Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Quietly Fixes Windows XP Resource Hog Problem

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the hey-cut-that-out dept.

Bug 246

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft indicated this week that it has fixed a Windows XP resource-hog problem associated with the system's SVCHOST.EXE processes. Windows XP users affected by this problem typically found that the operating system was using up system resources for 15 minutes to an hour after startup, making it difficult to use the machine during that period. The Microsoft Update team had vowed last month to spend the holiday break tackling the issue, which has plagued some users for years. The fix involved stopping the system from perpetually checking Internet Explorer updates. Microsoft indicated that the fix was rolled out on Tuesday."

cancel ×

246 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thanks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994715)

Thanks a lot microdorks. Why was this a problem in the first place? Hint: you guys suck

yes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994735)

Bye bye Windows 8 hello xp

just in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994761)

Is it always better late than never?

Suppose if they didn't get it over the holiday and it wasn't done by April 8th, they could have perhaps saved themselves all the bother and turned off all update checks (since none would be forthcoming, why bother to check)...

windows embedded systems based on XP still get (5, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45994839)

windows embedded systems based on XP still get updates for some time and firms can buy more update for XP as well.

Windows Server 2003 supported until mid-2015 (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995009)

Suppose if they didn't get it over the holiday and it wasn't done by April 8th, they could have perhaps saved themselves all the bother and turned off all update checks

Windows Server 2003 is supported longer than Windows XP despite using the same update mechanism and nearly the same kernel. Extended support for Windows Server 2003 ends on 7/14/2015 [microsoft.com] , and this problem will only get worse for servers over the last two and a half years of extended support. So there's a benefit for making a fix for Windows Server 2003. And if the same fix applies to Windows XP, it doesn't cost Microsoft that much to release the fix for both, and the gesture of goodwill could help deter companies from switching to GNU/Linux or OS X instead of buying Windows 8.1 + Classic Shell.

Re:Windows Server 2003 supported until mid-2015 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995089)

... one and a half years.... it's 2014 bub!

CORRECTION (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995127)

Thank you Anonymous Coward for the correction:

one and a half years

Touché. But that's still 18 months of the server being able to do its job of serving instead of sitting and looking for updates, 18 months of one fewer annoyance that might push IT into "screw it, I'm switching to Linux" territory.

Re:CORRECTION (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 8 months ago | (#45995265)

If the summary is correct I don't really see how this affects servers all that much... The summary says it is an issue in the first 15-60 minutes after startup. Servers are generally up for longer periods of time so the actual impact would be low for W2K03.

A PC is rebooted monthly and suspended more often (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995323)

The summary says it is an issue in the first 15-60 minutes after startup. Servers are generally up for longer periods of time

If by "uptime" you mean wall time between reboots, I don't see how it differs. A desktop PC is rebooted monthly to install updates, and it is put to sleep (suspend) after hours. A server is the same; it just doesn't sleep unless it's used only during business hours.

Re:CORRECTION (2)

djdanlib (732853) | about 8 months ago | (#45995843)

Partial downtime / reduced capacity still represents money though. In some cases, large amounts of money. There are a lot of realtime call processing systems that run 2003 because the vendor doesn't support, or charges a lot of money to upgrade to software supporting, Server 2008 or newer. The systems need to come online in a specific order instead of all at once (might be 4-10 or more) and if you have a vendor onsite doing maintenance, charging by the hour, who can't leave until it's verified operational, that 15-60 minutes per server gets really expensive.

Re:Windows Server 2003 supported until mid-2015 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995729)

Someone other than me uses 2003? I thought the first rule of 2003 club was don't bother talking about 2003 club because hipsters refuse to believe that 2003 exists.

Re:just in time (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 8 months ago | (#45996141)

Not for me, dam it... My lease finally ran out on my old XP work laptop and I got a new one with a corporate Windows 7 image last week.

However, I'm happy to finally be running a modern 64bit OS with 12GB of RAM. My only complaints are that there were no SSD options and that it took me about 4 hours to get patches, fixes, and drivers loaded to fix some issues with the corporate image.

Not much of a microsoft fan... (0)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#45994771)

...but that was pretty cool. Thanks.

Over a decade (5, Insightful)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | about 8 months ago | (#45994805)

Windows XP has been out for 12 years and they just started to look into the problem last month?

Re:Over a decade (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 8 months ago | (#45994855)

i never had a problem with it for 8 years i used it.

Re:Over a decade (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995069)

Many people running an "unauthorized" copy of XP turned off the automatic updates (in order to avoid getting Genuine Advantage installed as a "security update"). No update requests, and no slowdowns.

Re:Over a decade (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995235)

Well, the slowdowns came from the worms you inevitably got.

Re:Over a decade (1, Insightful)

mrbcs (737902) | about 8 months ago | (#45996097)

Troll. I have been running xp machines WITHOUT ANY UPDATES for years and have not had any issues. First thing I do, shut off the updates and the damn firewall from hell.

Yes I have anti-virus and NO, I've never had a problem.

Router/ Firewall and a hosts file and don't be a moron and the thing will work forever.

I have tons of software and games that my little kids are gonna get a chance to use because I can keep these machines running.

I will probably be running XP machines for another 12 years or longer.

Microsoft support means nothing to me.

Re:Over a decade (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 8 months ago | (#45995263)

Haha! And they say piracy is bad!

Re:Over a decade (1, Troll)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about 8 months ago | (#45994861)

It shows exactly how much disrepect that MS has for its customers. they could not care any less about the "User Experience". Anybody requiring further evidence need only look at the feedback on Windows "Peice of Shit" 8.

Re:Over a decade (3, Interesting)

MetalOne (564360) | about 8 months ago | (#45994919)

Not only that, it really sounds like a couple people just did it on their vacation time because it personally annoyed them. Microsoft was not interested in actually putting it on a schedule to be fixed.

Re:Over a decade (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995057)

Not only that, it really sounds like a couple people just did it on their vacation time because it personally annoyed them. Microsoft was not interested in actually putting it on a schedule to be fixed.

It's funny how that sounds precisely like the bug tracker of any Linux distro.

Re:Over a decade (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995215)

You were wise to post that as AC but it is spot on. Unfortunately I don't waste mod points for AC's. I'll just camp here awhile and see who you've pissed off the most and mod them down instead.

Re:Over a decade (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995915)

> Unfortunately I don't waste mod points for AC's

Dear Asshole,

Mod points are supposed to be used to increase or decrease the visibility of a post for the readership. They are NOT intended to be used as a reward or punishment for an individual.

HTH.

Re:Over a decade (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995975)

Dear Idealistic Idiot,

Slashdot is a social club just like everything else humans do.

Re:Over a decade (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#45995217)

It's funny how that sounds precisely like the bug tracker of any Linux distro.

I didn't pay $100 for Linux.

Re:Over a decade (4, Insightful)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 8 months ago | (#45995297)

I didn't pay $100 for Linux.

Even then the bugs in Linux still get fixed faster.

But yeah, when volunteers are giving their own time to build me a killer operating system, I'm not going to harass them about a schedule. I give them thanks and positive vibes and sometimes donations. I think we all expect more from paid developers... but we don't always get it.

Re:Over a decade (5, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45995665)

The problem is that you don't get a killer operating system but a garbage operating system. I actually want to pay the $100 to Microsoft to not have to constantly worry about shit breaking.

Linux is good for many purposes, but the desktop environments are essentially alpha quality software. Just the other day I tried adjusting the time of the Magic Lamp effect in its properties dialog under KDE. Whooptidoo, using anything than the default value gives me two magic lamp effects. And how about looking at the latest Xubuntu release, it shipped with broken sound indicator [webupd8.org] and broken power management [launchpad.net] . These are just completely silly and unnecessary regressions. If we start to talk about the Unity desktop (which represents a de facto Linux experience to many), it's just a huge bugfest which I don't even want to begin to talk about. It is also extremely slow.

The declining quality of the Linux desktop should be taken very seriously. These are similar experiences to why I hated Windows back in the day when it still sucked. I want to use the most stable and fast software available.

Re:Over a decade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995731)

Instead of modding down whoever got pissed off by the AC the most as I originally planned, I gave you my last mod point because you actually spoke the truth about the matter, your karma be damned. I normally don't like what you have to say, but today we agree.

Re:Over a decade (2, Insightful)

Winamp (3439895) | about 8 months ago | (#45995997)

The fact that people have to worry about their karma and being modded down for speaking the truth about the state of the Linux desktop and things that fans really don't want to hear (but must), speaks volumes about why old problems still exist with Linux and polish isn't a priority.

Re:Over a decade (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#45996135)

The fact that people have to worry about their karma and being modded down for speaking the truth about the state of the Linux desktop and things that fans really don't want to hear (but must), speaks volumes about why old problems still exist with Linux and polish isn't a priority.

Yep reading how the guy whined about X sucking got -1 and those bashing Wayland got +5 insightful 2 weeks ago brought it home! Many slashdottters are conservative and do not like change in their Linux environments and some using XP are die hards and anti technology which I never dreamed slashdot would ever become!

Apparently Xeyes over the network was more important than creating a non sucky GUI that can compete agaisnt Android, MacOSX, and Windows. Things the way they are are features and they do not get why no one would want to think like them.

Re:Over a decade (3, Insightful)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 8 months ago | (#45996101)

Just the other day I tried adjusting the time of the Magic Lamp effect in its properties dialog under KDE.

How many desktop effects does Windows have for you to play with and customize?

  If we start to talk about the Unity desktop (which represents a de facto Linux experience to many),

Everyone knows Unity is crap. So is Windows 8. And mostly for the same reasons -- hubris, and a few clowns thinking they're going to change the fundamental paradigm behind the way millions of people use their computers.

Well, except for the people who like Unity... some folks like choices. How many choices do you get with Windows?

What you need to understand is that Linux is not a monolithic thing. Linux as a whole is not tainted because one release of one distro sucks -- because Linux is not a whole anything.

The declining quality of the Linux desktop should be taken very seriously.

That's a rather subjective and vague statement.

As someone who has used Linux desktops almost exclusively for over 12 years now, I have to say I'm quite pleased with the improvements over that time. Well, except for Gnome 3.

Anyway, if Windows floats your boat, great. I hope MS makes Windows for a long time, and that most folks continue to use it, so us Linux geeks can continue to feel smug about it. :)

Re: Over a decade (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45996121)

The magic lamp effect is not enabled by default in KDE. By default it uses a scale/fade minimize effect, which does not suffer from the bug you are describing. In fact I am unable to reproduce your bug using the magic lamp effect either. Which version of KDE are you having this issue with?

I agree that the settings for the magic lamp effect should work consistently under all circumstances, but complaining about an obscure setting in a non-default visual effect is hardly evidence of alpha quality software.

Re:Over a decade (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#45996103)

Really. Kernel 2.2 is still being patched and so is Redhat 7.2?

This is the age of XP by the way.

Re:Over a decade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995979)

You paid much much more, just not in USD

Re: Over a decade (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45996195)

Yeah, I paid for it in negative time. Time I got back not futzing around with a different update mechanism for every app, all of which want to run simultaneously on reboot. Time not spent being bombarded with scareware ads from the various 'protection' rackets 'required' to run Windows smoothly. Time not spent tracking down and installing drivers for various bits of random hardware, because it just works out of the box. Time not spent rebooting for every update or every file that needed replacing while it was in use. Time not spent figuring out which 'analytic and debug log' needed to be activated to find out how to fix a problem. Time not spent waiting for Event Viewer to load slower than a flight sim. Time not

Re:Over a decade (4, Insightful)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 8 months ago | (#45995251)

The difference here is that the linux distros are free and MS charges big bucks for their OS's. When you pay for a product you expect it to work properly- well, maybe YOU don't, but I do.

Re:Over a decade (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#45995637)

Expect all you like - you still agreed to a license that stated that the software is not warranted as fit for any purpose, including the purpose for which it was sold. I'd dearly love to know how exactly software companies are allowed to include that as a standard disclaimer, seems like it should run afoul of some pretty serious consumer protection laws.

Re:Over a decade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995185)

I don't know about that. I worked for a vendor that would occasionally stumble on issues with core services or .dlls from time to time and MS was really surprisingly good about providing fixes that were ultimately part of the general distribution roll-ups like patch tuesday or what have you.

Just in time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994871)

...for the finish line.

Exponential algorithm (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995071)

I seem to remember reading that the time used by the previous update conflict resolution algorithm scales exponentially [slashdot.org] with the number of updates issued for a particular platform. Until recently, the number of updates wasn't big enough to cause a problem, but after 12 years of updates, this has changed.

Re:Over a decade (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995085)

Their original plan was to do the oposite, let xp get even slower (yeah, they made it possible). But at some point an unknown member of marketing skipped a dose of the mandatory drug injections and came down long enough to realize that people might not upgrade to windows8 as ordered if ms is incapable of fixing a 12 year old bug...

Re:Over a decade (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 8 months ago | (#45995161)

Windows XP has been out for 12 years and they just started to look into the problem last month?

Or you can look at it in another way: "They fixed a bug on a 12 year old OS?! Awesome!"

Re:Over a decade (1)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | about 8 months ago | (#45995643)

Windows XP has been out for 12 years and they just started to look into the problem last month? Or you can look at it in another way: "They fixed a bug on a 12 year old OS?! Awesome!"

Sure wish I had some mod points left as that post was befitting of one of mine

Re:Over a decade (2)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 8 months ago | (#45995821)

What amazes me is that it explains so much. I have no idea how many XP users have asked me to work on their computer 'because it has gotten so slow' and after full virus and malware cleanings, the system was noticeably slower than it should be for the hardware. This problem actually seems to explain it. Usually, all that cleaning involved a restart, and if this bug was causing slowdowns for more than an hour (I've read comments on the earlier /. posts about his testifying to multi day resource hogging after restarts) Then I would generally never be on their machine long enough for it to clear out. Couple that with the fact that a lot of people (especially older ones) completely shut down their computer when not using it, and its possible that the update checks would never finish on a particular machine. My old advice turned out to be solid. "leave it on for a few days, and see if it gets better"

Re:Over a decade (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45996125)

Wow you "fix" computers and didn't know about turning off Windows Update on Windows XP to resolve this problem? That's been a common fix for a really long time now.

Re:Over a decade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995861)

I remember this BS.
I was always killing svchost processes to try and fix this shit.

Re:Over a decade (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#45996095)

No this is really annoying for VM users.

It is not bloat but a bug. Your CPU goes 100% and the fans spin like mad and there is no way out of it. It started from SVChost.exe trying to do a Windows update and quiting after an overlfow of +1000 patches.

Many were gleaming hoping this would force the holdouts finally to get with the times.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994825)

Now I can turn windows updates back on on about 10 XP computers at work. Even though we're replacing the last 40 or so XP computers over the next month. Just in time Microsoft, thanks!

Great to know that they fixed it! Finally. (3, Funny)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about 8 months ago | (#45994837)

What next: Are they going to tackle the memory leaks in the Commodore 64 Operating System?

The Commodore 64 has memory leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994949)

How do you do a memory leak in C-64 BASIC?

No fair faking it by POKING machine code directly into memory!

Memo to Slashdot: If you want to attract more female contributors, don't use "codpiece" as a captcha.

Re:The Commodore 64 has memory leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995019)

Memo to Slashdot: If you want to attract more female contributors, don't use "codpiece" as a captcha.

Oh please. You know the ladies love a man who wears a huge codpiece.

Re:The Commodore 64 has memory leaks? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#45995033)

Ha! I'm not wearing a codpiece. Fooled you!

CoD piece (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995031)

If you want to attract more female contributors, don't use "codpiece" as a captcha.

Probably assumed that a "piece" was a firearm, and a "codpiece" was a firearm in Call of Duty video games.

ObXP: Do Call of Duty games even run on Windows XP anymore?

Re:CoD piece (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 8 months ago | (#45995659)

A codpiece is obviously a fillet of fish.

Re:CoD piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995785)

I'm not sure if the new CoD's play on XP, but the #1 CoD of all time -the original CoD 1- still works flawlessly! The only exception to this being the bestest evar is CoD 1 + United Offensive xpac, so really it's still CoD1. There's no denying this since they included it with CoD:MW2 purchases renamed Call of Duty Classic. It's definitely better than New CoD.

Re:Great to know that they fixed it! Finally. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995403)

My C64 never crashed .. maybe a better joke would have been to mention Windows 98, 95, ME, CE, 3.1 or every single version of MS DOS ever released.

XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994867)

JIT!

Let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 8 months ago | (#45994875)

The performance issue was a constant check for updates.. for another program notorious for performance issues....

This is why I really wish that Microsoft was *truly* forced to allow IE to be ripped out of their operating system completely.

At this point, just give it up guys. You had over 10 years trying to make a browser. Let it go....

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995689)

Well said man! IE is a waste of time. WHO USES IT anyway?
Looks like an intentional slowing down forcing XP users over to 7

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 8 months ago | (#45995793)

I use IE all the time to download Chrome on new systems....

Though, lately I've been doing more and more front end work. It's where I'm finding money. That unfortunately requires me to use IE most of the day to make sure what I'm working is rendering across browsers correctly.

Otherwise I use Chrome. Opera is just not my cup of tea, Firefox sucks balls now (seriously. they couldn't have fucked up more if they tried), Safari isn't all that good, and that leaves IE or Chrome. Gee... I wonder....

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995961)

Firefox sucks balls now (seriously. they couldn't have fucked up more if they tried)

Challenge accepted!

Re:Let me get this straight... (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#45996163)

Have you run the modern browsers on a recent OS?

Firefox is usable again and uses the least amount of ram. IE starting with 9 started acting compliant and normal. I couldn't believe it in 2011. IE 11 has an issue at work because it is so standards compliant that it no longer supports legacy jscript code that launches IE specific flash. It runs like it should. This of course angers the MBAs and the luddities and slashdotters still think it must be the same as IE 6 and wont touch it!

IE is actually good and if banks stopped feeding it broken IE code from last decade it would work. Firefox still is missing some things but I really like that it has true adblock. Google is so limited that adblock plus only stops it from appearing on the screen. The ads still run and track you and install malware. You just do not see it etc.

FYI adblock plus now works with IE as well!

Times are changing and I feel it is safe to say MS wont ever do an IE 6 again and can't. I do feel Chrome could become that role in the next couple of years if businesses give up after Windows 7 and go all tablet in 5 years. With Citrix that is a possibility if Windows 9 blows.

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995867)

Just disable the check for updates in the browser preference: IE Tools | Internet Options | Advanced and uncheckmark it..

Duh..n

call me cynical... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45994903)

but this is proof that IE is inextricable from XP, and my cynical self says that if microsoft had fixed it, they would've lost a good portion of their defense against the EU.

Surprising (1)

product_bucket (3503967) | about 8 months ago | (#45994945)

Whilst I'm pleased to see this fix I'm surprised they didn't just leave it. What business sense is there in fixing soon-to-be-obsolete products, especially when takeup of the new ones is lower than expected?

Re:Surprising (2)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45995041)

What business sense is there in fixing soon-to-be-obsolete products

Because other products using the same update mechanism aren't quite as soon-to-be-obsolete [slashdot.org] .

Hell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995005)

It's ABOUT time.

Now they need to fix it for Vista too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995007)

Yes, XP is not the only Windows OS with this problem...

Re:Now they need to fix it for Vista too! (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#45995655)

Yeah, but anybody using Vista has much larger problems.

I really thought they would never actually fix thi (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995067)

I repair old computers to be resold and the amount of time it would take to get the first updates was the single longest time waster of re-installing a fresh copy of XP on an old machine. The last 2 days it only took about 5 minutes for XP to figure out what updates were exactly needed instead of what had become the normal several hours.

Re:I really thought they would never actually fix (5, Informative)

HybridST (894157) | about 8 months ago | (#45995847)

Sounds like you should have rolled the updates into an updated xp iso. Search the MS kb for more info.

EOL installation media (5, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45995107)

What I'd really like Microsoft to do for XP (and other versions of Windows) is when the product reaches end of life, create a new installation medium which includes all the updates. If anyone wants to do legacy installations of the OS in future for special purposes, that could be quite handy.

Re:EOL installation media (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995317)

What I'd really like Microsoft to do for XP (and other versions of Windows) is when the product reaches end of life, create a new installation medium which includes all the updates. If anyone wants to do legacy installations of the OS in future for special purposes, that could be quite handy.

This.

I'd be happy to pay Microsoft for a blessed EOL XP SP4 and/or Win7 SP2.

Re:EOL installation media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995437)

Okay but you're still going to have crack it to get around the activation. MS has promised that they won't release a patch to disable activation and those servers are going dark too.

Probably the best thing if you insist on hanging on to XP is to do one last blessed install before the April cutoff and image the drive. After that, it's all up to the demons of hardware failure.

Re:EOL installation media (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995561)

Re:EOL installation media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995601)

You need the volume license media or a BIOS locked setup like a Dell.

Re:EOL installation media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995721)

Once MS stops offering updates you won't need XP activation which can be disabled by several cracks. You won't be able to install updates but if their aren't any it won't matter.

I have been thinking of putting together an XP Ultimate CD which would have all XP versions with all updates. Part of the problem is some updates have to be installed before applying a SP release.

Re:EOL installation media (3, Informative)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 8 months ago | (#45995919)

Or someone will release an unofficial service pack like it was done for 9x

http://www.htasoft.com/u98sesp/ [htasoft.com] (that one I didn't know about)
http://www.freewarefiles.com/Unofficial-Windows-SE-Service-Pack-a_program_16791.html [freewarefiles.com] (that's what I use on my old 486 vintage box)

Re:EOL installation media (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995989)

Go to http://www.wsusoffline.net/ and download the WSUS Offline Updater. It will create update sets for XP, Vista, Win7, Win8 and their Server variants, as well as Office. You tell it what you want and it downloads the relevant updates and builds the folders and apps to install it automatically. I used it a few months ago to build a USB drive with the updates on it so I could apply it against an XP virtual machine. Everything for XP fit well on to a 2-gb thumb drive. You can basically install XP, plug in a thumb drive and the app will take care of installing the necessary updates and reboot as necessary during the process.

I don't believe this app get all possible updates - I think it gets the important and critical ones. The idea behind it was to have something that you could use offline to get a new XP box patched sufficiently so that it wouldn't get instantly hacked while it was trying to download the updates from the Internet.

I'm planning to run download everything at XP EOL - don't know if I'll ever need it, but it beats hunting for this stuff.

Re:EOL installation media (2)

Trogre (513942) | about 8 months ago | (#45996041)

I think nLite [nliteos.com] will do what you're after.

Re:EOL installation media (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 8 months ago | (#45996175)

What I'd really like Microsoft to do for XP (...) is when the product reaches end of life, create a new installation medium which includes all the updates

Isn't that obvious? It shouldn't be a wish, it is a requirement (Even Ubuntu does that).

Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (2, Insightful)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 8 months ago | (#45995225)

in the past the astroturfers and other MS fans said I was full of crap because I said my computer took 10 minutes to boot to a useable state. Screw all of you. I stand by my past assertions that MS OS's are crap- they always have been and always will be.

When are they going to figure out what causes my Win 7 to take 10 minutes to boot to a useable state? Maybe in 2025...

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 8 months ago | (#45995355)

I hate to be the one to tell you this, because I am about the farthest thing from a Windows fan... but the problem is probably you and the amount of stuff you have starting up on your machine at boot time. Use "msconfig" to turn some shit off. I've gotten lots of Win 7 machines to a minute or less startup, down from 5+ minutes, and the problem is always the same: bloat.

Then again, the obvious question that occurs to me is: if your user experience is so bad, why haven't you switched to something else?

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (0)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 8 months ago | (#45995551)

That's EXACTLY the same sort of crap people have said before. I use Linux on my laptop. I have a win 7 machine because a few critical pieces of software, such as the CAD programs I use frequently, and a media server, have no equivalents (that I have been able to find) available in Linux. No it isn't crapware, it's stuff I use daily, and over time the boot process has slowed even without adding run-time programs. I run virus and malware scans frequently using a bootable linux rescue disc to ensure the machine is clean. I don't download pirated software, use bittorrent, click on weird links, or do anything else that would load weird and undesirable stuff on my machine.

Like XP and Win 95 before it, Win 7 is suffering from an ever increasing rate of "security" "updates" many of which require rebooting the machine.

The problem is MS and Windows. It's all crap!

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 8 months ago | (#45995927)

Is there anything stopping you from disabling Windows updates?

I disabled all Windows updates on my MS machines in 2012. But I do run a good antivirus program on all of them and the antivirus updates itself.

Never had a virus or malware problem since then. Not visiting warez sites and not clicking on email attachments helps a lot too.

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#45996025)

There's also broken update stuff on some Win7 boxes that causes long start times, inability to get new updates, desktop icons not able to be found - and that's just one of the problem boxes. The answer is a reinstall treadmill for boxes that have hardware where new drivers break the updates - and a hope that this time you can skip over the problem and get something that can be kept up to date.

I'm beginning to think that that disgrunted bottom 10% that MS throw off each project has ended up working with updates.

if your user experience is so bad, why haven't you switched to something else

The important thing is always the applications and not the OS under it. You can put up with a lot of shit if that's the only way the app will run - hence the XP machines still in use and even Win98 lurking in some places. I helped a guy do a Win98 install on a VM the other day to get his radio software to work. The OS may be shit and getting the serial port going to a real serial port may be tricky but if that's what is needed to do the job you put up with it.

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995795)

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you or doubts you must be an "astroturfer". Do you see black helicopters and Illuminati symbols everywhere too?

Re:Police Pursuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995939)

It was on the NEWS...

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995809)

You do realize that you are describing a completely different story than what is detailed here?

Re:Everytime I posted about this sort of problem (1)

jddj (1085169) | about 8 months ago | (#45996105)

Agree: my office XP laptop (with an i5) took 12 minutes to boot to where I could even crowbar Outlook open.

OTOH, my SSD-upgraded 2008 Mac Book Pro on Snow Leopard goes from cold metal to ready to work in 20 seconds.

news flash (-1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 8 months ago | (#45995261)

Xp eol has been extended to 2015. This was a needed fix even if not for server 2003.

Re:news flash (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995747)

Xp eol has been extended to 2015. This was a needed fix even if not for server 2003.

No it hasn't, that is for MS XP security products. ie, MSE [Microsoft Security Essentials].

They fix it NOW??!?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995301)

XP is basically EOL and they just fix this now? Assholes.

Another sign? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 8 months ago | (#45995313)

Maybe they'll keep XP on life support until they get Win9 out.

Re:Another sign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45995401)

The company my wife works for just now started upgrading their desktops from XP. They figure they will be running w/o support for about a year before they get everyone converted to Win7. Besides the risk of infection everything they connect one to the network, I can't even imagine how many certification requirements they will be violating. They're not a financial institution but I'm sure Sarbanes-Oxley applies to just about everyone. They were hoping M$ was going to keep in on life support... DOAH!

Bloody hell? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#45995769)

The fix involved stopping the system from perpetually checking Internet Explorer updates.

Really guys? People get crappy performance for years, and it's due to trying to update IE?

That's pretty lame, even for Microsoft.

Why fix it now? (1, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about 8 months ago | (#45995917)

I'll bet it persists in Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 or it's prodigy would exhibit the problem. I just looked over the patch Tuesday fixes from this week and there's no mention of anything for SVCHOST however there is a nice memory leak that's been around for a long time in oleaut32.dll. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2870467 [microsoft.com]

I guess they don't take advantage of static or runtime analysis tools at MSFT.

Windows 9 (1)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 8 months ago | (#45996177)

OK, so now just incorporate this fix into a shrink-wrap version and launch it under the name of "Windows 9". I'm pretty sure it would outsell Windows 8 comfortably.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?