problem is the product, nor the industry. The real problem is that operating systems are complex beasts. The consumer has spoken quite clearly that the most important thing is new features and functionality, not stability. Someday hopefully we'll have our cake and eat it too, but for the time being I don't think we'll be getting away from these issues.
      • how did this become an acceptable state of affairs in IT?

        I don't know about "acceptable" but it became a necessary way of operating when Microsoft switched Windows away from INI files to the registry. Windows 3.x systems had maybe 5 or 10 INI files that mattered (i.e. that you had to hand-tweak from time to time). Each rarely had more than 100 lines in it. Maybe a couple hundred thousands bytes all in. And if we needed a driver, it was usually a driver _file_ (except video drivers).

        Today systems are ridiculously complicated. Windows 3.x would not even load, let alone run, if it was installed on a partition with the number of files an XP system has (over 100,000). Just the number of files alone would sink it (try it with more than about 60,000 files if you don't believe me).

        On the other hand, install systems have kept pace with the complexity. Instead of shovelling 7 floppies (Windows 3.x) into a PC in 15 to 20 minutes, we have CD (XP) and DVD (Vista) installs that take the same (order of magnitude) time to install, despite 10 to 100 to 1000 times the increase in complexity. So, re-installing wins.

        With DOS, we knew our systems down to the individual file level.
        With Windows 3.x, we knew our systems down to the INI level.
        With XP, we know our systems down to the Windows Update/services.msc level.
        With Vista, we just know our system sucks.

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MightyYar (622222) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:11AM (#23349472)
          Ahhh, I'm having dreamy flashbacks to the old Mac System 7 days, when you just replaced the "System" file - or worst case renamed the "System Folder" and replaced it with a fresh one.

          But what's that? A bomb icon? Extensions conflicts? Co-operative multitasking... networking and printing from the... Chooser? Ahhhhhh!

          Maybe the more complicated install is worth it after all :) I'm just a bit nostalgic from knowing what every single file did on my PC... DOS was good like that, too.

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AmaDaden (794446) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:27AM (#23349744)
          The reason it's so difficult to fix a windows system is because you are encouraged to not understand it. With a more open system you can learn where the system files are that get edited and replace any that begin to cause problems. With Windows however you even try to learn about more complex parts of the system like the registry you are greeted with one page messages telling you "It's important. Don't touch it." I know I sound like a open source zealot but it's stuff like this that has made people like me go from not caring either way to pro open source.
          • It's still possible to fubar Linux or Unix or OSX. One advantage that you DO have is that it is possible to do a "real" restore from a working backup...On the other hand, most people are sloppy with backups for their personal machines.

            If you do a good job of screwing the system, it still can be quicker to start from scratch. Whenever I have a huge upgrade on a development machine, I tend to start from scratch, to hopefully avoid the problems that accumulate over time.

            • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Informative)

              by Sobrique (543255) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:40AM (#23349912) Homepage
              I can honestly say that I can't actually remember an occasion where it's been easier to rebuild Solaris, than fix it. I've had quite a few varying degrees of 'fubar' but invariably the problem's I've had have either been fixed by software (in most cases, not even needing a reboot) or have been a hardware fault (which in some case _have_ needed to take the system down).

              The same cannot be said for Windows systems I've worked on - the time and effort involved in troubleshooting is much much higher than the effort involved in a rebuild.

              *shrug*. You _can_ get utterly hosed on either, but Solaris is still better at keeping entropy at bay.

              Although I _have_ done a 'wipe and restart' on a shared filesystem though on a few occasions, where whole departments have denied responsibility a massive dogpile of disorganised data. A 'restructure and clean' (tell 'em it's being ugpraded) works well for making them figure out what they actually need to keep/need backed up/are willing to pay for, and what they're not :)

            • I haven't had to do a clean reinstall on any of my macs since OS 9..

              I can't tell you how many times I've had to reinstall windows on my PCs.. I've completely lost count.

            • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Tom (822) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:18AM (#23350490) Homepage Journal

              On the other hand, most people are sloppy with backups for their personal machines.
              Which is why Apple did a great thing with Time Machine. That's exactly the kind of stuff you need for home users: A total nobrainer, invisible, transparent, automatic. And it allows you to restore only the one file you need, not do a full rollback.

              The problem is that MS has stopped thinking about "advantage for the user" at least 10 years ago.

              • Which is why Apple did a great thing with Time Machine. That's exactly the kind of stuff you need for home users: A total nobrainer, invisible, transparent, automatic. And it allows you to restore only the one file you need, not do a full rollback.

                Vista has this feature, there's a tab called "Previous Versions" in the properties dialog for files and folders. Microsoft calls this feature Shadow Copy [microsoft.com] on the list of Vista features.

                The problem is that MS has stopped thinking about "advantage for the user" at least 10 years ago.

                Except that it's only available on the Ultimate and Business editions [microsoft.com] (footnote D as of the time I linked it). Home users don't get it.

                But it's a great feature (despite the crappy slow and flaky UI), and one that should be available on all versions of Vista if Microsoft was intelligent and not trying to nickel-and-dime their customers. It's the only feature of Vista I've ever used that made me think "I'm glad I'm using Vista, I'd have been screwed in XP."

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sancho (17056) * on Friday May 09 2008, @09:30AM (#23349768) Homepage
          It was VMWare? Why the hell didn't you take a snapshot before performing this major OS update?

          If there was a failure of one part (e-mail, SSH, even the kernel), you only need to repair or fix that one piece and you're back and running again and that repair can be done independently of other parts of the system.
          Guess you've never suffered through a botched libc update.

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Funny)

          by pohl (872) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:33AM (#23349816) Homepage

          Sure, Vista kinda sucks, but all Windows versions kinda suck.

          I'm not sure I see how your post qualifies as less of a microsoft-bashing post than the one you were responding to. Why must you say such negative things about the products of a poor, defenseless, beleaguered little 800lb gorilla!?

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Interesting)

          by filthpickle (1199927) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:17AM (#23350472)
          First off, you shouldn't have posted this as AC. Aside from that, I totally agree with you.

          I am also not an apologist, and you can flame me to ashes for saying this, but I haven't had very many problems at all with Vista (outside of them releasing updates that make the cracks stop working).

          The biggest issue with it for normal end users, not /.ers, is that they lied about the sys reqs. My roomate has a laptop that has no business running it, and it really really sucks.

          A few disclaimers:

          1 - I am a gamer, had a system that was well beyond the req's that they should have used in the first place, and it runs fine.

          2 - I never pay for anything except online games(flame me for that too if you want), so the DRM stuff doesn't matter to me.

          3- I totally agree that you would be out of your mind to install it in a business environment in it's current state, and with the current cost of the machines you would need to run it.

          4- The fact that they are planning on discontinuing XP is preposterous. When you release a new version of anything users should want to upgrade, not be forced to.

          Absolutely no interest in a "but M$ is evil" or a "but you don't realize that it does xyz" argument, just giving my experience with Vista.
          • I'll risk the "MS Apologist" brand as well.
            Vista isn't that bad, but contrary to the marketing materials, you will need a pretty good system to run it. My wife's system runs it just fine, and she loves it. The games she plays on it run fine, but it was a fairly high end system when she bought it, and isn't that bad at the moment. The only change she had to make in going to Vista was going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM.

            My system, on the other hand, is falling to the bottom of the totem pole; and Vista is horrible on it. I can play most games on it with reasonable graphics settings, in XP. When I tried Vista on it, many of the games became unplayable at the exact same video settings. So, I'm back on XP (haven't installed SP3 yet).

            In all, the biggest problem I see with Vista is that it does take up more resources, and is really meant for newer systems. If you have a good system, you can have all the flashy Vista interface. If you have a marginal system already, stick with the Crayola interface in XP.
            • When your OS has greater requirements than the games you play, you know something has gone very very wrong.. unless perhaps you only play the built in Windows games :p Sometimes life really is stranger than fiction..

            • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Kiaser Zohsay (20134) on Friday May 09 2008, @03:00PM (#23354476)
              The first thing I did when I got my XP machine at work was to change the desktop theme to "Windows Classic", because I hated the Fisher-Price look. The first thing I did when my wife got her Vista laptop was to change the desktop theme to "Windows Classic", because it didn't have the horsepower for Aero.

              The one thing that Vista does that constantly pisses me off is that "Shell Folders" in Explorer occasionally move around in the file system, even though they always show up in the same place in Explorer.

              The other night she went to download a video from a web site, and clicked open instead of save by mistake, so after about 30 minutes of progress bar, the video starts playing in Media Player. I'm like, no problem, it's in TEMP, so I'll just copy it to the desktop before WMP closes. So I open a prompt (I'm a command line bigot, so sue me) and cd to the user directory to find Local Settings, and its not there anymore. This time its under Pictures, last time it was under Favorites, who knows where it will be next time.

              I'm sure this is a defensive measure to give viruses and trojans a harder time finding the stuff that they scan for, but it pisses me off when need to actually accomplish something.

          • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Informative)

            by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday May 09 2008, @11:38AM (#23351740) Homepage
            For your roommate, Try setting the theme to "Windows Classic". It will end up looking like Windows 2000, and will speed up the interface by about 100x. I have a Vista Laptop with Celeron 1.7 and 512 MB of RAM. Before windows classic theme, it was slow beyond usable. Not it runs quite respectable. Sure it won't look pretty like Vista is supposed to, but at least you'll be able to get stuff done.

            • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2008, @01:36PM (#23353286)
              Dont trust Vista's windows classic mode. If you run Visa in Windows classic mode many of the Adobe CS3 bundle applications will have problems. You will see screen update problems in Photoshop and Premiere. OpenGL warnings in Aftereffects and you won't be able to dump to tape using firewire from premiere on many systems.

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mweather (1089505) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:18AM (#23350488)
          XP was an improvement over the previous Windows version. Vista is not.

        • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nevesis (970522) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:59AM (#23351112)
          You're right in the similarities between XP and Vista in that they were both more bloated than their predecessors and that many users were reluctant to "upgrade" because of that. But there are some big differences.

          XP was considered bloat and XP doubled the minimum requirements from 2000 Pro.

          Vista quadruples the minimum XP processing requirement, octuples XP minimum RAM, decuples the minimum HDD free space, and adds a new requirement for video cards.

          On top of all of that, XP and 2000 were essentially the same kernel. There weren't many compatibility issues, and users weren't faced with drastic UI changes.

          So, was XP twice as "good" as 2000? Maybe, so people switched. Is Vista ten times as "good" as XP? Plus IT support costs? No, so people aren't switching.

        • I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I do think the unbridled hate that pervades /.'s reaction to every single Windows article is a bit out of hand.
          Yet your reply makes you sound like a complete tool by defending the world's richest company and one which has a monopoly. You seem to think it's acceptable that they have all this power yet release operating systems in a broken state. Your apologist views are the reason PC software sucks and why PC software is being held back because companies can just rely on shitty programmers to churn out border line code with the intention of fixing it later.

          7 years ago, the chorus of "OH MY GOD XP IS SO MUCH WORSE THAN 2000! THERE'S NO NEED TO UPGRADE!" in every XP article's comments were eerily similar to the ones you hear now every time Vista gets a mention.
          XP's reception was much better than Vista's reception. Vista is definitely more in line with Windows ME but most MS apologists ignore this and just claim that Vista's respection is standard for all MS operating systems.

          Secondly this whole "Vista is maturing" rubbish doesn't work. Vista is not a child, pet or a plant. It's not expected to grow. It should work out of the box.

          Like I mentioned earlier, this mentality that it's acceptable to release a bit of software that costs hundreds of dollars in a broken state is why PC software in general sucks.

          Console gaming was always superior to PC gaming in terms of quality because there wasn't any patching. They had to get it right. Where as PC game markets just had to get it sort of right. Now console gaming has the ability to patch games and, no surprise at all, the quality is dropping.

          There is no reason software companies, especially one as large and as rich as Microsoft can't get it right on the first go.

          Tell me this, are you willing to by a car, dvd player or microwave that only sort of works out of the box and the manufacturer promising to fix it at a later date? If not, then why is it acceptable for Microsoft to do this?

          • Re:One problem machine out of many installs (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Keruo (771880) on Friday May 09 2008, @11:03AM (#23351178)
            Vista is bashed for a reason!

            I had vista on my work laptop for 6 months, I kept hoping that SP1 would fix everything.. after installing it.. I downgraded to XP.

            The result?

            Battery life went from 1h 40min to 2h 30minutes.
            The system now boots to usable state in 3 minutes. With vista, it took 28 minutes to actually get to login screen. After logging in it took another 5 minutes to actually do anything.
            I don't have constant UAC annoyance (yes I know that can be turned off, but it was touted to be one of the good new features)
            I can actually use 3 legacy corporate programs we need daily which didn't run on vista.

            You might assume the laptop was old, but no. It's brand new! Yet my home laptop 4 years old running XP felt 3x faster than the new dual core machine with 3gb memory!

            Under the line:
            I can get more work done therefore costing less to my employer!

            As for w2k, we still run it on few computers. Why upgrade since it works flawlessly and those machines aren't connected to public network.

            I don't see any reason for vista deployment. It's like Windows ME all over again.
            Only good thing with vista is downgrade right to xp from business and ultimate.

  • Oh Yes It Will (Score:5, Informative)

    by RupW (515653) * on Friday May 09 2008, @08:42AM (#23349110)

    Note that XP3 won't install on systems running beta IE8
    It won't be offered automatically by Windows Update but it *will* install. However you then can't remove IE8 without ininstalling the service pack first.

    • Re:Oh Yes It Will (Score:5, Informative)

      by nqz (778393) <salvador411@NOSPAm.yahoo.com> on Friday May 09 2008, @08:47AM (#23349184) Journal
      Also, the summary is misleading. If you downgrade to IE6 *before* installing SP3, then you'll be able to install and uninstall IE7 at will, after installing SP3.

        • Re:Oh Yes It Will (Score:5, Informative)

          by Hyppy (74366) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:02AM (#23350270)
          The reason for this is the way that IE7's uninstall procedures occur, and the fact that SP3 works for computers with both IE6 and IE7.

          When you install IE7, it creates a backup of all IE6-related files that it replaces, in order to replace them if the user uninstalls IE7.

          When you upgrade to SP3, it replaces files that are used by both IE6 and IE7, most of which have different versions depending on which browser is currently being installed.

          If you were to uninstall IE7 after updating to SP3, then it will revert to the pre-SP3 binaries that were copied during initial setup.

          Now, I agree that the SP3 setup should be intelligent enough to identify and replace IE6 files located in the IE7 uninstall folder, but honestly it was probably a very low priority.

          The fix? Uninstall IE7, install SP3, then re-install IE7. Not an easily automated task, but thats what needs to be done if you want to be able to uninstall IE7 in order to revert to IE6 in the future.

          Either way, its not a massive conspiracy. You can put your tin-foil hat away today.

  • Remember a bad Kathleen Turner movie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:44AM (#23349130)
    In the movie V.I. Warshawski , Kathleen Turner is some sort of hit-woman. Her catch phrase, something like "Sure I've killed a few dozen people, but that's insignificant compared to the population".

    One could make a similar statement about SP3.

    Not that I'm a MS fan-boy, far from it.

  • Nudge Nudge Wink Wing (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheMeuge (645043) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:45AM (#23349156) Homepage
    It may be paranoia, but I am considering that given the welcome that Vista has received, Microsoft had no choice but to do this. Producing two OSs that compete with one another is insanity... especially when the product that's winning is not the latest one.

    So the solution is fairly obvious - if you can't improve Vista, you can make XP worse. That way, people know they're going to be dissatisfied with your product from the get-go, but at least they'll buy the latest one.

  • Time to upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:46AM (#23349166) Homepage Journal
    Maybe this was just a sneaky way of trying to get people to 'upgrade' to Vista. Then again this is probably more evidence of a broken process at Microsoft.

  • Access Denied!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:46AM (#23349168)
    Did anyone else get this? Microsoft really screwed this one up. Not only did they release an AUTOMATIC UPDATE that cannot be installed unless you close your antivirus (which isn't possible for my company's antivirus - the only choice is to unload it from the workstation), or to run this utility that changes permissions on all registry values and windows files, BUT they ALSO provided instructions that only make sense in a VISTA environment. For example, telling people to right-click and go to Run As Administrator, or referencing "defltbase.inf", which is a file you only find in Vista.

  • People mess with thier own machines.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tominva1045 (587712) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:47AM (#23349190)
    FTA: Typically, the glitches are due to conflicts with software, such as drivers, system files, or applications already resident on the user's PC. The machines arrive in a pristine state. Users then add, sometimes compliant sometimes non-compliant software, hardware, and modify the registry. There should be no surprise that issues will arise. There are less-popular operating systems with upgrade / driver issues way worse than this.

  • Just a quick thank-you (Score:5, Funny)

    by LearnToSpell (694184) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:49AM (#23349200) Homepage
    to all the beta testers out there. You know who you are! We appreciate all your hard work, and when we install SP3 several months from now, when it's ready for release, we'll be sure to think of you sucke^Wkind folks.

  • Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by His Shadow (689816) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:50AM (#23349212) Homepage Journal
    Four systems and counting , including my own laptop, i have upgraded to SP3 and not any problems of any kind. Systems even seem snappier. I did have to replace the standard Windows boot screen on my lappy. SP3 would not install with a custom boot up screen. For all my bile directed at Microsoft, XP is the most stable and versatile Windows I've ever used. People don't want to switch because of that, and Vista offers nothing at all compelling. Especially since it expects you to abandon all your current hardware and peripherals.

  • I love the /. bias (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2008, @08:58AM (#23349318)
    News about XP SP3 when it's delayed, when it doesn't work with some server...

    No news when it's released.

    News again when some minority of systems fail the SP3 installation.

    I love that Microsoft is held to 100% success rates, too. 100%. Even though there are millions of systems with trillions of potentially screwed up configurations to miss in testing, 100%.

    Unless testing for SP3 was going to take hundreds of years, stuff was going to slip through.

  • Issue Specifics (Score:5, Informative)

    by sean_nestor (781844) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:58AM (#23349334) Homepage
    From this article on ComputerWorld [computerworld.com]:

    According to Johansson, there appears to be two separate issues. One affects only AMD-equipped PCs sold by Hewlett-Packard Co. "The problem is that HP, apparently along with other OEMs, deploys the same image to Intel-based computers that they do to AMD-based computers," said Johansson. "Because the image for both Intel and AMD is the same, all have the intelppm.sys driver installed and running. That driver provides power management on Intel-based computers. On an AMD-based computer, amdk8.sys provides the same functionality."

    Running the intelppm.sys driver on an AMD-powered PC isn't normally an issue, but on the first reboot after a service pack installation, it causes "a big problem," Johansson said. The machine either fails to boot or crashes and immediately reboots.

    The other problem, according to Johansson, also seems to affect only AMD machines, and involves an error message indicating trouble with the PC's BIOS. Johansson said that the ensuing recommendation to update the BIOS is "most likely not your problem," but said that the problem may be isolated to a specific motherboard. "Possibly, it is related to computers with the Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard in them," he said.

  • Lost TCP/IP on my install yesterday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RPGonAS400 (956583) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:07AM (#23349422)
    I just bought a Lenovo laptop with XP Pro for my wife that came yesterday. The first thing I did after all the initial registration, etc. was to run Windows update. To my surprise, SP3 was available so I installed it. After the install, TCP/IP would not work at all. I called Lenovo and they told me to reload from restore partition - SP3 wipes out TCP/IP for that laptop. After the reload, I updated individual fixes (64 of them) and turned off Automatic Updates so it won't try to slip in SP3 again.

  • Worked well for me (Score:5, Informative)

    by EasyTarget (43516) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:16AM (#23349568) Homepage Journal
    At the risk of getting flamed to hell (this is /.)

    SP3 actually improved my old thinkpad. The XP copy on it was really struggling after years of being used as the 'windows toy'. No media (my bad) so I've never reinstalled it. I allowed SP3 on with some trepidation, but the end result is that the machine is a darned sight more spry (fast and responsive) than it was before. I think the installer basically did a good job of repairing the OS while patching it.

    I was pretty surprised.. it's pretty rare that anything from Redmond makes me feel that it's an improvement..

    • Re:installing SP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plague3106 (71849) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:55AM (#23349280)
      Well, do you consider an OS with security holes broken or not? Personally I do; I'd rather deal with MS trying to fix my computer after an SP messes something up than with a virus trojan that I may not even notice at first.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.