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!

XP Service Pack Slows Programs

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the strange-definition-of-fix dept.

Windows 464

AEton writes "Vnunet and others are reporting that Windows XP's Service Pack 1 has introduced a flaw into the operating system. Changes to memory handling code result in programs which often allocate memory (which is many of them) can take up to ten times longer than normal to start. Microsoft has acknowledged the problem in Q815411, and while a patch is available by request from Microsoft Product Services, it will not be widely released until Service Pack 2."

cancel ×

464 comments

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

In the meantime (5, Funny)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620721)

...In the meantime, Microsoft suggests you refrain from running programs which use memory. Thank you for your patience.

Re:In the meantime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620727)

Have you considered stand up as a part-time, or perhaps, full-time career? You had my sides splitting!

timing is everything (-1, Offtopic)

Stalcair (116043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620738)

or that is what they say, however I am laughing my butt off from what you wrote! Thanks for the laughs but if I see you I will punch you in the face for making me spit up my drink! Hahaha, keep it coming

Re:In the meantime (2, Funny)

dserpell (22147) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620739)

Go developers! Boycot M$... Just made your programs allocate large ammounts of memory!

On a second tought, perhaps that's what M$ programs are already doing...

Re:In the meantime (0)

fractalrock (662410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620880)

holy sh** dude! You made my night....

Re:In the meantime (1)

jbondjr (107736) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620885)

This would include the XP OS, no?

So, does this mean (proverbally) (1)

rdewald (229443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620734)

the dancing monkeyfish is back in the barrel? I use my XP box for off-line multimedia only, I SP1'd, I did. All the guys were doing it. I didn't know I had a problem, it seems just as slow now as it was before.

bastards (-1, Troll)

dynoman7 (188589) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620735)

I've got nothing

HAHA (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620743)

It looks like the pirates who weren't allowed to upgrade to SP1 have gotten the last laugh. Piracy does pay! Thanks MS, for pointing this out.

Re:HAHA (5, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620820)

Pirates everywhere are outraged that the hard work they put into downloading, spreading, and cracking Windows XP in order to install SP1 has resulted in another bizarre Microsoft bug.

"I sat and ran my key generator for up to 20 minutes before I was able to get a valid key! Then I had to reactive Windows and change the key to install SP1," said one anonymous source. "But if errors like this are the results of all the effort I put into providing slipstreamed SP1 installs on eMule and USENET, Microsoft has definitely lost another customer."

Efforts are underway to convert pirated Windows installations to free alternatives in order to reduce costs and save time. "I don't have to download BlueKey to upgrade a few RPMS. Once XP's SP2 beta leaks onto the net, you can bet I won't be so forgiving next time when I crack it."

Re:HAHA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620881)

I sat and ran my key generator for up to 20 minutes before I was able to get a valid key

Actually it only takes about 3 minutes to generate a valid key.

Typical Slashdot FUD (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620745)

This is really just more anti-Microsoft Slashdot FUD. After all, this only affects programs that allocate memory.

Programmers can easily work around this bug by returning right after printf("Hello World") finishes.

Re:Typical Slashdot FUD (4, Funny)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620839)

printf allocates money. Use fprintf directed to stderr, which doesn't buffer output. :-)

Re:Typical Slashdot FUD (5, Funny)

cscx (541332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620913)

On Windows I think stderr and stdout are one and the same.

"Service" Pack (5, Funny)

TheBigOh(n) (618100) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620746)

Now I know why they call them service packs rather than upgrades. Apparently Microsoft doesn't even trust themselves.

never installed sp1! (1)

capnjack41 (560306) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620747)

Whoo! Good thing I never installed SP1.

(actually, it's because I'm using XP with that pirated serial number that SP1 kindly "de-activates" for you)

Re:never installed sp1! (3, Funny)

Unregistered (584479) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620760)

you use XP. Serves you right for piracy.

Re:never installed sp1! (-1, Troll)

SexyTr0llGal (650651) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620766)

My, wasn't THAT a crappy post!

Yes.

Re:never installed sp1! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620783)

thanks so much for your extraordinarily helpful post

you filthy shitbag

Re:never installed sp1! (1, Funny)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620770)

(actually, it's because I'm using XP with that pirated serial number that SP1 kindly "de-activates" for you)

Now honestly... do you not think that admitting to piracy (even on Slashdot) is not a rather stupid thing to do?

No wait... actually what I meant to say was, don't you think admitting to using Windows on Slashdot is a stupid thing to do? :P

Re:never installed sp1! (0, Offtopic)

capnjack41 (560306) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620796)

Well, I suppose it is stupid on many levels. Keep in mind that I am using Windows.

But, I didn't pay for it. Ah, gotcha there!

Re:never installed sp1! (0)

Istealmymusic (573079) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620823)

Here, use this key:
47YK2-D8R6C-BPQBY-F4R3R-TVBTH
You're welcome.

Re:never installed sp1! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620846)

That one was refused by winxp for me, try this one:
TBHXM-H6W74-4D8GM-B6XX4-M29T8

here's a key and a link to update your box to sp1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620953)

http://student.ehsal.be/aloisiana/telenut3/nl/Wind ows%20XP%20SP1%20Tutorial.htm

The fix will cost you (5, Informative)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620748)

You have to pay for Microsoft Product Support Services. From Knowledge Base Article 815411: "In special cases, charges that are ordinarily incurred for support calls may be canceled if a Microsoft Support Professional determines that a specific update will resolve your problem." May be canceled. Or maybe not. So it's entirely up to Microsoft whether or not to charge you for the fix to a problem they admit having! Of all the nerve.

Avoid Service Pack 1, or better yet, avoid Windows.

Re:The fix will cost you (0, Troll)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620809)

You have to pay for Microsoft Product Support Services. From Knowledge Base Article 815411: "In special cases, charges that are ordinarily incurred for support calls may be canceled if a Microsoft Support Professional determines that a specific update will resolve your problem." May be canceled. Or maybe not. So it's entirely up to Microsoft whether or not to charge you for the fix to a problem they admit having! Of all the nerve.
Avoid Service Pack 1, or better yet, avoid Windows.


Lame FUD attempt. The fix doesn't cost you anything. Phoning technical support may cost you money under some circumstances, but downloading hotfixes has always been and still is free.

But nice try though.

Simon

RTFriendlyKBA (2, Informative)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620883)

This particular fix requires calling Technical support to get. It's even in the Slashdot article!

Re:The fix will cost you (2, Insightful)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620889)

Did you read the KB article? "To resolve this problem immediately, contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix." Not, "go to Windows Update to obtain the fix." I'm sure you can download the fix for free, but finding out how requires a call to Support Services, which will cost you if you don't already have a support contract (in which case it already cost you). From the tone of the KB article it's clear they don't want just anyone downloading this fix -- I'm guessing it's not fully tested -- and they probably want the Support droids to try and talk you out of it.

Re:The fix will cost you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620929)

but downloading hotfixes has always been and still is free.

Free? What, as in money? (How did you purchase Windows exactly?) Or is that free, as in non-restrictive licencing allowing you to modify it and share it and do what *you* want to do with it rather than some corporation controlling the shots now? (What version are you using exactly, as yours is free and allows you to do this...?)

You are either naive that Microsoft is "giving" these fixes away for free, or just trollin' around.

Re:The fix will cost you (0)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620849)

Too bad we don't have "misinformed" as a moderation flag.

Seriously, this is simply not true, mod it down.

Re:The fix will cost you (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620857)

"So it's entirely up to Microsoft whether or not to charge you for the fix to a problem they admit having! Of all the nerve."

Welcome to Microsoft's new "Captive Audience" pricing plan.

Remember kids, this is why monopolies that abuse their powers are bad.

The difference between humans and shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620749)

Windows is for capitalist baby eating scum fucks. That would sell themselves for money.

Linux is for communists that have dignity, pride, and love of life that cannot be equalled.

I hope all capitalists die soon, and I would like to help it happen. I'm awaiting the word from Michael. The only mainstream communist who doesnt bend to american shitheads.

hmmm (1)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620750)

I'm amazed they don't say it's not fixable and to wait and upgrade to Windows XP2 (or whatever the hell they call it when it comes out)...

Of course the other option is for 3rd party tools to come out that fix the bug in windows with an active patch (ie, patch the memory while it's running) and charge 49.95 for it... those memory doublers and optimizers from the windows 3.1 days come to mind....

w2k is effected as well (5, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620751)

Both Openoffice and Mozilla have slowed down quite alot with the latest security updates from Microsoft.

When I open openoffice is just sits there doing nothing for like 20 seconds and then launched. No excess cpu overhead or anything. It just stalls and then runs. Its just annoying and I wonder if its a conspiracy theory.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Re:w2k is effected as well (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620759)

It definitely is a conspiracy theory.

Re:w2k is effected as well (0)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620828)

I noticed a major slowdown in Mozilla after the last security patch as well. That's speeded up my migration of my workstation at the office to Gentoo Linux, and away from Windows.

Re:w2k is effected as well (5, Funny)

archen (447353) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620829)

Is it possible to tell if Mozilla runs slower? That's like determining the exact second the paint started to peel ;)

Re:w2k is effected as well (5, Informative)

randyest (589159) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620882)

Yes, I have, a lot! I even have some very informal and unscientific benchmark results (counting 1-mississippi, 2-mississippi, . . after the double click until load) because not long before SP1 came along I was testing my system to see if changing my BIOS RAM timing made any diff on prg load times. It didn't, but I scratched the MS times (that's the state abbrev for mississippi, BTW, which I am quite tired of typing already) on some paper that, as they so often do, stayed on my desk past it's useful life.

After installing SP1 I immediately noticed longer load times. The load times are all, consistently, still the same, and noticeably longer than XP (pro, BTW) before SP1, which I used for almost a year (more?). I really started to take for granted sub-1s ie load times. Sigh. Anyway, here are the data:

ie: 1 MS max, every time. with SP1: 3-4 MS, depending on what else is up

adobe premiere 6.5: 7-9 MS, with SP1: 18-25 MS

excel xp with a 16MB spreadsheet (loaded from a shortcut to the sheet file): 20-25 MS. with SP1: 60-90 MS.

DVArchive (replay tv simulator, all in JAVA 1.4.1, a very slow-loading monkey): 30-35 MS. with SP1: 90-100 or tired of counting MS.

This sucks. Especially now that I know why, for the following reason. Before, I simply attributed the slow down to the mysterious hardware and software gremlins (and I'm an ASIC designer -- we know better than most just how real these critters really are -- ask me about typical chip testing coverage (90-98%), or to compare the MS bugs we cry about to the insane, random bugs in million-dollar EDA software from Cadence and Synopsys), but now I know that an upgrade that ostensibly should have improved system performance has instead worsened it, I'm bummed. Worse, there were some hassles with my (legit) corp key for XP with SP1, causing me quite a bit of hassle getting the thing installed to begin with.

OK, maybe SP1 made it more secure, or less crash-prone (wasn't bad before though, and doesn't seem better now), or something. Yes, I'll tell myself that -- something improved. I'm just not sure exactly what it is.

Re:w2k is effected as well (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620915)

You know it's serious when it causes w2k

quality (5, Funny)

tabby (592506) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620754)

More good work from MS's 'does it compile?' quality assurance program

Re:quality (4, Insightful)

miratrix (601203) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620782)

I genuinely am surprised that something like this could've slipped through the cracks.

Service Packs are suppose to be stable, extensively tested set of updates unlike hotfixes, and the bug description makes it sound like it could be a programming logic error, not a programming bug. I mean, they must've noticed *something* if certain programs take up to 10 times as long...

Correction (0, Flamebait)

BionicTowed (642695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620758)

The flaw originally came from installing XP on your machine. The SP was just icing.

Re:Correction - !( flameb8), but fakt (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620891)

I agree, XP is a bad bad bad OS. 2000 is bearable. XP isn't. Make a P4 2.0gig run like a P200MMX.

Does anyone have the patch? (1)

benevold (589793) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620765)

Is there anyone who has contacted Microsoft and actually gotten the patch that would be willing to make it available? I think I'm having this problem with oracle and php but would like to try the patch and have had too many bad experiences with microsoft tech support.

Re:Does anyone have the patch? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620900)

I *WORK* for Microsoft tech support, and can't even get the patch . . . It's not on any of our servers. But then, I'm just a lowly outsource. So, to get the patch I have to play phone tag with a tech router that will end up bouncing me to some MS internal dev team which only does call backs, and even then they will call back "sometime within 48 hours". No, what I will be doing instead is calling in as a CUSTOMER and make some other tech slave play phone tag. I love doing M$ tech support . . . honest!

So that's why Mozilla's been slow... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620767)

Once it's using 250+ megs of memory after a week of continuous use, it becomes a real beast. Apparently, I'm not supposed to use Mozilla for a week at a time without closing it though...

Re:So that's why Mozilla's been slow... (1)

I Am The Owl (531076) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620871)

That's called a "memory leak". It comes from the Mozilla team not freeing allocated memory when they are supposed to.

Re:So that's why Mozilla's been slow... (1)

Unregistered (584479) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620935)

I've gotten it up to 680 MB before it crashed. (I have 768mb RAM)

"a" flaw? (5, Funny)

RawDigits (456594) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620768)

Windows XP's Service Pack 1 has introduced a flaw into the operating system.

Drat, just when we all thought windows had achieved perfection. Back to the Visio board...

Bloated (5, Funny)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620772)

Each component in Windows is so intertwined together that when one thing needs to be fixed, the a few other pieces breaks, which must be fixed, therefore more pieces break and it will get to a point when all pieces break and it is better off to run NT4, as Microsoft stopped breaking it.

Re:Bloated (1)

goonda (158626) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620854)

I don't think they've quite finished with breaking it: http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5WP0O1P9F A.html [securiteam.com] With something like 30-40% of m$ customers still running WinNT, is this responsible corporate citizenship?

Simular Problems (1)

Xerin (650404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620775)

I've had simular problems since I installed SP1, but only with installshield applications. It takes about 5-10 minutes for installshield to start, it just hangs in limbo. Kind of answers alot of questions of why Mozila(spelling) wasn't usable at times.

Here's a thought... (0, Flamebait)

hacker (14635) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620776)

Has anyone considered that this was intentional, and that they have some (ahem) "fixes" that they'd like you to install, which will be shipped in SP2? How about, oh, more DRM? Back doors? Spyware hooks?

I for one, don't trust Microsoft's tactics these days. This comes days after the announcement that they aren't going to fix the bug in NT4.0.

This all smells like a ploy to try to get everyone to use XP, and then from there, to get SP2 installed. I can only wonder what goodies this brings, besides the "fix" that it purportedly addresses.

Yet even more reason to consider the more feature-rich, secure alternatives such as FreeBSD or Linux. Move now, your data may not be able to move later on if this keeps up.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620816)

This behavior is as desired: Microsoft have put it in XP to make Mozilla and OpenOffice.org less attractive than explorer/OfficeXP.

Sure, you and I know "why" Mozilla takes a couple of minutes to start up now. But Joe Sixpack just says "gosh darn that mozilla is slow and bloated".

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620852)

haha
he's a thought .. try running opera.
Its faster as well.

must be the closed source fairy ;)

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620858)

Here's another thought...Wait until you (or someone trustworthy) has actual evidence of something like that, before spouting off?

Linux is cool, I have a dual-boot set up myself, but- I cannot reliably run 99% of the Windows games and many other programs i've spent hundreds of dollars on under Linux. Hence, I and many others like me can't just switch over to an all-Linux box, just because the Man at Microsoft might be slipping nasty stuff in that there's no evidence of.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620874)

No, because the majority of users don't really care what's actually in the update, the user mentality is that all updates are good and one should snatch them up as often as possible. I highly doubt your average user even knows what DRM is.

Times are a-changin' (0, Flamebait)

haggar (72771) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620779)

I dunno.. first the NT vulnerability and the fact that it's too broken by design to be fixed, and now this.
From a company with such a brilliant track record in OS and patch quality, I am truly surprised.

Where you can find this patch... (5, Informative)

phreak404 (241139) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620780)

Here: http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=9815&categor y=main

I'm sure no one is interested but... (4, Informative)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620781)

Here's a link to the file:

http://home.t-online.de/home/520092137223-0001/x p/ Q815411_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU.exe

I've wondered about that... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620786)

Execution is pretty fast on my AMD XP2600+, it seems like it wades through bloated MS code pretty well, but even with the fast HDD and everything, program loading is inexplicably slow, and the drive hasn't had enough time to get seriously fragmented, so I was wondering. Probably should order a 160GB drive and get busy installing Manduck Linux 9...

Typical (1)

alofron (314332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620787)

MS' trend to introduce programming flaws into SP for it's OS range of products is well known and well documented. Remember the NT4 SP5 problems ?
It's not a bad idea. 'Flaws' like that force users to upgrade their systems into the next SP. And then the next SP. Until the next major release of the Window OS is introduced to the market.
Providing flaws into it's products Microsoft secures that their customers are always following it's lead, guidelines, marketing plans and so on.
Hardly surprisingly. Just succesful corporate policy.

Show me the mirror! (1)

TBone (5692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620789)

Anyone have this patch hosted somewhere?

Re:Show me the mirror! (2, Informative)

TBone (5692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620814)

And I answer my own question... :) http://www.warp2search.net/article.php?sid=11377

Have seen this (4, Informative)

IanBevan (213109) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620790)

We have seen this exact behaviour when benchmarking our heap management product. Although our software is targetted at multithreaded software and multiprocessor machines, we've been surprised to see it improve performance of non-multithreaded programs by so much on XP. We've seen it speed up single threaded applications on Windows 2000 too, but not by so much.

And please, before somebody gets started with a flame war, WinHeap is not open source (although there is a source code license available), but it is free for non-profit use.

Reminds Me of Python-Esque Humor (5, Funny)

mistermund (605799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620794)

This patch, along with the fact that MS won't be releasing a patch for that recent gaping hole in NT4, reminds me of a scene...

(Read along in a mock British-imitating-French accent, ala the castle scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail)

Microsoft Engineer: We've got a problem here, chaps!
MS Users (All, Amongst Selves): Well, how about a patch then?
Microsoft Engineer: Uh, we've already got one, you see.
MS User 1: Are you sure he's got one?
MS User 2: He says they've already got one!
Microsoft Engineer: Oh, yes. It's very nice-a.
MS Engineers: [chuckling]
MS Users: Well, u-- um, can we come up and have a look?
MS Engineer: Of course not! You are clueless types-a!
MS Users: If you will not show us the patch, we shall switch all our systems to Linux!
MS Engineer: You don't frighten us, clueless pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Linux King, you and all your silly open source k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!
MS User 1: What a strange person.
MS User 2: Now look here, my good man--
MS Engineer: I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
MS Users: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
MS Engineer: No. Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a! [sniff]

(With aplogies to Monty Python)
Script here [mwscomp.com] .

Memory Management??? (5, Funny)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620795)

What the hell did they have to go and touch that for? Was is broken?

Yeah, so the new Microsoft standard malloc() and takes 10 times as long to load as the old version. But with this increase in time, the customer can be sure that the memory allocations are being done more securly, and in a way that's good for them.

Also as a bonus, no more pesky free()'s. When that memory gets allocated, it STAYS allocated untill you (have to) reboot your system.

Damnit man... (0, Flamebait)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620797)

...so now my programs that take a tenth of a second to start will take a whole second?

My god I don't know if I can handle such a waste of my productivity!

THANKS MICROSOFT!

More /. FUD. (1, Interesting)

tshak (173364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620819)

My first experience with XP (no pun intended) was just a few weeks ago with my new laptop. Everything about it is faster than my workstation. True, my workstation has a slower CPU, but it also has a significantly faster harddrive, which is usually the bottleneck for loadtimes. XP boots way faster, loads programs noticeably faster, and has a more responsive GUI even considering the more resource intensive graphics. So, if in fact there is a bug in XP that slows the loading of some programs down, then that just means that SP2 will make things even faster.

Oh, and let's not talk about load times for X window managers. Even with XP's "bug" KDE nor Gnome stand a chance*.

* Disclaimer: this is based on my experience RH8. I'm currently downloading the Mandrake 9.1 ISO's (slowly... mirrors are hammered) so my observation is not taking into account potential performance improvements made recently.

Re:More /. FUD. (1)

Unregistered (584479) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620922)

RH and drake are slow. I'll give you that. Also linux doesn't depend on the HDD as much since it uses ram more efficiantly. Also, GNOME and KDE are huge. It's the eye candy. Windows still has a really simple interface, even luna. it's bubbly, but not complex. If you want fast, check out Enlightenment or fluxvbox. Also using a distro like gentoo will speed thing up a lot.

Re:More /. FUD. (1)

madcow_ucsb (222054) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620956)

Of course you've only had the XP on there for a few weeks - give it a few months before you suddenly realize that it's taking 3 min to boot and progs take twice as long to open. And no amount of defragging or registry clearing seems to fix it... :(

Linux may be slower initially, but at least it doesn't do that windows thing where your box gets slower by the day. I'll take consistancy, thank you very much.

wasn't xp by itself already bad enough. (1)

eenglish_ca (662371) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620821)

Why does MS keep releasing new software when each time it is worse than the last release. Maybe if they rereleased old updates then things might start to speed up.

Re:wasn't xp by itself already bad enough. (2, Funny)

Blaine Hilton (626259) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620948)

Probably job security. They have to have people that patch the patches to the those other patches that were ment to fix the O/S.

And another thing... why 32-bit color? (1)

Stardate (13547) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620822)

By default even?!?! This slows down things A LOT compared to 16-bit color. Even 24-bit color is only necessary for artists and graphics designers. When you bring up or close the Start Menu it takes valuable time to redraw everything underneath.

MS should be focusing on improving the desktop XPerience like Linux is with the work in 2.6 to improve interactivity.

Re:And another thing... why 32-bit color? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620838)

Most cards are 32bit colour native these days.

I knew it. (5, Funny)

Hershmire (41460) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620830)

SecureCRT [vandyke.com] takes forever to start up.

So I suppose SP1 is to XP as beer is to me: a tool to slow your reaction time. Too bad it doesn't make XP more attractive...

LOL (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620905)

Good one! :-)

win 2000 flaw (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620832)

my last uodate of win2k has introduced a flaw on my os that causes it to slow down when releasing the system for a shutdown.

before the update: about 10 secs.
after the update: over one minute.

I solved this issue in FuzQ0000001
use the powerswitch to shut down the computer.

That explains it (2, Informative)

jkirby (97838) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620840)

This explains why my Acrobat reader is crawling. I installed the fix and now all is back to normal.

Patch available for download (1)

Radi-0-head (261712) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620848)

You can get the English and German language patches from here [warp2search.net] , and probably several other sites if you search for it.

Enjoy.

If this is such a big deal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620856)

...why is it taking six months to learn the news. No one noticed their program startups taking TEN TIMES longer? I haven't noticed. How about providing a list of said programs and some benchmarks with these headlines? I'm not here to defend Microsoft, but I suspect the scope of the problem is limited and can wait till SP2 for most users.

I'm such a whore (2, Interesting)

alexburke (119254) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620863)

Why bother asking Microsoft for the patch? Here [iebeta.net] you go. :)

Well, I am not installing XP SP1 anyway... (0, Offtopic)

Karpe (1147) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620867)

Doing that would warn me how my serial number was not acquired legally. :)

way to install sp1 when your serial key isnt legit (1)

Indy1 (99447) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620911)



http://www.petri.co.il/change_xp_serial.htm

then do a google search for a program called "xp key recoverer and discoverer 5.12"

enjoy your product activation free xp

May I ask a stoopid question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620916)

All these people will illegal serials... Is it because they don't want to pay for the software?

Or is it that they actually bought the software, but don't want to go through the invasive activation process that sells your privacy?

Or that they plan to sell their oem software later on?

Re:May I ask a stoopid question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620923)

Good question. In my case, I have a nice, shiny copy, which is and shall remain unactivated, while using a generated serial to bypass the call to Redmond.

Re:Well, I am not installing XP SP1 anyway... (2, Interesting)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620946)

It's ok, it just refuses to install SP1, it doesn't invalidate your product key.

Dear Customers, (0, Offtopic)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620868)

Oops. Sincerely, Bill G.

Urban Legend or not??? (0, Offtopic)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620870)

And I was starting to believe that Bill Gates never said "640K is enough for anyone".

Downloads/Patches Right Here -- i386/Alpha (4, Informative)

mattyohe (517995) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620875)

Just because im a nice guy...

http://www.paricom.com/matt/xphotfix/ [paricom.com]

windows Slows Down My PC! (1)

MMHere (145618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620884)

Is that why I have to go get a shiny new 3GHz Pentium 4 -- so I can start Office 2003 by the time the afternoon is out?

Ahhh... (1)

ghack (454608) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620890)

No wonder my 1.53GHz Athlon has been so slow lately...

what so unusiual (2, Funny)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620892)


Historically speaking this makes it an upgrade ...

I haven't noticed any problems so far (1)

gearloose (611281) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620906)

I've been running SP1 since it was released and I haven't ran into any programs hanging for extended periods of time or taking up 10 times more memory. Is there a list of programs somewhere that documents this problem to a specific application?

That was close. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5620918)

Wow. I almost installed SP1. Oh wait... I'm running BSD, never mind.

Some patch... (1)

HeavensTrash (175514) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620919)

Excellent work. This patch didn't work in the least, and infact broke my XP causing me to restore from an older version. For some reason, the patch refused to find ntdll.dll, even though it was in the specified directory - After pointing the path to a few other directories which also had this file, it still refused, so I had to cancel. Cancelling it warned would cause your computer to stop working. Well, it did. Screw this patch, I'll just have to deal with the lag for now.

Ah, Finally!!! (5, Funny)

jlrowe (69115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620925)

Finally Microsoft has a fix to slow down the spread of Code Red and other MS related worms and virii.

Sure, it has some side effects, but don't all fixes?

really nice fast mirror (1)

stephenb (18235) | more than 11 years ago | (#5620959)

If you're looking for a nice fast mirror:

patch [3vilh4x0r.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>