So I was having a debate with my friend. According to him, a software program will run faster if all desired updates are installed prior to the first time you open it vs installing them later after the first time you open the program. States that, a program that has never been run before is 'virgin', has not initialized itself yet etc... If you apply patches to it before first running it, it is like the patches were part of the original build. If you install patches after the first run, it's not as clean.... For example, you install Office 2010 on your computer. Prior to ever launching it the first time, you update it to the latest Service Pack (SP2) and I guess also download all the updates from Microsoft Update. By doing it this way, it is like it was slipstreamed, as the program was never 'aware of itself' pre-SP2 and patches, vs applying SP2 after the first time you run the program etc... Does this make any sense?
No, not really. It should be exactly the same either way unless a particular patch brings some sort of performance improvement.
Probably not likely, but I can understand the thought. Software like Office (which was used in the example) usually gets slower with service packs. If you didn't see how fast it was before the update, you don't realize the patch slowed it down either way.
