I used the cd.
a) less chance of a download error
b) I did myself a slipstream CD (an updated version of my original xp cd)
why ? well if one day my system crashes I don't have to download sp2 again
and when I repair with the cd it will up to date.
the sofware I used.
http://www.softpedia.com/public/cat/12/2/12-2-183.shtml
C) disk space: the download maybe 70MB ( windows update) but when you
install sp2 it will create a backups ( recommended) of your old installation
an that take disk space. The cd contains a very large file but will update
was is necessary for your system.
"Joe Zygala" wrote:
> I asked this question on the XP Deployment forum, but later realized that
> this is probably the more appropriate one. Please excuse the double posting.
>
> Specifically, I have ordered and received the SP2 CD. When I go onto the MS
> web site, it says that I must have about 1 GB of free space. Whew! However,
> the download from Windows Update is only about 70 MB, implying far less disk
> space would be required. But this would take about 4 hours to download over
> my slooooow 56Kb modem connection.
>
> So, my questions are:
> - Does updating to SP2 from CD replace more stuff than using Windows Update?
> - Will I really need 1 GB (yes, I have it, but don't want to waste it)?
> - And, I guess the real kicker, do those who have experience recommend using
> the CD or using Windows Update. Reasons why would be appreciated, too.
>
> I have already applied critical updates, and Windows Update definitely shows
> the next update will be SP2.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>