Gr Inte Att Uppdatera Windows Vista
Jonessupa writes 'An interesting bug regarding update dependency calculation has been found in Windows XP. By design, machines using Windows Update retrieve patch information from Microsoft's update servers (or possibly WSUS in a company setting). That patch information contains information about each patch: what software it applies to and, critically, what historic patch or patches the current patch supersedes. Unfortunately, the Windows Update client components used an algorithm with exponential scaling when processing these lists. Each additional superseded patch would double the time taken to process the list.
With the operating system now very old, those lists have grown long, sometimes to 40 or more items. On a new machine, that processing appeared to be almost instantaneous. It is now very slow. After starting the system, svchost.exe is chewing up the entire processor, sometimes. Wait long enough after booting and the machine will eventually return to normalcy. Microsoft thought that it had this problem fixed in November's Patch Tuesday update after it culled the supersedence lists.
That update didn't appear to fix the problem. The company thought that its December update would also provide a solution, with even more aggressive culling. That didn't seem to help either. For one reason or another, Microsoft's test scenarios for the patches didn't reflect the experience of real Windows XP machines.' It just isn't possible. There is a whole api (WUA) built on top of how it works now. Everything using it would fail if it moved to something different.
Windows 10 Release Date
That is, it is very evident that it was built with the update format currently in use to guide its direction. An emulation layer may not be possible, and even if it is, may not be more efficient than what is there now and also is work toward something that is EOL in 4 months.The current way it works now, is the client downloads wsusscn2.cab, which in turn contains package.cab (among many others), which contains package.xml. Package.xml contains the updates in such a way that is flexible in that it can address more than one OS/platform/application/etc per patch, or more than one patch per update, or more than one file per patch, and so on. The Update nodes only point to categories/patches/files/locations/prerequisites/revision/etc via ids which have to be looked up deep in the file.
Right now, that xml file is over 65MB. It would have made this easy if it were stored in a relation database, instead of an xml file, but it isn't and like I said, the API was built around the source of the information being an xml file, among other things. People paid good money for working supported product. Just because Microsoft wants to bait and switch doesn't make it right.
I hope some deep pockets corporation sues the bejesus out of them to force this issue.I don't see a bait and switch. People knew(or could find out if they wanted) the EOL dates before they purchased it with their 'good money', and MS has been extending them since many many years even though they didn't have to. That sounds exactly like the opposite of a bait and switch.Want to check the EOL for Windows 8 before purchasing? Here it is microsoft.com.
Isn't EOL planned for April, anyways?If there's no more updates, what's the point of fixing the update mechanism?There will be more updates. It just means that they won't be free after April. My company has already begun discussions with MS as to how much they will have to pay for those updates as the sheer number of computers and lack of staff means that the upgrade to Win7 will not be done by that time. Figure in all the various departments that have apps that won't run in Win 7 or can't be upgraded till capital budget has the money for the upgrades and that could take years still. I'm sure many other large corps ar. It killed my Web browsing virtual machine until I used an offline update utility and fixed it manually.Yes, XP needs to die, because it is made to deal with threats from 2000-2001, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose.
Windows 7 and newer help address this issue.However, I know plenty of places where XP is used that can't be fixed by a upgrade or platform change. Embedded stuff for example. Another are dedicated machinery that interfaces with a PC, does have newer drivers, and likely will not get newer drivers.
Gr Inte Att Uppdatera Windows Vista 10
A friend's $3000 sewing machine is one example.Another person's CNC wood mill is another item. So, those machines are stuck with XP pretty much for good, because who is going to throw out a perfectly functioning mill just because it requires a legacy OS? Even some CD/DVD duplicators only will interface with XP, and moving to Vista or newer will be an exercise in futility.So, XP in a lot of cases is here to stay, for better or worse. A friend's $3000 sewing machine is one example.Another person's CNC wood mill is another item.
So, those machines are stuck with XP pretty much for good, because who is going to throw out a perfectly functioning mill just because it requires a legacy OS?There are still options. You'd be surprised how much old oddball hardware.someone out there. has written Linux drivers for.Failing that, there's Wine.
Or XP emulation mode in Win 7.Or pay a homeless developer some cash & Red Bull to write you some new software. CAM has been around forever and it's not complicated. Yes, XP needs to die, because it is made to deal with threats from 2000-2001, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose. Windows 7 and newer help address this issue.Help address this issue.except not really.:/ Windows 7 was made to deal with threats from 2009-2010, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose. Windows 8 was made to deal with threats from 2012-2013, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose.
You see a trend? The biggest things that consisten. Yes, XP needs to die, because it is made to deal with threats from 2000-2001, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose. Windows 7 and newer help address this issue.No, not really.
Windows 7's - and for that matter Linux's - security model is centered around users rather than applications. It's designed for multi-user central computers of old, not modern single-user desktops that run random code downloaded from the Internet. It protects the system from user-level code, but your personal files are screwed, should any of it be malicious.
And not even the system is really safe: a program asks for administrative privileges, and you have no option to give it 'fake' permissions in its own little sandbox or even any way of knowing what it has done, even after the fact.Android comes closer, but still has the problem of not allowing you to fake permissions. I doubt that will change, it ultimately being a glorified data mining and ad delivery platform for Google.As for a better security model, I'd really like to see a 'tree' of virtual machines, with every program running in its own leaf it can mess to its digital heart's contents and any changes being merged into upper-level machine only at the approval of said upper level. That way you could do away entirely with the concept of administrator - since every program is the master of its own virtual machine - and try out new programs safely, since no matter what devastation they cause it's limited to their own playpen. Principles of genetics by gardner pdf example.