Jump to content

Microsoft Quietly Fixed Windows XP Resource Hog Problem


HarryTri

Recommended Posts

I ran Windows Update (in fact Microsoft Update) today and it found 4 critical and 6 optional updates in less than 5 minutes! The last time it took more than an hour. Did Microsoft do something about this problem? Or it is just that there wasn't any updates for Internet Explorer 8? I have also uninstalled Advanced SystemCare, since the last time (and installed CCleaner in its place), but I doubt that this improvement has anything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well, no Security Update for IE at all, that's a fact. And I confirm MS Update was indeed fast, this time around. Maybe MS got it right silently with KB2898785 (the Dec 10 Security Update for IE)... then again, maybe it's too soon to tell... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft indicated this week that it has fixed a Windows XP resource-hog problem associated with the system's SVCHOST.EXE processes.

Microsoft did not announce the fix broadly. Instead, it released the above statement to Susan Bradley, a Microsoft MVP and moderator of the PatchManagement.org list-serve service, which is a discussion group for IT pros. Apparently, that's the only venue where the statement appeared publicly. Microsoft's January security bulletin announcing four patches and nonsecurity releases did not mention the SVCHOST fix for Windows XP.

Microsoft Quietly Fixes Windows XP Resource Hog Problem

01/16/2014

Source: http://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/01/16/windows-xp-resource-hog.aspx

Microsoft indicated this week that it has fixed a Windows XP resource-hog problem associated with the system's SVCHOST.EXE processes.

Windows XP users affected by this problem typically found that the operating system was using up system resources for 15 minutes to an hour after startup, making it difficult to use the machine during that period. The Microsoft Update team had vowed last month to spend the holiday break tackling the issue, which has plagued some users for years.

The fix involved stopping the system from perpetually checking Internet Explorer updates. Microsoft indicated that the fix was rolled out on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Microsoft depreciated legacy security updates for Internet Explorer that had been replaced by more recent ones. We did this to improve customer experience, reducing the time Windows Update requires to check existing updates before installing new ones. This action was purely to improve update performance and does not affect customer security. - Dustin Childs, group manager, Microsoft Trustworthy Computing


Microsoft did not announce the fix broadly. Instead, it released the above statement to Susan Bradley, a Microsoft MVP and moderator of the PatchManagement.org list-serve service, which is a discussion group for IT pros. Apparently, that's the only venue where the statement appeared publicly. Microsoft's January security bulletin announcing four patches and nonsecurity releases did not mention the SVCHOST fix for Windows XP.

Microsoft's fix took effect on Tuesday. It apparently stops systems from grinding through older Internet Explorer updates before releasing system resources. The fix also seems not to require any actions by Windows XP users or IT pros to take effect.

Of course, Windows XP users still face the broader problem of the operating system falling out of product lifecycle support by Microsoft. On April 8, 2014, Microsoft won't issue updates to the 12-year-old OS at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering what the KB number was since it wasn't mentioned in the article ... these were the only two updates I had ... one for XP and one for my Office 2000.

MS Updates 01-2014

Security Update for Windows XP (KB2914368)

01/14/2014

Security Update for Microsoft Office 2007 suites (KB2837615)

01/14/2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. None of that, of course. If at all, the fix must've been included in the Security Update for Windows Internet Explorer, KB2898785, from last month.

And they (MS) were so unsure it would actually work that they released it silently and, after the next patch Tuesday passed without incident, informed about it as no more than hearsay, perhaps to reap some of the glory associated to it. I said it before and I keep saying, let's wait and see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so, but I could be wrong of course. From Charlotte's post, I think he agrees with me.

In a nutshell, it is the Windows Update components and the Microsoft WU site at fault since they fail to communicate efficiently because of no sanity checking ( a simple timeout would do ). The mere fact that the fix was made to their WU website, pulling MSIE updating from their checklist completely exonerates Windows XP from being the culprit!


Which is not to say that they didn't also make some needed changes to ie as well.

Cheers and Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read there is no local patching of Windows or MSIE or even the WU components in this fix. They appear to have just modified their checklist of allowable updates on their end. In short, the WU logic just skips past the problem ( and this could have been solved with a simple timeout but WU has never been shy about taking its time ).

The MSIE update tree was apparently a real mess ( "IF msie == v6 AND they have MSKB-xxx OR MSKB-xxx" ) and since the thing spans MSIE 6 thru 8 and all the associated updates over 13 years you can imagine the code logic involved. As I said, this would be simple if they hadn't integrated MSIE so far into Windows with dependencies in both directions ( MSIE should be OS agnostic, AND Windows should never hardcode to using MSIE except maybe for WU itself ). That last part is funny, having MSIE as the only method to use WU means that they walk a tightrope of distributing updates for the very mechanism that is required to get the updates in the first place. If they are not careful this could very well set off a paradox that causes the universe to collapse. :lol:

BTW I shouldn't have used fixed on "their Website", it is more accurate to say "fixed on their end" meaning on a server of theirs that the WU components query for allowable updates and prerequisites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those occasions where things are unknowable, at least until someone comes out with some bona-fide documentation.

Else, it's no more than a matryoshka of hearsay and guesswork, and gossip, of course, with all due respect to everyone involved.

For all we know for a fact, it could as well have healed automagically, after Toutatis willed it so, out of pity for us all. :)

Later note:

If you're wondering whether I merged duffy98's thread (that still gives name to this merged thread) to HarryTri's "Is it a Miracle?"...

Yes, I did do it... we were beginning to have too many threads dealing with the same subject, after all!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...