Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


harkaz

Introducing - Unofficial Windows XP SP4

Recommended Posts

The reg file has been updated with the following key:

 

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 3.1b is being uploaded at the moment, it is intended for new installs only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested what are entered for registry keys in version 3.1b for the POSReady 2009 updates.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the following reg entry is installed:

 

HKLM,"SYSTEM\WPA\POSReady","Installed",0x00010001,1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That fits, I have again a migrated Image created for my software archive. So far, everything is in the green zone (Tested in VMware). Setupp.ini yet so adjusted 30-day trial are possible. In "SUPPORT\TOOLS" folder I have the tools yet updated, since XP version without SP was used to migrate.

 

Thank's for your work

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did the windowsembedded key come from? I don't see it on a normal XP SP3 Pro install.

Edited by click-click

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did the windowsembedded key come from? I don't see it on a normal XP SP3 Pro install.

 

That's because a normal XP install isn't Embedded Windows!  :lol:

Artificially adding that key up until very recently fooled Windows Update into thinking that it is a version of the OS that's still supported, so it still offered updates, which it wouldn't now on a normal XP installation.

Updates for Windows Embedded have stopped now as well as those for normal XP, so that key now has to be removed for updates to still work. Other keys like POSReady mimic other versions of Windows that are still supported.

:)

Edited by Dave-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. All I ever added was the PosReady key to keep the updates coming. I never knew

that the windowsembedded key served  a similar purpose.

Edited by click-click

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I uninstall SP4 without causing any problems with the installed XPSp3? (Please excuse if I have asked before;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roffen

The following is from the USP4 Readme posted by harkaz in his cloud folder:

---------------------------------

"Removing Service Pack 4

You can use Add or Remove Programs to remove SP4 and restore your computer to its previous state. Uninstallation is possible only if you have chosen to archive system files during Windows XP SP4 setup.

To remove Service Pack 4 by using Add or Remove Programs

Click Start, and then click Control Panel.

Click Add or Remove Programs, click Windows XP Service Pack 4, and then click Remove.

Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.

Important

If you started but then canceled Windows XP SP4 removal wizard you MUST check if the %systemroot%\system32\catroot2tmp folder exists. If it does, stop Cryptographic Services and move all its contents to the %systemroot%\system32\catroot2 folder (replace existing files). Finally, restart Cryptographic Services. If the folder is not there, restart your computer IMMEDIATELY.

If you choose to remove SP4, a dialog box displays a list of the programs that you installed after you installed SP4. If you continue with the removal, these programs might not work correctly.

After removing SP4, you will be unable to access any exFAT formatted drives unless you had installed the required update before installing Windows XP SP4."

---------------------------------

I would love to hear why you would want to remove the service pack.  I would also caution you that your PC will not be as secure with the service pack removed.  Additionally, depending what tweaks you have done (pre and post SP4 installation), you might have some unexpected/undesired results.

Regards,

®

Edited by ®ich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason for considering removal of SP4 is suspicion that SP4 may be the cause of what I preceive as intermittent sluggish operation of my computer. running on a 3.8GHz 6-core AMD CPU and I rely on that to indicate that whatever slows processing, it cant be the CPU. But I may of course be wrong. What else can it be, are there methods I can use to analyze what's going on?

Edited by Roffen
typofix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roffen said:

3.8GHz 6-core AMD CPU

Wow, I can only dream of such a CPU!

I'm sure that there will be more qualified members who could run you through the Processes and Overhead diagnostic methods to check your system. However, I can advise on certain matters regarding the USP4 installation.

A little more than a year ago, I became aware of the harkaz USP4 v2 and installed it on top of my SP3 system.  I too noticed that my system was fractionally slower than previously (Not a big deal, but I noticed it).  When I checked my Task Manager, I noticed that "mscorsvw.exe" was hogging a lot of cpu time.  Harkaz has documented this and the solution was to run from an elevated cmd prompt "ngen.exe executeQueuedItems" from the .NET folder which is applicable.  I'm not suggesting this is your problem, but a search through Task Manager for any 'busy' programs might show what is hogging your cpu.  Ideally at rest the "System Idle Process" should be using 99% of your CPU.  Have a look when your system is idling and there is little or no hard disk activity and see what you can find.

Anyway back to my experiences with USP4: I have the luxury of having spare hard drives and so I had to try a fresh installation from a slipstreamed USP4 USB source.  An almost unbelievable change in speed was noticed.  The point of this story is to report that you can apply USP4 over an existing XP installation and you should be happy.  But if you can, slipstream USP4 into your source XP installation files using the 'integrate' switch and create a usb bootable installation (I used WinSetupFromUSB as nLite didn't work for me).  If I can encourage you to create your usb bootable media on your existing XP machine and test the installation on a spare drive you will not regret it.

Regards, ®

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disable the NGEN service ("Optimization"). Always. It's a hog. BTW, Server 2k8 includes dotNET as a "feature" and does NOT include that "service", strangely enough.

BTW, I was under the impression that XP would only deal with two physical CPU's so those cores are apparently within a single package (pretty sure that's true). I've seen some sites speak of the 6-core version causing some XP problems. I'd suggest doing a WWW search on that. Something is definitely amiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running XP Usp4 in AMDFX8 Cores in my friends pc without any problem so why not FX 6 cores.

@submix8c

only deal with two physical cpu means it can only run  two proccessor like servers have like two xeon or i7 in single motherboard.

Xpx86 can run 32Core core in single processor and XPx64 can run a single processor with 64Cores

Even you can extend 32core support to 128 with a patch also physical cpu support upto 16 with out any problem with single patch.

Windows XP kerenal is enouf powerful to kill your processing demands.

Running XP in INtel Skylake

 

Intel core i7 6700k overclocked to 7Ghz running Xp :: http://news.softpedia.com/news/intel-skylake-overclocked-to-7ghz-on-windows-xp-monster-pc-with-ln2-cooling-499995.shtml

Many of you guys gals know that i am using xp in a Skylake Core i7 6700k.

XP is faster on my skylake rather than 7 /8.1

Edited by Dibya
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dibya, if there's a patch for it, I want it :D

That said, I'm gonna spend some words about AMD.

Ladies and gentlemen, sit down, have a mug and be comfortable: this is the story about AMD 

(Cool intro xD)

Once upon a time, computers used to run with CPUs made by Intel and we were all happy. Back in the days, CPUs were not very powerful and there were single cores with a bunch of cache 1 KB. One day, a company tried to use a different approach, compared to the normal (average) one and they made a processor with transistors set in a different way and moved memories locations in order to use a different approach. Such approach turned out to be good and even better than the Intel one and AMD processors were able to have more cycles than the Intel ones. As we all know, a processor has a clock, a multiplier and executes cycles, using the memory cache to calculate things. Thanks to the new approach, AMD processors were able to execute more cycles than the Intel ones in the same amount of time. In order to avoid to be surpassed, Intel started releasing new CPUs with higher frequencies. We are talking about the "era" of CPUs like the AMD Athlon. Since people used to have Intel CPUs before AMD, AMD decided to release its own CPUs with names like AMD Athlon 3200+, which means: AMD CPU that runs at the same speed as an Intel CPU with the same cache at 3.2 GHz. The Athlon 3200+, in fact, with its 512 KB cache l2, has only 2.2 GHz, but it's as fast as an Intel CPU at 3.2 GHz. Of course, people started loving AMD 'cause, in order to run at 3.2 GHz, Intel CPUs used to have an higher voltage and used to warm up more. These were the shiny AMD days... Then, the technology moved on and new nanometers way of making processors were discovered. Intel, then, had the brilliant idea of making a CPU that has two smaller cores instead of a single powerful one. The power of these two cores, together, is greater than a single powerful one, the problem, at the time, was that programs had to be made/optimised to run using the multithread, otherwise just one core would have been used (and of course, just a bunch of professional programs were able to use the multithread). So, there weren't any programs able to run in multithread, and people who bought Intel, ended up having an expensive CPU, pratically slower than other older CPUs. That granted the victory to AMD once again, since the company released a new, traditional monocore (single core) CPU. Anyway, Intel insisted on that risky path and continued releasing dual core processors. Bit by bit, consumer programs started being able to use multithread and Intel CPU turned out to be really good and powerful with multithread programs, compared to the AMD ones, since AMD was still releasing monocore. AMD, then, decided to keep going with monocore (single core) CPUs and released CPUs like the AMD Athlon 3400+ and the greatest monocore ever released, the AMD Athlon 3800+ with 1 MB of cache and I own an engineering sample of it. Anyway, these AMD CPUs didn't have success at all and people moved to Intel. So, AMD was forced to move to the multicore CPU world and started working on them. The problem was that their different approach which, at the very beginning, gave AMD the chance to win the competition with Intel, turned out to be a big obstacle to build a multicore solution; it was incompatible. AMD engineers studied it a lot and they were successfully able to fix every issue and make a multicore (dual core at the time) solution. The problem was that the two cores have never been able to "talk" in a good way using the cache and that never changed. Basically, even today, if a program is not extremely optimised to work with multithread of several cores, they don't really work well with AMD CPUs. While Intel is able to re-distribute the load to several cores, AMD is not and, if a program is not completely optimised for multithreading with several cores, it won't use every core at the same time, that's why people love Intel and blame AMD for being slower nowadays. 

So... This basically should answer the common question: why are AMD CPUs not using all the cores.

Cheers and regards.

Edited by FranceBB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...