acer updater. Incompatibility with Windows

Have a four year old Acer One Happy 2 with windows 7 starter operating
system.
I have re-installed the Windows 7 and now keep getting the 'updater
incompatibility' message. And the computer is as slow as it can be.

Acer support do not respond to my request for advice via their online
mail in support page.

Online I cannot find any definite advice on what to do.

Should i try to *bypass* the inbuilt version of windows seven via the
'updater' and re-install or try to download windows XP ?

john west wrote:
Have a four year old Acer One Happy 2 with windows 7 starter operating
system.
I have re-installed the Windows 7 and now keep getting the 'updater
incompatibility' message. And the computer is as slow as it can be.

Acer support do not respond to my request for advice via their online
mail in support page.

Online I cannot find any definite advice on what to do.

Should i try to *bypass* the inbuilt version of windows seven via the
'updater' and re-install or try to download windows XP ?


Having a minor "Acer Updater" issue, isn't a reason to panic :-)
While this thread leaves a lot to the imagination, you
can see that your options are to remove it, or to
use some Acer "hotfix".

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...9-765ac448ea4d

You then seem to hop into a discussion about operating system
editions. Which is a much bigger issue, and from what I can
see in a quick search, there aren't any convenient tables
that allow razor-sharp answers to be prepared.

Your machine came with W7 Starter, which is a way to save money
and reduce the asking price of a product. Later OS offerings
"fixed" this, by making the OEM OS price $0 if the screen
on the computer device was small enough (maybe below 9" diagonal or so).

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-As...2.59539.0.html

Processor: Intel Atom N570
# of Cores 2 --- Good enough for Win7
# of Threads 4
Processor Base Frequency 1.66 GHz
Intel 64 Yes

Instruction Set Extensions SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3 (SSE2 minimum for many things...)
Execute Disable Bit Yes --- NX/XD supports DEP malware prevention

Graphics (GMA) 3150 --- crickets chirping
Display: 1024x600 pixels (ouch!)

For the later OSes with Metro Apps, there is a minimum
recommended screen resolution for those.

Minimum Recommended
Win10 800×600 pixels 1024×768 pixels
Win8 --- 1024x768 pixels
Win7 (likely to support common minimal VESA resolutions)
WinXP (likely to support common minimal VESA resolutions)

Your GMA 3150 is of unknown parentage, when it comes to vertex
and pixel shaders, and for general fancy OS animation purposes.
Win7 Starter likely disabled Aero compositing, making this
a non-issue. Maybe you could play the SIMS on it. It's hard
to say whether later OSes and WDDM requirements are met
or not. The Wikipedia article wasn't helpful at all. And
certainly Intel doesn't play this game - the customer
can go *guess* if they want, Intel won't list the gory details.
I suspect Intel was probably close to a class action lawsuit
around Aero issues in the Vista timeframe. The company lawyers
probably recommend keeping the corporate mouth shut.

*******

So why does Windows 7 performance suck ?

1) Usage of single core processor, not recommended.
Test results show even a moderate amount of installed
software (webcam driver, printer driver, leaving their own
collection of bloated resident "services") makes a noticeable
dent in perceived performance.

This is not your problem. You have a 2C 4T processor,
which makes the experience "bearable".

2) Windows Update wuauserv in a SVCHOST.

This sucks up one of the CPU cores for periods of
up to an hour. In some of the "Bad" cases, 1.5GB of
RAM are stolen by the runaway service.

This is bound to take the "snap" out of the machine,
and drop it down to the behavior of a single core machine
as in (1).

There was a recent Windows Update patch, that claims to
fix the CPU gulping issue. A patch around June or so,
reduced memory wastage to 20% of 1.5GB or maybe 300MB.
That patch was released to help Corporate users who
had 3000 machines drop to their knees during that
one hour period.

(In the comments section...)
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/dont-ch...documentation/

- Up to and including August 2015: "Checking for updates" ran a long time;
- 2015.09.16 w/o KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 43 minutes,
and presented 17 updates to choose from;
- 2015.10.21 with KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 2.5 minutes,
and presented 13 updates to choose from.
- 2015.11.18 with KB3083710 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 33 minutes,
and presented 15 updates to choose from.

So back to square one with KB3083710. However, KB3102810 got installed today,
so maybe my December update will get faster again, as per:
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/kb-3102...#comment-64914 and
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/kb-3102...#comment-64925

What that suggests, is as in the WinXP bug case (same problemo),
they are bandaiding the mother, not fixing it. With the
bandaid approach, it's fixed on Tuesday, broken on Wednesday.

You could try installing KB3102810 and see if Task Manager
(control-alt-delete performance display) shows normal low
levels of idle CPU usage.

To isolate wuauserv in its own SVCHOST, you can issue commands
like this in an Administrator ("Run As Administrator") Command
Prompt window.

sc config service type= own

And revert it via this command, to
"the way you found it in the first place"

sc config service type= share

So for wuauserv, to isolate it, type this

sc config wuauserv type= own

Then if you do "tasklist /svc" (which runs on some
OS versions and not others), it can list the services
hiding within a particular PID valued SVCHOST. You can
see that normally, wuauserv "hides in the forest" and
is harder to blame. PID 1444 (as listed in Task Manager
listing), contains a lot of potential culprits. Normally,
available tools don't allow us to query the individuals
here, all tha effectively.

svchost.exe 1444 AudioSrv, CryptSvc, Dhcp, dmserver, ERSvc,
EventSystem, FastUserSwitchingCompatibility,
helpsvc, Irmon, LanmanServer,
lanmanworkstation, Netman, Nla, RasMan,
Schedule, seclogon, SENS, SharedAccess,
ShellHWDetection, TapiSrv, Themes, TrkWks,
W32Time, winmgmt, wscsvc, wuauserv, WZCSVC

Once put out on the street, on his own.

svchost.exe 1507 wuauserv

Now, if you go to Task Manager, turn on the PID column,
and you see 100% usage of a single core in the listing,
and the PID equals the 1507 value in the tasklist /svc,
then you know you have a Windows Update problem. That's
how you isolate it. That's how I isolated mine, to confirm
it was the culprit.

If your tasklist /svc won't list the services in the
way that those examples show, you can get the same sort
of information from Sysinternals Process Explorer.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...rocessexplorer

Note that, some poorly written AV products, complain
bitterly, about half of the programs listed
on those pages. That's because those programs poke
low-level stuff, which makes the AV product "nervous".
You can try disabling real-time protection
long enough to run a tool like that if you
want.

Have fun,
Paul

On 30/11/2015 17:15, Paul wrote:
john west wrote:
Have a four year old Acer One Happy 2 with windows 7 starter operating
system.
I have re-installed the Windows 7 and now keep getting the 'updater
incompatibility' message. And the computer is as slow as it can be.

Acer support do not respond to my request for advice via their online
mail in support page.

Online I cannot find any definite advice on what to do.

Should i try to *bypass* the inbuilt version of windows seven via the
'updater' and re-install or try to download windows XP ?


Having a minor "Acer Updater" issue, isn't a reason to panic :-)
While this thread leaves a lot to the imagination, you
can see that your options are to remove it, or to
use some Acer "hotfix".

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...9-765ac448ea4d


You then seem to hop into a discussion about operating system
editions. Which is a much bigger issue, and from what I can
see in a quick search, there aren't any convenient tables
that allow razor-sharp answers to be prepared.

Your machine came with W7 Starter, which is a way to save money
and reduce the asking price of a product. Later OS offerings
"fixed" this, by making the OEM OS price $0 if the screen
on the computer device was small enough (maybe below 9" diagonal or so).

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-As...2.59539.0.html

Processor: Intel Atom N570
# of Cores 2 --- Good enough for Win7
# of Threads 4
Processor Base Frequency 1.66 GHz
Intel 64 Yes

Instruction Set Extensions SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3 (SSE2 minimum for
many things...)
Execute Disable Bit Yes --- NX/XD supports DEP malware
prevention

Graphics (GMA) 3150 --- crickets chirping
Display: 1024x600 pixels (ouch!)

For the later OSes with Metro Apps, there is a minimum
recommended screen resolution for those.

Minimum Recommended
Win10 800×600 pixels 1024×768 pixels
Win8 --- 1024x768 pixels
Win7 (likely to support common minimal VESA resolutions)
WinXP (likely to support common minimal VESA resolutions)

Your GMA 3150 is of unknown parentage, when it comes to vertex
and pixel shaders, and for general fancy OS animation purposes.
Win7 Starter likely disabled Aero compositing, making this
a non-issue. Maybe you could play the SIMS on it. It's hard
to say whether later OSes and WDDM requirements are met
or not. The Wikipedia article wasn't helpful at all. And
certainly Intel doesn't play this game - the customer
can go *guess* if they want, Intel won't list the gory details.
I suspect Intel was probably close to a class action lawsuit
around Aero issues in the Vista timeframe. The company lawyers
probably recommend keeping the corporate mouth shut.

*******

So why does Windows 7 performance suck ?

1) Usage of single core processor, not recommended.
Test results show even a moderate amount of installed
software (webcam driver, printer driver, leaving their own
collection of bloated resident "services") makes a noticeable
dent in perceived performance.

This is not your problem. You have a 2C 4T processor,
which makes the experience "bearable".

2) Windows Update wuauserv in a SVCHOST.

This sucks up one of the CPU cores for periods of
up to an hour. In some of the "Bad" cases, 1.5GB of
RAM are stolen by the runaway service.

This is bound to take the "snap" out of the machine,
and drop it down to the behavior of a single core machine
as in (1).

There was a recent Windows Update patch, that claims to
fix the CPU gulping issue. A patch around June or so,
reduced memory wastage to 20% of 1.5GB or maybe 300MB.
That patch was released to help Corporate users who
had 3000 machines drop to their knees during that
one hour period.

(In the comments section...)
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/dont-ch...documentation/


- Up to and including August 2015: "Checking for updates" ran a long
time;
- 2015.09.16 w/o KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 43
minutes,
and presented 17 updates to
choose from;
- 2015.10.21 with KB3083324 installed: "Checking for updates" ran
2.5 minutes,
and presented 13 updates to
choose from.
- 2015.11.18 with KB3083710 installed: "Checking for updates" ran 33
minutes,
and presented 15 updates to
choose from.

So back to square one with KB3083710. However, KB3102810 got
installed today,
so maybe my December update will get faster again, as per:
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/kb-3102...#comment-64914
and
http://www.askwoody.com/2015/kb-3102...#comment-64925

What that suggests, is as in the WinXP bug case (same problemo),
they are bandaiding the mother, not fixing it. With the
bandaid approach, it's fixed on Tuesday, broken on Wednesday.

You could try installing KB3102810 and see if Task Manager
(control-alt-delete performance display) shows normal low
levels of idle CPU usage.

To isolate wuauserv in its own SVCHOST, you can issue commands
like this in an Administrator ("Run As Administrator") Command
Prompt window.

sc config service type= own

And revert it via this command, to
"the way you found it in the first place"

sc config service type= share

So for wuauserv, to isolate it, type this

sc config wuauserv type= own

Then if you do "tasklist /svc" (which runs on some
OS versions and not others), it can list the services
hiding within a particular PID valued SVCHOST. You can
see that normally, wuauserv "hides in the forest" and
is harder to blame. PID 1444 (as listed in Task Manager
listing), contains a lot of potential culprits. Normally,
available tools don't allow us to query the individuals
here, all tha effectively.

svchost.exe 1444 AudioSrv, CryptSvc, Dhcp, dmserver, ERSvc,
EventSystem, FastUserSwitchingCompatibility,
helpsvc, Irmon, LanmanServer,
lanmanworkstation, Netman, Nla, RasMan,
Schedule, seclogon, SENS, SharedAccess,
ShellHWDetection, TapiSrv, Themes, TrkWks,
W32Time, winmgmt, wscsvc, wuauserv, WZCSVC

Once put out on the street, on his own.

svchost.exe 1507 wuauserv

Now, if you go to Task Manager, turn on the PID column,
and you see 100% usage of a single core in the listing,
and the PID equals the 1507 value in the tasklist /svc,
then you know you have a Windows Update problem. That's
how you isolate it. That's how I isolated mine, to confirm
it was the culprit.

If your tasklist /svc won't list the services in the
way that those examples show, you can get the same sort
of information from Sysinternals Process Explorer.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...rocessexplorer

Note that, some poorly written AV products, complain
bitterly, about half of the programs listed
on those pages. That's because those programs poke
low-level stuff, which makes the AV product "nervous".
You can try disabling real-time protection
long enough to run a tool like that if you
want.

Have fun,
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul very many thanks for your fulsome and detailed response. I shall
have a go at all this. Although being a simpleton i'm up for a nervous
breakdown, as i'm way out of my depth. thanks again.

In message , john west
writes:
On 30/11/2015 17:15, Paul wrote:
[snipped]
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul very many thanks for your fulsome and detailed response. I shall
have a go at all this. Although being a simpleton i'm up for a nervous
breakdown, as i'm way out of my depth. thanks again.

Just for interest - I think you may misunderstand the meaning of
"fulsome", which Paul never is. (I'm _guessing_ you meant something like
"comprehensive"?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the
truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Just for interest - I think you may misunderstand the meaning of
"fulsome", which Paul never is.

I see no problem with "possessing or affording copious supply; abundant,
plentiful, full" rather than "chiefly used in reference to gross or
excessive flattery" ...

In message , Andy
Burns writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Just for interest - I think you may misunderstand the meaning of
"fulsome", which Paul never is.

I see no problem with "possessing or affording copious supply;
abundant, plentiful, full" rather than "chiefly used in reference to
gross or excessive flattery" ...

Ah, hoised by my own petard (-:! I wasn't aware of the first meaning.
(Which I suspect has got into dictionaries recently by frequent misuse
of the word, but that's how language goes - as I should know as my
brother is associate editor ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

computers don't solve problems; they help humans solve problems - Colin Barker,
Computing 1999-2-18, p. 21

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Andy Burns writes:

I see no problem with "possessing or affording copious supply;
abundant, plentiful, full" rather than "chiefly used in reference to
gross or excessive flattery" ...

Ah, hoised by my own petard (-:! I wasn't aware of the first meaning.
(Which I suspect has got into dictionaries recently by frequent misuse
of the word,

I think the former is older and the latter is more recent usage.

but that's how language goes - as I should know as my
brother is associate editor ...)

I was going to say you should have asked your brother :-P