The WinXP Windows Update CPU saturation bug

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,983
16,229
136
I couldn't find the thread(s) where the issue has been discussed here so I started a new one.

I've encountered it for the second time on different setups and I notice that there are a fair few threads on the Internet about it.

I tried some ideas on it which didn't help:

1 - Downloaded and force-installed the latest Windows Update Agent
2 - Nuked SoftwareDistribution folder
3 - Installed latest Windows Installer (an old WU bug cited it as a cause)
4 - Replaced the SD folder with a known-working one*
5 - Nuked the SD folder on a believed-to-be-working XP setup I had**
6 - Switched from Windows Update to Microsoft Update.
7 - Restarted the service several times.

* - out of curiosity to see what would happen

** - my XP VM setup had the problem initially but I hadn't see it since and I hadn't had any problems installing updates since. After nuking the SD folder the issue re-surfaced.

On my XP VM setup (using one core of my Ph2X4) it took about half an hour I think. On an Athlon 64 3200+ machine that was the main one I had problems with, I first updated to XP SP3 with the standalone installer then tried Windows Update and experienced the issue.

I monitored both setups with filemon while the problem was in effect and there were occasional writes to an edb file in the SD folder (Datastore.edb IIRC). In windowsupdate.log the last thing mentioned after the saturation started was the http retrieval/processing of a file from the Windows Update site.

One idea I had that I didn't follow up with was the installation of all the .net frameworks that a fully patched XP SP3 usually ends up with, but I wanted to see whether 'wait and see' really did the trick.

Another idea (which I think is unlikely to help) was to feed it the package update by hand to begin with. Unfortunately I didn't take a note of the KB number, but since I experienced the issue before and after this update was installed, I doubt it will help.

I honestly think it is a case of wait and see. On the A64 3200+, if I had to guess I'd say it took 3-5 hours with the CPU at 100% (hard to say as I restarted the service a few times and I didn't take notes of exactly when I nuked the SD folder).

After getting the initial ~130 updates I haven't noticed the CPU saturation problem.

My feeling is that after the initial load of updates the problem won't happen any more and that it is a data issue inside the SoftwareDistribution folder.
 
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
I think that this is an intentional MS glitch, introduced just before XP's EOL time, to push people off of XP and to get them to upgrade to something else.

Because, for a fresh system, installed with SP3, the first time that you go to Windows Update, normally, it comes back with a couple of update patches that you have to put in, then it will go to the real Update stuff.

Now, instead of prompting you with those patches, it just sits there sucking down CPU time like there's no tomorrow.

I have no doubt in my mind that this is the result of an intentional change.

Anyways, the way around it is this:
You must disable Windows Automatic Update Service.

Get The Microsoft Fix-It for Windows XP Windows Update Problems.

Install the Fix-it, and it will prompt you to download and install Net 3.51SP1. Do that.

Then run the Fix-It, it will automagically download and install PowerShell too. (If it doesn't do that successfully, then it won't work.)

Then let the Fit-It patch the Windows Update components.

When it prompts you to re-try what you were attempting to do before running the Fix-It, then reboot.

Then change the Automatic Update Service startup back from disabled to Automatic, and start the service.

Then go to Windows Update. It should work normally now.

Edit: Trying to find a link to the specific Fix-It I used.
http://www.somelifeblog.com/2007/05/windows-xp-svchostexe-100-cpu-high.html
Try the links on that page.
 
Last edited:
mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,983
16,229
136
I wonder if you're right about it being an intentional defect, though IMO it's an odd (but not therefore implausible) tactic. People who are still running XP have been doing so for a long time and they probably haven't had a flawless run of behaviour from that computer. A sudden and recent screw-up (ie. negative reinforcement) might make people pursue alternatives to Windows rather than upgrading to the latest version.
 
O

oynaz

Platinum Member
May 14, 2003
2,449
3
81
Yes. Deliberately sabotaging millions of customers, thus risking multi-billion dollar fines around the world, sounds like an entirely reasonable tactic.
 
ninaholic37

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
On my XP laptop I get the same thing (always 0% progress and 100% CPU usage from Windows Updates). I may try these interesting suggestions, or just not bother to turn Windows Updates back on. I think I'll create a bootable USB stick with a version of Linux on it though (and working wi-fi), in case Microsoft somehow manages to blow up my entire OS and/or hard drive (on top of ruining Windows Update) before EOL. :awe:
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,559
248
106
I was just posting about this in another thread. For me it has gotten worse, as a month or so ago I was having this issue on a VM but was able to work around it, this past weekend no such luck (well some, but surely not 100%).

Wouldn't be that big a deal if there weren't so many security updates after SP3. Wish that they would release an SP4 before EOL, but I already know the answer to that one.
 
O

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
ninaholic37

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
owensdj said:
I've seen this bug in every XP machine that I've had to reinstall lately. I did some searching and found out that Microsoft has a fix you can install that stops the 100% CPU usage.

The fix is mentioned here:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...9-b340c65acfa5

You just need to go to this page and find the one for XP that matches your IE version.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms13-069
Click to expand...
Thanks owensdj. Apparently I still had IE6 (never noticed as I never use it - lol), updating to the newest "critical patched" version of IE8 then turning Automatic Updates back on to get the rest of the patches fixed the 100% CPU/0% Progress bug for me. Now I'm all caught up. :)

The only weird "patch" I got was this thing...

wga.png


Of course my Windows XP is genuine! Why do I need a program to tell me? I might do some more research on this "patch" as it seems to hang 3/4 of the way through the install and doesn't seem to be useful (as far as I can tell) as my laptop worked just fine before Windows Update installed it.
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,559
248
106
ninaholic37 said:
.... Of course my Windows XP is genuine! Why do I need a program to tell me? I might do some more research on this "patch" as it seems to hang 3/4 of the way through the install and doesn't seem to be useful as my computer worked just fine before Windows Update installed it (as far as I can tell).
Click to expand...

That thing has been there for a while, and did the same to me yesterday (just stops about 3/4 of the way through). Put a different copy of XP on last night, so I am curious to if the problem persists.
 
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
oynaz said:
Yes. Deliberately sabotaging millions of customers, thus risking multi-billion dollar fines around the world, sounds like an entirely reasonable tactic.
Click to expand...

I urge you to research how early versions of Windows would throw up obscure error messages (on purpose) if run on DRDOS. Also the encrypted "AARD" code.

It's not the first time that MS has pulled stunts like this.
 
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
owensdj said:
I've seen this bug in every XP machine that I've had to reinstall lately. I did some searching and found out that Microsoft has a fix you can install that stops the 100% CPU usage.

The fix is mentioned here:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...problems/57ff2a95-3a9c-4e85-a879-b340c65acfa5

You just need to go to this page and find the one for XP that matches your IE version.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms13-069
Click to expand...

That's not the real fix. The bug is in the Windows Update components, and is not an IE bug.
The MS Fix-it for windows xp sp3 automatic updates is the actual fix.
 
O

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
VirtualLarry said:
That's not the real fix. The bug is in the Windows Update components, and is not an IE bug.
The MS Fix-it for windows xp sp3 automatic updates is the actual fix.
Click to expand...

The way it looks to me is the fix gets around the problem so you can use Windows Update to get all of the post XP SP3 fixes, one of which must be fixing the problem. It's the only thing I've found that can do it. Running the MS Fix-It for Automatic Updates didn't fix it for me.
 
F

Fred B

Member
Sep 4, 2013
103
0
0
Nothing wrong here with XP cpu usage and windows update , the last 10 updates is from a dew day s ago.



This is the last i got for pc , dont have .NET 4xxxx

KB951847: Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 en .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update x86
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,559
248
106
Fred B said:
Nothing wrong here with XP cpu usage and windows update , the last 10 updates is from a dew day s ago.



This is the last i got for pc , dont have .NET 4xxxx

KB951847: Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 en .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update x86
Click to expand...

The issue is mainly with fresh installs. Updates are fine once you get them going.

And just to update on my experience, things seem to be going fine with patience. And by that I mean, getting the computer online and letting it sit there, letting automatic updates decide on it's own when it's time to start downloading some. This is with IE8 and SP3, but no other updates manually installed.

I don't know if I want to activate this one though, so I may try the patience thing with my other copy.
 
mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,983
16,229
136
I've seen the issue with two non-fresh installs recently. I had a quick stab at the problem on one of them without success. I tried the cumulative IE update that has been commonly stated to be the fix as well as the Windows Update Fix-It. I also tried reinstalling IE8 from standalone installer without updates then fed it the cumulative update.
 
Charlie98

Charlie98

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2011
6,298
64
91
I had the very same problem with a fresh XP install last night... I wondered what was going on. I have clean installed XP at least 10 times in the past 3 years and never had problems like I had last night.

EDIT:

I turned off Automatic Updates, then installed KB2879017 and KB2888505 manually, then the updates started working again for me.
Click to expand...

That worked! It allowed me to apply the fixes for WinUpdate and start downloading the pile of updates.
 
Last edited:
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
I had one on Monday that the fixes wouldn't help. My only solution was to completely shut off updates.
 
Charlie98

Charlie98

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2011
6,298
64
91
oynaz said:
Yes. Deliberately sabotaging millions of customers, thus risking multi-billion dollar fines around the world, sounds like an entirely reasonable tactic.
Click to expand...

...I've got my tinfoil hat on.

Yes. Deliberately reducing the usability of software or access to it, and then promoting a new product you are pushing... Never happens. *cough!* Intuit *cough!*
 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Last week i had to do 3 full windows xp pro installations and only had this problem with one of them. All 3 Windows XP Pro were made by Dell. I had to use another Dell Windows XP which fixed the problem.
 
Last edited:
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
nemesismk2 said:
Last week i had to do 3 full windows xp pro installations and only had this problem with one of them. All 3 Windows XP Pro were made by Dell. I had to use another Dell Windows XP which fixed the problem.
Click to expand...

Only 1 out of 3 installs went bananas? Nice.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom