Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Looking for WindowsXP KB955704
6,986 views
Skip to first unread message
Micky
Jul 15, 2016, 9:51:28 PM7/15/16
to
Does anyone have WindowsXP-KB955704-x86-ENU.exe
I need it to read 64GB SD cards on my XP netbook, and that includes
the card in my camera.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/955704 would be the place to
go, and several webpages point there, but it doesn't have it anymore.
It has these, including XP 64 bit!!!
The following files are available for download from the Microsoft
Download Center:
Update for Windows XP, x64-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB955704-x64-ENU.exe package
now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, x86-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003-KB955704-x86-ENU.exe package now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, x64-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB955704-x64-ENU.exe package
now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and for Windows
Server 2003 Service Pack 2, ia64-bsed version
Download the WindowsServer2003-KB955704-ia64-ENU.exe package now.
Why does it have 64-bit but not 32bit. Can I use the server2003 file?
Or I'm hoping one of you has it stored where it was first dl'd. Is
that the Windows directory?
I need it to read 64GB SD cards on my XP netbook, and that includes
the card in my camera.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/955704 would be the place to
go, and several webpages point there, but it doesn't have it anymore.
It has these, including XP 64 bit!!!
The following files are available for download from the Microsoft
Download Center:
Update for Windows XP, x64-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB955704-x64-ENU.exe package
now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, x86-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003-KB955704-x86-ENU.exe package now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, x64-based version
Download the WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB955704-x64-ENU.exe package
now.
Update for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and for Windows
Server 2003 Service Pack 2, ia64-bsed version
Download the WindowsServer2003-KB955704-ia64-ENU.exe package now.
Why does it have 64-bit but not 32bit. Can I use the server2003 file?
Or I'm hoping one of you has it stored where it was first dl'd. Is
that the Windows directory?
Paul
Jul 15, 2016, 10:31:23 PM7/15/16
to
https://web.archive.org/web/20150316194708/http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/955704
I won't bore you with the details. Here is your link. The
file is not at this address on the Microsoft site, but is stored
on archive.org.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150602150445/http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/6/E/A6EFFC03-F035-4604-9FB0-3B8169ED6BB6/WindowsXP-KB955704-x86-ENU.exe
And I've noticed this trend elsewhere. Some hillbillies think it's
funny to remove the link for the x86 version of WinXP, because
"WinXP isn't supported any more", then leave the x64 one sitting
there (which hardly anyone needs) because... well, who knows.
Because it's what hillbillies and web monkeys do I guess.
The 955704 is also *not* listed on the catalog server.
Paul
Micky
Jul 16, 2016, 2:15:51 AM7/16/16
to
[Default] On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 22:31:18 -0400, in
You did it again, Paul. Thank you.
I went to the netbook which has Agent and I dl'd the 3000 posts, I
think it was, in this ng since last September, so I just clicked on
this link and it downloaded, then I ran it, then I had to restart
windows, then I connected the camera, and it saw all the photos on the
card. No suggestion about formatting. So simple once you gave me
the link.
>And I've noticed this trend elsewhere. Some hillbillies think it's
>funny to remove the link for the x86 version of WinXP, because
>"WinXP isn't supported any more", then leave the x64 one sitting
I thought "isn't supported" meant they weren't going to work on
problems, not that they'd take files away from us, just because we
hadn't dl'd them yet.
>there (which hardly anyone needs) because... well, who knows.
>Because it's what hillbillies and web monkeys do I guess.
I guess so. What happens when one of each mate with each other?
>The 955704 is also *not* listed on the catalog server.
I don't know what the catalog server is. Does that mean even the 64
bit people can't get a copy?
BTW1, I do know about the Wayback machine but I very rarely think of
it, expecially wrt files, as opposed to the appearance of pages. That
guy must have some incredibly big harddrives. "491 billion web pages
saved over time" and a very underplayed, one word "DONATE". My gosh,
there are 170 people working on this! I gave him a small amount.
BTW2, earlier when I was trying to resolve this, I looked in the
Windows directory of the netbook, and though for some silly reason I
had deleted all the KB uninstall programs from the desktop (before it
broke) I have loads of empty space on the netbook so they were all
there. Quite a few KB's with numbers higher than 955704, but not
that one. In fact most of the numbers are missing because they were
never suggested by windows update. They really have a lot of nerve
deleting this.
BTW3, I would have had to scale back to 32gig, and though 64 gig will
hold 15,000 photos, more than I will probably take in 50 years, I want
it to be big, just in case I see something worth video-recording. I
would hate to run out of memory in the middle of a big news story.
(The camera says it will take a maximum of 20 minutes, but I can do
that over and over.) Googling, I see that for hi-def video from 24
to 6 mbps, I can get between 640 to 1440 minutes. That's over 6 hours
to 24 hours, minus whatever I've already used for still photos. Though
I don't actually know how to convert what the camera manual says into
any of these values. Still, that should be enough to record until I
fall asleep.
Thanks again, for having the patience to read 'til the end.
Micky
> Paul
I went to the netbook which has Agent and I dl'd the 3000 posts, I
think it was, in this ng since last September, so I just clicked on
this link and it downloaded, then I ran it, then I had to restart
windows, then I connected the camera, and it saw all the photos on the
card. No suggestion about formatting. So simple once you gave me
the link.
>And I've noticed this trend elsewhere. Some hillbillies think it's
>funny to remove the link for the x86 version of WinXP, because
>"WinXP isn't supported any more", then leave the x64 one sitting
problems, not that they'd take files away from us, just because we
hadn't dl'd them yet.
>there (which hardly anyone needs) because... well, who knows.
>Because it's what hillbillies and web monkeys do I guess.
>The 955704 is also *not* listed on the catalog server.
bit people can't get a copy?
BTW1, I do know about the Wayback machine but I very rarely think of
it, expecially wrt files, as opposed to the appearance of pages. That
guy must have some incredibly big harddrives. "491 billion web pages
saved over time" and a very underplayed, one word "DONATE". My gosh,
there are 170 people working on this! I gave him a small amount.
BTW2, earlier when I was trying to resolve this, I looked in the
Windows directory of the netbook, and though for some silly reason I
had deleted all the KB uninstall programs from the desktop (before it
broke) I have loads of empty space on the netbook so they were all
there. Quite a few KB's with numbers higher than 955704, but not
that one. In fact most of the numbers are missing because they were
never suggested by windows update. They really have a lot of nerve
deleting this.
BTW3, I would have had to scale back to 32gig, and though 64 gig will
hold 15,000 photos, more than I will probably take in 50 years, I want
it to be big, just in case I see something worth video-recording. I
would hate to run out of memory in the middle of a big news story.
(The camera says it will take a maximum of 20 minutes, but I can do
that over and over.) Googling, I see that for hi-def video from 24
to 6 mbps, I can get between 640 to 1440 minutes. That's over 6 hours
to 24 hours, minus whatever I've already used for still photos. Though
I don't actually know how to convert what the camera manual says into
any of these values. Still, that should be enough to record until I
fall asleep.
Thanks again, for having the patience to read 'til the end.
Micky
> Paul
Micky
Jul 16, 2016, 2:41:27 AM7/16/16
to
[Default] On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:15:44 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Micky
shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
64GB.
Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Micky
<NONONObobb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>BTW3, I would have had to scale back to 32gig, and though 64 gig will
>hold 15,000 photos, more than I will probably take in 50 years, I want
>it to be big, just in case I see something worth video-recording. I
>would hate to run out of memory in the middle of a big news story.
>(The camera says it will take a maximum of 20 minutes, but I can do
>that over and over.) Googling, I see that for hi-def video from 24
>to 6 mbps, I can get between 640 to 1440 minutes. That's over 6 hours
>to 24 hours, minus whatever I've already used for still photos. Though
>I don't actually know how to convert what the camera manual says into
>any of these values. Still, that should be enough to record until I
>fall asleep.
Apparently mpeg-4 Part10 1280x720 is equal 3 mbps so I'll be able to
>
>
>BTW3, I would have had to scale back to 32gig, and though 64 gig will
>hold 15,000 photos, more than I will probably take in 50 years, I want
>it to be big, just in case I see something worth video-recording. I
>would hate to run out of memory in the middle of a big news story.
>(The camera says it will take a maximum of 20 minutes, but I can do
>that over and over.) Googling, I see that for hi-def video from 24
>to 6 mbps, I can get between 640 to 1440 minutes. That's over 6 hours
>to 24 hours, minus whatever I've already used for still photos. Though
>I don't actually know how to convert what the camera manual says into
>any of these values. Still, that should be enough to record until I
>fall asleep.
shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
64GB.
Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 16, 2016, 4:44:49 AM7/16/16
to
In message <i9ljobhpg1s5ko3a4...@4ax.com>, Micky
<NONONObobb...@gmail.com> writes:
[]
USB2 (most larger ones are USB3 anyway now), so I'm not surprised
they're under 25c/G there. Watch for speed though - probably OK for
stills, but not necessarily for video - or were the prices you are
quoting for higher-speed cards too?
were talking about USB sticks rather than cards, but I suspect the same
may apply) that they could die in as little as a few hours if used to
give more memory, because of the repeated reading and writing; however,
if you mean just for data storage, that's probably OK (though I still
feel uncertain about using card or stick rather than HD for long-term
storage, because of the suddenness of its usual failure modes).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...
<NONONObobb...@gmail.com> writes:
[]
>Apparently mpeg-4 Part10 1280x720 is equal 3 mbps so I'll be able to
>shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
(-:
>shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
>
>But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
>64GB.
Yes, USB and SD here have been below 25p/G for a while, at least for
>But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
>64GB.
USB2 (most larger ones are USB3 anyway now), so I'm not surprised
they're under 25c/G there. Watch for speed though - probably OK for
stills, but not necessarily for video - or were the prices you are
quoting for higher-speed cards too?
>
>Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
>been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
Do you mean to extend the memory? Some years ago, I heard that (they
>Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
>been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
were talking about USB sticks rather than cards, but I suspect the same
may apply) that they could die in as little as a few hours if used to
give more memory, because of the repeated reading and writing; however,
if you mean just for data storage, that's probably OK (though I still
feel uncertain about using card or stick rather than HD for long-term
storage, because of the suddenness of its usual failure modes).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...
Micky
Jul 16, 2016, 3:48:30 PM7/16/16
to
[Default] On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:42:34 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
thanks for the warning.
>>Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
>>been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
>
>Do you mean to extend the memory? Some years ago, I heard that (they
>were talking about USB sticks rather than cards, but I suspect the same
>may apply) that they could die in as little as a few hours if used to
>give more memory, because of the repeated reading and writing; however,
Thanks. I'll make a point not to do that. I don't know what I had
in mind, considering I've only used 60 of the 160 gigs on the hdd.***
trip, I only used a flashdrive twice, for taking things to a place
that had computers to rent, so that the guy could print out a lettter,
which I wanted to mail rather than email. That was certainly easier
with a flash drive than with an SD card, so maybe I have no use for a
card after all. "Why do you climb mountains? Because they're
there." Why do I want a card in the card slot? Because it's there.
OTOH the camera and the phone are designed entirely around an SD card.
***(Come to think of it, I've only used 60 of the 75 gigs** on this
computer, where I do 10 or 100 times as much. I wonder why they're
both 60 gigs. Only 75 total HDD storage on the desktop because it
was a friend's business computer, where his staff was probably only
supposed to run a word processor and the proprietary software he uses
to run his security alarm business****, so they sell "business" models
which don't have much storage or much ram. He has three work stations
and also a server I think)
**That's why I'm trying to move to a bigger computer, before the HDD
fills up more.
****When a customer had alarm problems, like he couldn't set the
alarm, my friend used to have to go out there, maybe 20 or more miles,
maybe late at n ight. Now he just phones into the alarm board in the
customer's location and if a door switch won't close, he disables the
switch without leaving his chair, at his office or at home.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <i9ljobhpg1s5ko3a4...@4ax.com>, Micky
><NONONObobb...@gmail.com> writes:
>[]
>>Apparently mpeg-4 Part10 1280x720 is equal 3 mbps so I'll be able to
>>shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
>(-:
>>
>>But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
>>64GB.
>Yes, USB and SD here have been below 25p/G for a while, at least for
>USB2 (most larger ones are USB3 anyway now), so I'm not surprised
>they're under 25c/G there. Watch for speed though - probably OK for
>stills, but not necessarily for video - or were the prices you are
>quoting for higher-speed cards too?
Yes, class 10. In another ng, someone warned me about that, but
>In message <i9ljobhpg1s5ko3a4...@4ax.com>, Micky
><NONONObobb...@gmail.com> writes:
>[]
>>Apparently mpeg-4 Part10 1280x720 is equal 3 mbps so I'll be able to
>>shoot video for 48 hours. But who's going to watch it.
>(-:
>>
>>But SD cards are so cheap now, as low as 8 dollars for 32, and 18 for
>>64GB.
>Yes, USB and SD here have been below 25p/G for a while, at least for
>USB2 (most larger ones are USB3 anyway now), so I'm not surprised
>they're under 25c/G there. Watch for speed though - probably OK for
>stills, but not necessarily for video - or were the prices you are
>quoting for higher-speed cards too?
thanks for the warning.
>>Hey, this means I can get the big one for the slot in the netbook. I'd
>>been thinking so much about the camera, I forgot about that.
>
>Do you mean to extend the memory? Some years ago, I heard that (they
>were talking about USB sticks rather than cards, but I suspect the same
>may apply) that they could die in as little as a few hours if used to
>give more memory, because of the repeated reading and writing; however,
in mind, considering I've only used 60 of the 160 gigs on the hdd.***
>if you mean just for data storage, that's probably OK (though I still
>feel uncertain about using card or stick rather than HD for long-term
>storage, because of the suddenness of its usual failure modes).
So cards and sticks both fail suddenly in the same way? On the last
>feel uncertain about using card or stick rather than HD for long-term
>storage, because of the suddenness of its usual failure modes).
trip, I only used a flashdrive twice, for taking things to a place
that had computers to rent, so that the guy could print out a lettter,
which I wanted to mail rather than email. That was certainly easier
with a flash drive than with an SD card, so maybe I have no use for a
card after all. "Why do you climb mountains? Because they're
there." Why do I want a card in the card slot? Because it's there.
OTOH the camera and the phone are designed entirely around an SD card.
***(Come to think of it, I've only used 60 of the 75 gigs** on this
computer, where I do 10 or 100 times as much. I wonder why they're
both 60 gigs. Only 75 total HDD storage on the desktop because it
was a friend's business computer, where his staff was probably only
supposed to run a word processor and the proprietary software he uses
to run his security alarm business****, so they sell "business" models
which don't have much storage or much ram. He has three work stations
and also a server I think)
**That's why I'm trying to move to a bigger computer, before the HDD
fills up more.
****When a customer had alarm problems, like he couldn't set the
alarm, my friend used to have to go out there, maybe 20 or more miles,
maybe late at n ight. Now he just phones into the alarm board in the
customer's location and if a door switch won't close, he disables the
switch without leaving his chair, at his office or at home.
knight...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2016, 7:00:29 PM12/12/16
to
Wow! Thanks Much! This was so hard to find and now my exfat drive is reading perfectly in XP! Thanks Bud!
Micky
Mar 16, 2017, 8:45:25 AM3/16/17
to
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:00:19 -0800 (PST), knight...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Wow! Thanks Much! This was so hard to find and now my exfat drive is reading perfectly in XP! Thanks Bud!
Five months after the rest of the thread. Newsgroups are so superior
to web forums. For one thing, the forum would be closed by now, and
if someone want to write to Paul or me, the email addresses woudl be
hidden. Maybe a few regulars woudl be reachable.
And mailing lists from Yahoo etc. hide the email address from those
who read online, but not those who read by email last I looked. But
if you're not a subscriber, you can search the archive, but you can't
dl every post for the last 6 months or 3 years, like with NG.
And the presentation of ng is so much better.
wrote:
>Wow! Thanks Much! This was so hard to find and now my exfat drive is reading perfectly in XP! Thanks Bud!
to web forums. For one thing, the forum would be closed by now, and
if someone want to write to Paul or me, the email addresses woudl be
hidden. Maybe a few regulars woudl be reachable.
And mailing lists from Yahoo etc. hide the email address from those
who read online, but not those who read by email last I looked. But
if you're not a subscriber, you can search the archive, but you can't
dl every post for the last 6 months or 3 years, like with NG.
And the presentation of ng is so much better.
loudam...@gmail.com
Nov 13, 2017, 9:41:03 PM11/13/17
to
t.willia...@gmail.com
Dec 22, 2017, 7:20:58 PM12/22/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Dec 23, 2017, 3:52:26 AM12/23/17
to
In message <edf90575-354b-44d3...@googlegroups.com>,
t.willia...@gmail.com writes:
[]
Rather than thanking them here, drop them a donation (-:
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
t.willia...@gmail.com writes:
[]
Rather than thanking them here, drop them a donation (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... there were parts of Roman York that appear to be more ethnically mixed
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
taho...@gmail.com
Mar 20, 2018, 9:05:08 PM3/20/18
to
Thanks Paul from 2016 !
justi...@pineville.kyschools.us
Jan 11, 2019, 6:59:26 PM1/11/19
to
Paul,
You've saved my but today. Thanks friend!
You've saved my but today. Thanks friend!
Paul
Jan 11, 2019, 8:47:52 PM1/11/19
to
winte...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2019, 9:39:13 AM6/22/19
to
YOU ROCK PAUL!! Almost 3 years later... You and the Wayback are STILL AWESOME CAKE!!
Very much appreciated, I could barely afford the new bigger flash drive let alone a new computer - me and my old XP are truly grateful :D
Very much appreciated, I could barely afford the new bigger flash drive let alone a new computer - me and my old XP are truly grateful :D
0 new messages