Winxp Sp1 Has A Serious Problem
DOOManiac
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">and MS doesn't plan to fix it!</div><a href='http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/holes/story/0,10801,79841,00.html' target='_blank'>Glitch in Windows XP SP1 could slow systems</a>
Turns out there's a big bug in XP SP1 that can make it run 10 times slower, and MS doesn't even plan to fix it... Go MS. :X
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless users are severely affected by the problem, Microsoft recommends waiting for a patch until the next Windows XP service pack is released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so how is that WINE thing? heh.
Turns out there's a big bug in XP SP1 that can make it run 10 times slower, and MS doesn't even plan to fix it... Go MS. :X
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless users are severely affected by the problem, Microsoft recommends waiting for a patch until the next Windows XP service pack is released.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so how is that WINE thing? heh.
Comments
You must've missed part of the first sentence of that article, it says that MS has indeed come up with a fix for it. They are giving it to customers who request it, but it is not available for general download off of thier site till more people complain. I can't say that i've noticed any slowdown in Pro after SP1 was installed.
This could be it!
I have a friend who has been experiancing random SERIOUS slowdowns (she runs winXP and I am almost positive I made sure she has SP1)
This might explain it (now I just gotta member to talk to her)
yes, I am the resident comp techie, yes I get payes in candy and food <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thanks DOOM!
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/style_images/2/icon3.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
@Bio: Do you know where to get this patch, other then bugging the MSoft tech support?
You must've missed part of the first sentence of that article, it says that MS has indeed come up with a fix for it. They are giving it to customers who request it, but it is not available for general download off of thier site till more people complain. I can't say that i've noticed any slowdown in Pro after SP1 was installed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But only giving it to specific customers who individually request it is just as bad as not fixing it at all. The vast vast majority will never know they have to call MS to get a fix for their product...
This whole topic of the memory issue is a bit misleading. It applies to applications that allocate and de-allocate huge chunks of memory at a time very frequently. While it will work on XP Pro/Home, it's really not necessary for most people, as you do not (and really often have no access to) run the sorts of applications that are most affected.
The reason they make the release a non-Windows Update is not some big conspiracy (as there is no charge for hotfix downloads ever), it is to prevent people from installing it willy-nilly and causing a patch-related issue on their already working PC. As a rule, MS does not like to release frequent hotfixes as they cannot be integration tested as well as a service pack. The lesson learned is that Linux patches can come out daily (or hourly), and are often a fix to to a fix to a fix. MS has a different methodology - not a bad one, a different one. More conservative, which is what home and business users want, and what hobbiests and techs do not necessarily agree with.
To repeat - not a conspiracy. I have installed the patch in a few lab machines and benchmarked them and have not seen appreciable load time changes. I would not recommend installing this patch (which may be altered) until you get SP2.
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/style_images/2/icon3.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur I will never get XP
98 and 2000 4 evar wait....LINUX 4 LIFE!
98 and 2000 4 evar wait....LINUX 4 LIFE! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been running xp great since I put together my comp 2 months ago...
I haven't had to restart my computer since then...
XP is surprisingly good, all you have to do is disable the idiot options and all is well.
and no, you are not cool for knowing that the beta was named Whistler
Hooray for idiotware!
<a href='http://www.rene-hennig.de/WinFuture.de/Q815411_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU.exe' target='_blank'>mirror1</a>
<a href='http://home.t-online.de/home/520092137223-0001/xp/Q815411_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU.exe' target='_blank'>mirror 2</a>
<a href='http://www.nvplanet.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=7' target='_blank'>from here <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--></a>
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'd do a search but i keep getting a page display error when i hit search. Might be the crappy socks i'm usin to bypass the office's web filter <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyone kind enough to post the thread or PM it to me? Thanks.
I dunno. First it was Q1 2003. Then Q2 2003. Now it's Q4 2003. Any bets?
If you want to stop the Windows Messenger and Alerter Services (which is what you're talking about Noclass):
On WindowsXP/Windows 2000 -
1. Click Start | Run
2. Enter 'services.msc' and hit ok.
3. In the new dialog, open the 'Alerter' service and set it to 'manual', then click 'Stop' to stop it.
4. Open the 'Messenger' service and set it to 'manual' and click 'Stop' to stop it.
5. Close the Service Control Manager dialog.
(People will tell you set services to 'disabled', but unless you know what you are doing you should always set them to 'manual' to prevent your PC from potentially hanging on start-up. Setting to 'disabled' is potentially dangerous and unnecessary for most services)
If someone's using NT4, it would be different but I sincerely doubt they are at this point...
What they have said though is that they are on track for a 2003 release. They showed the game at least year's E3 and have remarked "they don't like to show things at two E3's". They also LOVE Christmas releases. Almost every game they've done has been a Christmas release. That leads me to believe that it'll be Christmas of this year. :)
Overall, MS did come up with a good operating system, it only took them a few years to get it right.
Sums up my problems with Linux quite well. Linux will never ever ever beat Windows if their open source zealots can't realize that you can have both fuctionality, power, flexability AND put it into a GUI thats usable by the average Joe.
I don't like DOS, I don't like manually typing out commands just so I can do basic crap. And in todays world of 3Ghz CPUs, what the hell actually NEEDs to run faster?
What the world needs is a easy to port to open source OS built from the ground up
I think Doom 3 will come out soon because there is already word on quake 4 I believe which is on the Doom3 engine <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now's the time for all the linux beatniks to come out of the woodwork, and let me remind them of the older kernel that had the exact same problem - except it affected small amounts of memory instead of large, which is a worse problem =P
XP is surprisingly good, all you have to do is disable the idiot options and all is well.
and no, you are not cool for knowing that the beta was named Whistler <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm always confused why people choose Windows XP, when they immediately remove all the features that made it different from Windows2000. Why not stick with Windows2000, and wait for a better version of Windows to come out? I for one, have yet to see a reason to upgrade to Windows XP (pronouced "It's Pee"). It takes more resources than Win2K, takes more hard drive space than Win2K, and has more security holes than Win2K. Granted, Win2K has been out longer than Win XP (and it may have had just as many bugs at release), but the fact remains that even though WinXP used the same 'engine' as Win2K, WinXP still has more security/stability problems! How does that happen?
I also agree with BG's comments above. Furthermore, XP is the most important windows OS since WFWG. It bridges all the gaps and gets everyobe back on to the same basic kernel again, after years of Win9x and Win NT battles, which made my life as a programmer and engineer a nightmare.