Just picture the PR wonks slaving around the coffee/sandwich littered table for days, grinding thru a jillion lesser ideas, before (eureka!) settling on THAT catchy name ? !
fofl
Posted on 01/18/2014 9:44:36 AM PST by Utilizer
The primary benefit of moving to 64-bit is the increase in the maximum allocatable system memory (RAM). Windows XP 32-bit is limited to a total of 4 gigabytes. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition can support much more memory; although the theoretical memory limit of a 64-bit computer is about 16 exabytes (16 billion Gigabytes), Windows XP x64 is limited to 128 GB of physical memory and 16 terabytes of virtual memory.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is in fact an edition of Windows Server 2003. Both Windows Server 2003 x64 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition use identical kernels and are built based on the same code bases.[2] Although based on the Windows Server 2003 code base, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition does include client features of 32-bit Windows XP such as System Restore, Windows Messenger, Fast User Switching, Welcome Screen, Security Center, Games, etc. which Windows Server 2003 does not have.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not to be confused with Windows XP 64-bit Edition, as the latter was designed for Intel Itanium processors.[3][4] During the initial development phases, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition was named Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition
I’ve had updates turned off for a long time. How do I allow that update only?
BUMP
I bet I am not the only who keeps forgetting that there are more than one XP and more than one of everything. We always seem to discuss these OS, generally, as if there is one kind of each.
NT was reliable because MS hired real OS developers from DEC to build it.
I actually experience that problem, and I just kill the svchost.exe whenever I first power up — once I see which one it is that is running wild.
we don't care .. we don't have to
You can go to the Windows Update site and select what you want but it should be OK now to allow all current updates.
Just picture the PR wonks slaving around the coffee/sandwich littered table for days, grinding thru a jillion lesser ideas, before (eureka!) settling on THAT catchy name ? !
fofl
This latest update is worthy. Dramatically cut down the hard drive grinding on my XP machine.
Previously, I was seeing multiple SVCHOST processes running simultaneously.
Also, this update comes with a new “Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool” which seems worthwhile.
Use your command line and type “MRT.exe” to run it after you’ve performed the latest XP update.
SVCHOST.EXE shows up in the Task Manager, sucking up system resources, and this has been a problem for years.
Sure, the OS development at MS is a monstrosity, but they aren’t incompetent — this is all about pushing more and more crap into the pile, slowing down the older CPUs, so people will buy new hardware, and hence, new (licensed) copies of the newest OS.
IOW, nice of ‘em to spend a long weekend to fix the problem, now that XP has been in use for a decade or so, and just before support on that OS has its plug pulled, but don’t think an analogous problem won’t recur. And the fix may not wind up fixing anything.
Thanks Utilizer.
Sorry about the delay, mate. Looks like Steve86 has your answer for you in post 67. I am not a large ‘doze user but I do have it on a couple of machines, so I found this tidbit concerning a resolution to a problem that has been affecting so many to be worthy of attention. Good luck!
I think I had that problem some years ago and dropped back down to w2k on one machine because of it, thanks to a kind FReeper that was willing to help out with some data. The next machine I dealt with I immediately backed up the original partition before running anything and never allowed it to be connected online while running 'doze on it and disabled the autoupdate. Seems to have been quite stable after that.
Indeed. I may even take a chance on one machine and let it update after all these years to see if it helps much. Not really thinking that it will speed things up much, but it might and it is better than allowing one of the newer MS OS bloated spambait to be installed which is guaranteed to be more sluggish.
Welcome, mate. Always glad to see someone get help from a posting on FR.
I searched for a long time on the internet to find the answer but never did find anything that actually fixed it, amazingly enough. The most convincing explanation was that it was a memory leak, but again, I have to wonder how it was that it came up just recently? I think the file date on svchost.exe was from like 2008. I’m seriously puzzled how this could have gotten messed up if the executable hadn’t been changed for essentially 5 years.
Simply because it is a system file does not mean that it does not depend upon others for its operation, or that MS will not change it and/or others somehow in a future configuration.
I had a similar problem some years ago when a few particular pieces of software would no longer run when there was no problem previously. Turned out that MS had updated a particular dll file for "greater efficiency", however the update broke other (non-MS) programs that needed a particular function in that file to operate. Not surprised that something similar appears to have occurred again.
So that’s what the problem was......
3.5 GB of RAM
I’m running 4.0 GB, but my WXP SP3 Machine only recognizes 3.5 GB’s
thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.