William Luu
Australia
No favorite files added yet
(Jun 30, 2004 - 6:21 PM)
Actually, you'll find that VS.NET 2003 was the "service pack" for VS.NET 2002.
That's why customers who had purchased a licensed copy of VS.NET 2002, could obtain 2003 for a cheaper price $29USD(though, offer ended September 2003... Ref: http://msdn.microsoft.co.../vstudio03/default.aspx).
(Jun 22, 2004 - 7:17 PM)
Yes, it worked quite well on my test machine.
Pentium 3 733MHz, 128MB RAM.
Yes, there were added services, but they were hardly noticeable. Although the machine was a fresh install. It had been running for a week with SP1, then at the end of the week I applied SP2 RC2 onto it.
No notable performance differences noticed.
Software I had installed on the machine (before and after SP2 install):
Office 2003, AVG Antivirus Free Edition, iTunes, Winamp, Adaware, Google Toolbar.
You are correct that it does add additional services. As it would if you enabled Internet Connection Firewall in normal Windows XP. As the Windows Firewall is enabled by default in SP2.
This service pack has a focus on security, so it's likely that any additional services are added to help secure Windows XP by default for the average user that doesn't know much about computers.
You can disable many of the services that you don't require anyway.
You can disable the Windows Firewall, remove a lot of things you think that aren't actually useful. Some services had to be set a certain way after applying SP2 for security reasons. Do you really want somebody that could potentially spread a whole series of worms because they don't do much on their computer other than read a few websites, reply to some email, to be able to spread worms to other computers because their machine is infected?
Look, to be honest, I think that you can do away with the firewall if you have other third party firewalls that can do the job just as well.
If you can help those users of XP that do not have much knowledge of computers, then you are likely to help the others who are as well. Look at the spread of worms recently. Could they have been prevented? I certainly think so.
Please remember that the products being posted on BetaNews may not always be "production code" as such, and these performance issues are likely to be there. That is why you should always be careful. Not saying that the product quality is all that bad, but I'm suggesting that the final product will be a lot better due to feedback from those who do try the betas.
As a developer, I would prefer to read constructive criticism of my products as opposed to "this is crap" or "this crashed my system". I would ask those people to write "this is crap, because... , I think it would be better if you did instead." Especially for alpha and beta products. Those who write very vague reviews like "this is crap" doesn't really give the developer any real chance of fixing those issues the particular reviewer may have with the product before final release. [Sorry, the developer in me decided to throw in a rant at the end].
(Jun 22, 2004 - 8:56 AM)
Downloaded and installed it on one of my test machines the day RC2 became available. It's been running quite fine ever since.
It's great that Microsoft are releasing this service pack early, as it allows developers to work on their current apps to offer users the ability to have working apps when the final release is out, as the developers will have had time to fix things up. (Yes, I am a developer).
I read a comment that said July is the release month for SP2, which is not correct. As stated in the betanews article, the release date is likely to be sometime in August. (It's in the final paragraph).
The reason for the delays? Well, to make fixes that were found during testing. Would you rather have a buggy Service Pack, or a stable one?