[talldude123]

If you are wondering if there is a speed difference between windows xp service pack 1 and service pack 2, check this out:

http://forevergeek.com/articles/wind...comparison.php

[Osiris]

not enough to justfy the stay at sp1

[talldude123]

personally, in my opinion, i think windows 2000 professional service pack 4 is fast,

my school got a "new" PC (IBM Netvista, P3 1 Ghz, 128 MB RAM, 15 GB HD) and its really fast on windows 2000, so imagine how a 2 Ghz computer would run on it...

[mikee]

well it makes sense that sp2 would be slower because its adding more things into the operating system thus taking up more resources on the computer.

[talldude123]

windows xp service pack 1 is basically windows 98 all over again, just with visual effects.

same basic operating system.

[derrmc]

Originally posted by talldude123
windows xp service pack 1 is basically windows 98 all over again, just with visual effects.

same basic operating system.

WRONG, XP USES THE NT KERNEL

[AnthraX]

Yeah, don't even compare 98 and XP.

[figero]

XP is built on win 2k, which means NT. I have found service pack 2 to be faster than 2k ever was.

[AnthraX]

Did you install SP2 fresh or over SP1?

[derrmc]

Originally posted by talldude123
If you are wondering if there is a speed difference between windows xp service pack 1 and service pack 2, check this out:

http://forevergeek.com/articles/wind...comparison.php

US FREEKS DON'T LIKE THE GEEKS

THE PROBLEM WITH THEIR TEST WAS THAT IT WAS DONE ON GAMING PC'S, 5% SLOWER WITH SP2. THEREFORE, THE OLDER THE PC, THE MORE PROBLEMS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE WITH SP2.

ALSO,XP PRO DISC IS 500 MEG, SP2 IS 266 MEG. IS THAT REALLY AN UPDATE?