Anyone else having WinXP update problems?

Message

Dewbie · #41 Post by **Dewbie** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 05:30

Well, got 'em all and everything still seems to work...

It maxed out the CPU only while tallying up the files to install.
(which seemed to take forever

)
Once downloading started, everything was back to normal.

Only six more months of XP updates left; I'm really gonna miss 'em!

James C · #42 Post by **James C** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 05:44

Actually updating XP at the moment....luckily I have a fairly fast connection.

Still no updating problems.

jpeps · #43 Post by **jpeps** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 06:11

Never had a problem with an update on my XP...use it all the time. Then again, never had any problems with celebrations or anniversaries either. My Nexus just updated itself. hmm..no problems. I feel like I'm missing out on something.

mikeb · #44 Post by **mikeb** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 11:47

Thanks for the personal remarks.... I miss those too

This all brings back memories of being in ##windows on freenode.

bunny hop

Mike

mikeb · #45 Post by **mikeb** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 12:32

Curious of how someone makes a thread because he is having a problem and the insinuation comes along that he is somehow lying or a total idiot.... is that how all professional work....discredit the patient/customer/client?

have fun if you can

Mike

RetroTechGuy · #46 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 22:11

Dewbie wrote:

I wonder if those mega-installs are SP3 coming in?

I have an older laptop, and have not let it install a lot of that junk (the problem being that I only have 1 GB RAM, and SP3 seems to flatten "weak" machines like that...)

My machine with 2GB RAM seems to do OK with SP3... But it makes me nervous every time that it wants to install or run the "Genuine Windows Validation" (particularly since I ran it previously -- now suddenly my previously validated machine is again "suspect").

jpeps · #47 Post by **jpeps** » Tue 29 Oct 2013, 22:49

RetroTechGuy wrote:
Dewbie wrote:
I wonder if those mega-installs are SP3 coming in?

I have an older laptop, and have not let it install a lot of that junk (the problem being that I only have 1 GB RAM, and SP3 seems to flatten "weak" machines like that...)

My machine with 2GB RAM seems to do OK with SP3... But it makes me nervous every time that it wants to install or run the "Genuine Windows Validation" (particularly since I ran it previously -- now suddenly my previously validated machine is again "suspect").

The old days: 512mb recommended

"however as for memory theres no extra memory required for windows xp sp3,and your current configuration [256MB RAM] is more than enough"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 346AARNYfZ

You can get a gig of RAM for $12

RetroTechGuy · #48 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 02:04

jpeps wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:
Dewbie wrote:
I wonder if those mega-installs are SP3 coming in?

I have an older laptop, and have not let it install a lot of that junk (the problem being that I only have 1 GB RAM, and SP3 seems to flatten "weak" machines like that...)

My machine with 2GB RAM seems to do OK with SP3... But it makes me nervous every time that it wants to install or run the "Genuine Windows Validation" (particularly since I ran it previously -- now suddenly my previously validated machine is again "suspect").
The old days: 512mb recommended

"however as for memory theres no extra memory required for windows xp sp3,and your current configuration [256MB RAM] is more than enough"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 346AARNYfZ

You can get a gig of RAM for $12

I don't believe them... The machine above (with 2GB) at one time had 1GB, and SP3. It was a dog. I upgraded to 2 GB, and it suddenly "worked fine" -- no other changes were needed to "fix it". (and on the other end, my 1GB laptop did not have SP3 and worked fine).

BTW, my older XP laptop is apparently at its max memory (I can find no reference to anyone successfully installing sticks larger than 512MB).

Dewbie · #49 Post by **Dewbie** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 02:45

Extended support for SP2 ended in July 2010.
SP3 is required for extended support till April 2014.
(I installed SP3 when it first came out years ago, then reinstalled it with the OS last year.)

This last round included (among other things) massive .NET framework updates.

jpeps · #50 Post by **jpeps** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 03:44

RetroTechGuy wrote:
I don't believe them... The machine above (with 2GB) at one time had 1GB, and SP3. It was a dog. I upgraded to 2 GB, and it suddenly "worked fine" -- no other changes were needed to "fix it". (and on the other end, my 1GB laptop did not have SP3 and worked fine).

BTW, my older XP laptop is apparently at its max memory (I can find no reference to anyone successfully installing sticks larger than 512MB).

My puppy laptop has a gig of RAM, and it's useless for videos or anything else that consumes ram. I got rid of the models that wouldn't take more than 512MB several years ago. You can find new laptops with 4 gigs of RAM on ebay for a few hundred dollars.

Hope you've updated your shoes in the last 10 years (I know, another of those useless rituals that cloud the mind)

mikeb · #51 Post by **mikeb** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 11:51

I have 2 machines with 512mb ram ... no problem with XP sp3 though its worth noting it was installed with it. Adding a service pack to an existing install might not always behave as it should...there are a lot of variables in such a situation.

It also ran ok on my original beastie... pentium 2 333 with 256mb ram...in fact better than puppy as it had the correct video driver.

That old machine used to convert and play videos when it had 64MB ram and a 266 cpu.

A k6 550mhz machine played DVDs ok too.

The only medium thats a pain is flash since it on older machines will be using non accelerated rendering and has to perform RGB conversions , not to mention decode h264...the most popular video player that was never designed for the job lol. Not sure where vast amounts of ram come into video playback...its generally a cpu/video card issue. Some video converters insist on buffering large amounts of data to ram... but fortunately i have yet to use one.

These pentium 3 (1GHZ) can just play 1028 wide videos just.... guess that's their limit but then my eyes have a similar limit

Thanks for the patronising sacasm..I am sure everyone is enjoying it and feeling suitably inadequate

Now to go shopping for a pair of long lasting boots.... then I can relax and enjoy wearing them.

mike

jpeps · #52 Post by **jpeps** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 14:24

mikeb wrote:
The only medium thats a pain is flash since it on older machines will be using non accelerated rendering and has to perform RGB conversions , not to mention decode h264...the most popular video player that was never designed for the job lol.

AFAIK, XP is probably a little early for standard decoders( that arrived with Vista and Windows 7).

At the end of the day, other operations are still done in software in Flash Player 10.1. After the H.264 video data is decoded, there is no real GPU assistance in rendering interactive graphics elements, doing color space conversion, or performing scaling on the video itself. All of those still remain CPU-oriented operations.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ado ... 805-4.html

re: sarcasm: some posts are so absurd that they're worth repeating

mikeb · #53 Post by **mikeb** » Wed 30 Oct 2013, 17:05

hmm interesting ...am i not saying the same thing about the extra overhead of color conversion .... and in this instance the decoders are part of the flashplayer so the host operating system has little bearing.

But I am sure you are making sense and I am absurd...makes a change from senile.

Anyway don't skip over this claim that video playback somehow requires lots of ram.... it may have a tinge of the absurd about it.

mike

jpeps · #54 Post by **jpeps** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 02:07

mikeb wrote:
Anyway don't skip over this claim that video playback somehow requires lots of ram.... it may have a tinge of the absurd about it.

mike

No, I liked the post. I was referring to your referring to my referring...oh..forget it.

RetroTechGuy · #55 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 02:22

jpeps wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:
I don't believe them... The machine above (with 2GB) at one time had 1GB, and SP3. It was a dog. I upgraded to 2 GB, and it suddenly "worked fine" -- no other changes were needed to "fix it". (and on the other end, my 1GB laptop did not have SP3 and worked fine).

BTW, my older XP laptop is apparently at its max memory (I can find no reference to anyone successfully installing sticks larger than 512MB).
My puppy laptop has a gig of RAM, and it's useless for videos or anything else that consumes ram. I got rid of the models that wouldn't take more than 512MB several years ago. You can find new laptops with 4 gigs of RAM on ebay for a few hundred dollars.

Hope you've updated your shoes in the last 10 years (I know, another of those useless rituals that cloud the mind)

My older laptop has 1 GB, 2 sticks of 512MB each, and does pretty well in Puppy (even plays videos fine, either in Puppy or XP). Likewise my main desktop in Puppy (it's otherwise a Win98 machine, though much faster than the laptop).

What I have noticed is that the new Firefox really flattens machines... My 1GB desktop machine struggles with it. I have a Win7 laptop with 4GB RAM (running 5,28 on a SD card in the side), and I notice that FF regularly consumes a couple GB... I think it's bad when the largest bloat is your browser...

starhawk · #56 Post by **starhawk** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 02:51

RetroTechGuy, Firefox has a very well known and AFAIK unfixed bug where it creates a massive memory leak problem -- that's probably your issue there.

Memory leaks, in a nutshell, are where an application releases memory back to the OS but the OS doesn't get the memo -- so the memory is unusable.

Dewbie · #57 Post by **Dewbie** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 04:36

SeaMonkey 2.20 is also in the XP machine.
I've had no problems with it.
(even with the dial-up)

For some reason, it seems lighter than Firefox.
(and it shares the same Gecko core; go figure...)

RetroTechGuy · #58 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 04:50

starhawk wrote:RetroTechGuy, Firefox has a very well known and AFAIK unfixed bug where it creates a massive memory leak problem -- that's probably your issue there.

Memory leaks, in a nutshell, are where an application releases memory back to the OS but the OS doesn't get the memo -- so the memory is unusable.

Yeah, I used to have that problem with Netscape on my Linux system many years ago. (I believe that was the only piece of software that ever managed to crash my system).

It seems like the leak issue has gotten worse the last few releases... I run a command line script to correct that, be even then it doesn't always release (it also has the problem that it ignores limits placed on how much cache it is permitted to save).

RetroTechGuy · #59 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 04:51

Dewbie wrote:SeaMonkey 2.20 is also in the XP machine.
I've had no problems with it.
(even with the dial-up)

For some reason, it seems lighter than Firefox.
(and it shares the same Gecko core; go figure...)

I've run K-meleon on my Win98 system (but I usually hang out in Puppy -- K-meleon is reported to work under Wine).

nooby · #60 Post by **nooby** » Thu 31 Oct 2013, 07:02

I have not dared to test if it works to update.
I never use Ms Win of any kind now
but would need it if I want to root my smartphone typically.

Is it not ironic that you need Ms win to root an android OS phone?

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Anyone else having WinXP update problems?