Win Kodi 17.1 Installation problem with KB971644 Vista x86
#31
Think there are 2 options here:
1) Upgrade your OS to a newer Windows due to Vista not supported
2) Change your OS if you don't want to spend money: Linux/LibreElec

Vista is a dead end, I'm sorry but you need to move on. Development of the 17 branch has pretty much ended and Vista isn't supported on 18 anyway. There is no interest from the handful of people affected to devote resources to this.
Reply
#32
(2017-08-12, 23:11)jools5000 Wrote: Think there are 2 options here:
1) Upgrade your OS to a newer Windows due to Vista not supported
2) Change your OS if you don't want to spend money: Linux/LibreElec

Vista is a dead end, I'm sorry but you need to move on. Development of the 17 branch has pretty much ended and Vista isn't supported on 18 anyway. There is no interest from the handful of people affected to devote resources to this.

I'm still running Vista x64 and have no problems what so ever. It runs reasonably fast, fairly good at the type of multi-tasking I require and rarely bogs down.

I find Vista works well for basic applications such as web surfing, e-mail and applications such as Kodi as long as you don't perform too much multi-tasking. If you require alot of multi tasking of sizeable applications it's probably time to upgrade your entire PC with Windows 8 or 10 installed.

I do keep a memory optimizer running and sometimes manually optimize and flush memory that not be used.
Reply
#33
(2017-08-13, 00:06)User-3023 Wrote: I'm still running Vista x64 and have no problems what so ever. It runs reasonably fast, fairly good at the type of multi-tasking I require and rarely bogs down.

I find Vista works well for basic applications such as web surfing, e-mail and applications such as Kodi as long as you don't perform too much multi-tasking. If you require alot of multi tasking of sizeable applications it's probably time to upgrade your entire PC with Windows 8 or 10 installed.

I do keep a memory optimizer running and sometimes manually optimize and flush memory that not be used.

I apprecite if it works for you then by all means continue to use it which is your right. You should bear in mind Vista is now a liability.. Microsoft no longer maintains it, the core OS is not patched any more. IE, Firefox and Chrome are no longer supported on this OS or updated. Yes you can run Firefox ESR for the time being but this is only tempoary and the underlying OS is still unpatched and vunerable.

Vista would be OK if you computer wasn't connected to the internet, but the world has moved on and its now its not recommended. Pretty much any OS these days is OK for basic surfing and email (hell even my phone does a decent job of that). If your having to use some kind of 'memory optimiser' then the OS may not be as good as it seems, you never should need any programs like this!

Maybe its time to try something new Smile Thats my last comment on this
Reply
#34
(2017-08-14, 00:40)jools5000 Wrote:
(2017-08-13, 00:06)User-3023 Wrote: I'm still running Vista x64 and have no problems what so ever. It runs reasonably fast, fairly good at the type of multi-tasking I require and rarely bogs down.

I find Vista works well for basic applications such as web surfing, e-mail and applications such as Kodi as long as you don't perform too much multi-tasking. If you require alot of multi tasking of sizeable applications it's probably time to upgrade your entire PC with Windows 8 or 10 installed.

I do keep a memory optimizer running and sometimes manually optimize and flush memory that not be used.

I apprecite if it works for you then by all means continue to use it which is your right. You should bear in mind Vista is now a liability.. Microsoft no longer maintains it, the core OS is not patched any more. IE, Firefox and Chrome are no longer supported on this OS or updated. Yes you can run Firefox ESR for the time being but this is only tempoary and the underlying OS is still unpatched and vunerable.

Vista would be OK if you computer wasn't connected to the internet, but the world has moved on and its now its not recommended. Pretty much any OS these days is OK for basic surfing and email (hell even my phone does a decent job of that). If your having to use some kind of 'memory optimiser' then the OS may not be as good as it seems, you never should need any programs like this!

Maybe its time to try something new Smile Thats my last comment on this

I don't know, there's alot of people running Windows XP which is even less secure and most have no security problems. It's really unfortunate that PC users have graduated to this level of paranoia because of PC security problems and the Internet.

Yes browsers are abandoning Vista development. However I find most modern browers incorporate alot of programming and features that I don't use or need.

I'm currently running Firefox version 52.3.0 and it works great. If it stops working ok there are other browsers available very similar to firefox that do support Vista and also run very well. Such as Pale Moon and others.

Though viruses do exists that may effect home users, most hackers target corporations and institutions.
A hacker can very easily break into a home user's computer running Windows 7, Windows 8 or 10 even with all the latest security updates. and do alot more damage than a virus floating around where only a small percentage of computer users will actually be effected.

If you're really concerned about security and being attached I would get something more secure that the latest version of Windows with all the security patches installed,

Windows PC security is pretty much a joke to most hackers. They have no problems getting around later versions of Windows with the latest security patches, Windows and 3rd party firewalls and even virus protection with the latest updates. Virus protection mainly protects you from viruses targeted toward institutions and corporations. That get picked up by a small percentage of home users through e-mails and websites.

You're home PC is actually protected because of the law of averages and probability that most pc users and home pc users are not effected by viruses. Not because you're running a later version of Windows with security patches.

However if your actually concerned about being attached by viruses and become even half way protected it's going to cost you alot more than a PC running the latest version of Windows.

Windows security is primarily based on laws of average and probability. Microsoft, 3rd party virus protection and firewalls are mostly gambling that only a small percentage of pc users will actually ever be attacked and that the virus won't be able to by-pass many machines with Windows security patches, Windows firewall, Windows Virus protection and even 3rd part firewalls and virus protection.

Hacker's don't normally target home users as it goes against a hackers code or code of ethics and the purpose of hacking.

Minimally what you need is to pay 3rd party software developers (who are in the business of PC security) for a firewall and virus protection with regular updates. You're going to need to pay them an annually fee. If you think later versions of Windows with security fixes, virus protection and firewall are going to prevent being attacked by some virus floating around, think again. You might as well be running Windows XP.
Reply
#35
deleted
Reply
#36
(2017-08-14, 02:12)User-3023 Wrote: deleted
My feelings as well.
Reply
#37
Right Click Install properties compatibility tab check box run this program in compatibility mode drop down box set to Windows XP service pack 2 done easy...Your welcome..
Reply
#38
Thumbs Up 
(2017-09-11, 05:32)michael_corban Wrote: Right Click Install properties compatibility tab check box run this program in compatibility mode drop down box set to Windows XP service pack 2 done easy...Your welcome..

Thank you very much! Simple and working solution!

It worked almost perfect for me. The only thing is that I had to kill vcredist_x86.exe for the installation to finish.
Reply
#39
Yeah, I tried a few workarounds. You do have to killl the vcredit exe at end. However,  even after it said installed, I went and opened up KODI< another no go, said I was missing something else. Do you think a fresh install would work better as like everyone else, try and keep older kodi addons etc?
Reply
#40
After running Vista on a Dual Core M55 Thinkcentre for around ten years, I finally broke down and purchased a used  Thinkstation Desktop P300. Fairly good deal came with i7 4th gen. and 16GB main memory, two 256 SSD drives (one which I've removed)  Windows 10 installed (appears to be an upgrade license) all for $300.00 (incl. shipping).

The SSD drive is what keeps the PC fast, ~30 second reboots, defrag only  a few seconds.
Reply
#41
(2018-06-06, 23:26)User-3023 Wrote: After running Vista on a Dual Core M55 Thinkcentre for around ten years, I finally broke down and purchased a used  Thinkstation Desktop P300. Fairly good deal came with i7 4th gen. and 16GB main memory, two 256 SSD drives (one which I've removed)  Windows 10 installed (appears to be an upgrade license) all for $300.00 (incl. shipping).

The SSD drive is what keeps the PC fast, ~30 second reboots, defrag only  a few seconds.


Yea you don’t want to defrag an SSD. That’ll just wear down the cells more. Also since it’s an SSD, there’s little to no latency with read/write operations.
Reply
#42
(2018-06-06, 23:39)simon_lefisch Wrote:
(2018-06-06, 23:26)User-3023 Wrote: After running Vista on a Dual Core M55 Thinkcentre for around ten years, I finally broke down and purchased a used  Thinkstation Desktop P300. Fairly good deal came with i7 4th gen. and 16GB main memory, two 256 SSD drives (one which I've removed)  Windows 10 installed (appears to be an upgrade license) all for $300.00 (incl. shipping).

The SSD drive is what keeps the PC fast, ~30 second reboots, defrag only  a few seconds.


Yea you don’t want to defrag an SSD. That’ll just wear down the cells more. Also since it’s an SSD, there’s little to no latency with read/write operations.

Yep, I only did it a few times with iobit smart defrag 5.0 and it took under 5 seconds so I don't think 5 seconds caused any additional wear to the SSD drive.

Iobit Smart Defrag 5.0 has different options for defrag After trying them all the options took around 5 seconds each.
Fast Defrag, Defrag and optimize, Large file defrag, free space defrag and Defrag and prioritize files.

FYI,

Windows automatically defrags your hard drive  if you have Volume Shadow Copy turned on (it's enabled when you have Windows System Restore turned on to be able to rollback to a previous system snapshot), defragmentation will happen once a month by default. Contrary to popular belief, SSDs do get fragmented, though not to an extent mechanical drives do.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Kodi 17.1 Installation problem with KB971644 Vista x860