Whether it's recommended to have a SP or not, fact is some people do not, and
until Gimp actually requires something that a SP installs, I don't see why it
couldn't continue to allow installs on non-SP Windows, they way it did up until
a recent version change.
FYI, I have a PC with WinXP that has never had a service pack installed, which
has been used for web browsing
almost every day for almost 10 years, and has never had any security
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:17:04 -0800
> From: jc <li...@jcosby.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack?
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:57:14 -0500, Jay Smith <j...@jaysmith.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure why you would want to skip the service packs - I use an
> >> XP VM for legacy apps and testing, but the first thing I did when
> >> setting it up was to install SP3. Why not install SP2 (or SP3)?
> >> Just
> >> curious.
> > However, SP2 is the last version before M$ added "phone home". A lot
> > of
> > people don't trust M$. It is not an issue of whether the copy of
> > Windoze is legal or not (which, of course it always should be), but
> > it
> > is an issue that it's none of M$ business what you use the Windoze
> > for.
> I don't disagree with you about Microsoft's high-handed tactics, but
> being unpatched puts your system at risk, as well as others when your
> system is compromised or "botted." There are better alternatives (Linux,
> Mac) to what you're doing.
Gimp-user mailing list