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: <gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu>
>  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

Reply via email to