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 issues. > 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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user