Windows XP dead if you're too old.....

disneyjoe7

Trying to install a clean version? Windows upgrade states version to low, Google Chrome can't install says IE version is not supported. Can't upgrade IE either..... Seems like I been screwed, and I didn't get a kiss first. 2 versions of XP sp 1 IE 6.0. Any work around anyone know?

mdaudioguy

AFAIK, they are only supporting SP3 now. You might be screwed.

polkatese

time to beam yourself to the 21st century Steve..

mrbigbluelight

You're jammed if you only have XP Service Pack 1. Get on another computer, get on the Microsoft site, and have them send you SP2 and SP3 on CD.
I think it's free; if not, it's some minimal shipping charge like $4.98 or something.

..... I could have probably looked that up for you, but I'm feeling particularly lazy lately. :redface:

disneyjoe7

Nice guess I XP wasn't dieing fast enough for MS, so needed to kill a fresh installs. Not cool.

disneyjoe7

I don't mind jumping to Win 7 on my computer(s), this computer is for my girls friend sons computer. I wiped it clean since I did everything I know and it still was not working well, so I felt a clean install would work best. Now feel I shoot myself in the foot on this one.

disneyjoe7

anonymouse wrote: »

You can download SP2 and SP3 and "slipstream" it into your original disc to create a bootable XP with SP3 on it. I did it a while ago and can google the steps or you can as well. You need access to a computer with a burner to create the slipstreamed disc. IIRC it was fairly straightforward and took me a couple hours.

I give it a shot, need to use a Win 7 32bit computer but that should work right?

nadams

Like they said, just download and install the SP3 package from Microsoft's site. However, I've noticed that I get that "unsupported version" message when attempting to visit www.windowsupdate.com no matter what the XP service pack level is. Anymore, I have to use automatic updates to patch XP machines. I usually set it to download immediately but prompt me to install. After setting this, sometimes I still have to drop to a command prompt and run "wuauclt /detectnow" to get it to start the process immediately. Be patient... sometimes it doesn't look like it's doing anything, or the icon goes away after its done downloading. It'll come back... eventually.

mdaudioguy

anonymouse wrote: »

You can download SP2 and SP3 and "slipstream" it into your original disc to create a bootable XP with SP3 on it. I did it a while ago and can google the steps or you can as well. You need access to a computer with a burner to create the slipstreamed disc. IIRC it was fairly straightforward and took me a couple hours.

Oh yes, I've done this before, too - Good call!

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I give it a shot, need to use a Win 7 32bit computer but that should work right?

Yep, use it to create the slipstreamed disc and then install from that.

disneyjoe7

anonymouse wrote: »

So just so we understand where you are at - you have wiped the computer clean and did a fresh install of an original XP disc. Now Windows Update will not work?

Does it connect to the internet? If so, can you hit the microsoft site and manually download the sp2 and sp3 files and apply them?

Well it turns out, what you stated is correct, and I was able to connect but not update. I did what you stated and downloaded the SP3 link of the slipstream and things are working now. That was the easiest way to fix this issue, saving me some time. Thanks for the input.


Steve

ohskigod

install stick of dynamite. blow it up, get a mac.....done

disneyjoe7

I'm now up too date, but still somethings wrong either with computer, or software XP? Some web pages are slow or come up with connection error? Which when checked comes up no problem found. Think the issue is Adobe Flash player which I can't install?? Is XP really getting that old? Or do I have some other issue going on here, a bit under on memory 512k but XP was running on this computer before with it?


Stick of dynamite is looking better every day I play with that computer.


Steve

WilliamM2

Adobe flash should install just fine on XP, never had an issue with it. But is XP really getting that old? Well it is 9 years old now, how many peole were still running Win95 in 2004, or Win98 in 2007? Not many. Yet there are still many running XP today.

I'd say XP has held up pretty well for it's age. Although I do like 7 better.

disneyjoe7

I like Win 7 also, but don't wish to throw $90 bucks into this computer. I got win XP pro on another computer fairly fresh copy I can see if adobe works ok on that. That machine is running 512k also, but that computer seems to work better.

BeefJerky

Here's something to think about. Assuming WinXP and the drivers are installed properly, maybe the problem is hardware and not software. You did say that it was having problems before the reinstall, and you weren't able to fix them. If you're still having problems with a clean install, I think it's time to test the hardware. Here are a few hardware diagnostic utilities that I like:
1) Memtest86+ - Running this overnight should give the memory a good test. You can download either a bootable CD version or a bootable USB flash drive version.
http://www.memtest.org/
2) Prime95 - This is the best CPU test that I've found. Start this one up and press the Just Stress Testing button, then select Torture Test from the options menu. I recommend running both the Small FFT's and In-Place Large FFT's test. Try running each one for a few hours.
http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft/
3) FurMark - This is what I recommend to test modern graphics cards; it won't work on older ones or non-3D accelerated cards.
http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/fur/
4) HDDScan - This is a great program for testing hard drives. You'll want to use it to check the S.M..A.R.T. status first. If that shows fine, then I recommend using the butterfly read test, as that puts the maximum stress on your hard drive. It will take awhile to do it, but if it passes, your HDD is very likely to be good.
http://www.hddscan.com/

If there is a hardware problem, one of these should find it. Note that if a component is marginal to begin with, these might kill it altogether. However, if the component was marginal to begin with, it needed to be replaced anyway.

disneyjoe7

Fair enough on what you're saying, not knowing the history of this pc an custom built AMD asus K8N. I need to checked stuff like bios to see even if this could help.


Steve

nadams

You'd have to throw a lot more than $90 into that machine to get it to run Windows 7...

K8N's were known for developing bad caps. You'd be able to tell by looking at them; if the tops are pushed up or leaking electrolyte, they're bad.

disneyjoe7

nadams wrote: »

You'd have to throw a lot more than $90 into that machine to get it to run Windows 7...

K8N's were known for developing bad caps. You'd be able to tell by looking at them; if the tops are pushed up or leaking electrolyte, they're bad.

Feel the same Mother board downloads don't even list Win 7 as option. The motherboard old, 120g hd, 512k mem, and not sure about video card but I sure nothing great, just vga output. The kid wanted to run HDMI out, I laughed so hard I stated no way throw it all out and start over. But in the end he doesn't play games on it, and only surfs some / email thats all. He uses a Xbox 360 for games.


I have to start looking at hardware closely as I also had trouble running Ubuntu as a demo, didn't load all the way when I tried that also.

Sherardp

Any particular reason for not making the switch to Windows 7?

steveinaz

Everytime computers get faster, MS unloads another PIG OS so we can once again experience the speeds we had with pentium 75 and Windows 3.11.

They call that progress?

nadams

Sherardp wrote: »

Any particular reason for not making the switch to Windows 7?

He'd need more than 512mb of memory. The K8N is a DDR board, supporting 3gb in 1gb sticks. 3gb of DDR will set you back another $70. Also, he may only have a Sempron in there, much less an Athlon64. I doubt it would run well...

BeefJerky

steveinaz wrote: »

Everytime computers get faster, MS unloads another PIG OS so we can once again experience the speeds we had with pentium 75 and Windows 3.11.

They call that progress?

It's obvious you've never actually used Windows 7. M$ has made some blunders in the past (i.e. Windows ME), but Windows 7 is certainly not a blunder. It is quite fast - much faster than Vista. In fact, it is just as fast as XP on many systems, however, it does require more minimum RAM than XP to operate efficiently. It is also an incredibly stable OS, just like XP SP1+ was.

At any rate, there is something called progress and improvement in computers. Many improvements will require more storage space and more computing power; that is just the way it works. Based on your attitude, we may as well still be using MS-DOS on our Intel Core i7 based systems. I mean, why actually try to use the increased resources we have available?

steveinaz

BeefJerky wrote: »

It's obvious you've never actually used Windows 7.

I have windows 7 on my current laptop. It's obvious you've never operated a Pentium 75 with Windows for Workgroups---or were you even born yet?

disneyjoe7

nadams wrote: »

He'd need more than 512mb of memory. The K8N is a DDR board, supporting 3gb in 1gb sticks. 3gb of DDR will set you back another $70. Also, he may only have a Sempron in there, much less an Athlon64. I doubt it would run well...

512k is one stick, and the CPU not home but is 3000+ Athlon not sure if its 64k or not. I seen PC run under Win 7 512k not well or quick but runs. May have another AMD board and memory I can add to this mix if the MB is the problem.


Got this if needed, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130492 with 2gig of mem, (got 4gigs in it but its a waste in this under XP or Win 7 32bit) Athlon64 cpu speed not sure at this time. It has a northbridge fan issue which makes noise at times. Nice video card but most likey not going into that computer.

WilliamM2

steveinaz wrote: »

I have windows 7 on my current laptop. It's obvious you've never operated a Pentium 75 with Windows for Workgroups---or were you even born yet?

I started with 3.11 on a IntelDX4 100mhz machine. I think your memory is bad, it was slow as hell compared to Win 7 on my current three year old computer. A C2Duo @ 3.6gGhz with 8GB DDR2 ram. I can only imagine a new i5 or i7 would be even faster, but I really see no need yet.

fbm211

CPU-Z should tell you what CPU and speed its running at.

steveinaz

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I started with 3.11 on a IntelDX4 100mhz machine. I think your memory is bad, it was slow as hell compared to Win 7 on my current three year old computer. A C2Duo @ 3.6gGhz with 8GB DDR2 ram. I can only imagine a new i5 or i7 would be even faster, but I really see no need yet.

Nope. It took about 1.5 seconds to open MS Word 6.0 w/WFW 3.11 on a Pent75 machine. Try that with your computer--and tell me which one of us has a bad memory. Oh and BTW, that was with a whopping 16Mb of RAM.

It takes my Asus laptop with win7, and 4GIG OF RAM about 6.5 seconds to open Word.

WilliamM2

steveinaz wrote: »

Nope. It took about 1.5 seconds to open MS Word 6.0 w/WFW 3.11 on a Pent75 machine. Try that with your computer--and tell me which one of us has a bad memory. Oh and BTW, that was with a whopping 16Mb of RAM.

It takes my Asus laptop with win7, and 4GIG OF RAM about 6.5 seconds to open Word.

MS word is not the operating system. But Word (Office 2010) opens instantly on my current computer, easily under a second.

BeefJerky

steveinaz wrote: »

I have windows 7 on my current laptop. It's obvious you've never operated a Pentium 75 with Windows for Workgroups---or were you even born yet?

I ran WFW 3.11 on an AMD 486/100MHz chip. I remember that motherboard even had VESA local bus; that standard sure didn't catch on.

steveinaz wrote: »

Nope. It took about 1.5 seconds to open MS Word 6.0 w/WFW 3.11 on a Pent75 machine. Try that with your computer--and tell me which one of us has a bad memory. Oh and BTW, that was with a whopping 16Mb of RAM.

It takes my Asus laptop with win7, and 4GIG OF RAM about 6.5 seconds to open Word.

On my Dell M6300 (Core2Duo 2.5Ghz, 8GB RAM), it takes 1.5 seconds to open MS Word 2010; I just tested this now. It was just as fast opening when I had 4GB of RAM as well. Maybe you have a slow hard drive, or it could be terribly defragmented. Or, if you're using the stock OEM Windows install, those are always awful. In that case, you need to do a proper clean install of Windows 7. Either way, it's not Windows 7's fault.

nadams

steveinaz wrote: »

Nope. It took about 1.5 seconds to open MS Word 6.0 w/WFW 3.11 on a Pent75 machine. Try that with your computer--and tell me which one of us has a bad memory. Oh and BTW, that was with a whopping 16Mb of RAM.

It takes my Asus laptop with win7, and 4GIG OF RAM about 6.5 seconds to open Word.

I highly doubt anyone here would accept WFW 3.11 as their OS today.

disneyjoe7

I usually replace a computer when the current today's software can no longer run well. I think they plan it that way.