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. Would be the place to go, and several webpages point there, but it doesn't have it anymore.

Microsoft has released an update for Windows XP SP2 and SP3 system that adds exFAT file system drivers to the operating system.

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. Makita Chainsaw Parts Diagram.

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?

Backtrack using the archive. 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. 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 23:15. [Default] On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 22:31:18 -0400, in You did it again, 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 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. 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. Boyz Ii Men Legacy Greatest Hits Collection Rapidshare Files. 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 23:41. [Default] On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:15:44 -0400, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Micky 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 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.

Gilliver (John) 01:44. In message, Micky 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?

>>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, 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). [Default] On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:42:34 +0100, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 'J. Gilliver (John)' wrote: >In message, Micky >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 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.*** >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 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 16:00. On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:00:19 -0800 (PST), wrote: >Wow! This was so hard to find and now my exfat drive is reading perfectly in XP!

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. Loudam.@gmail.com 18:41.

I run XP in a VirtualBox VM in OS X so I can run exactly one piece of W32-bit application software and not have to upgrade to another version of Windows. I left Windows behind for good when I ceased consulting to Windows-centric clients. But, during those years I accumulated lots and lots of files (C and Perl source,.doc and.xls) that I don't wish to lose. I intend to backup those files on a RAID appliance with an exFAT volume. So, I have a removable USB disk I wish to format exFAT to be compatible with OS X and the RAID appliance. Could not get this download from the clueless folks at MS, who just want to argue with you about 'you fool, why are you still running XP.' It's none of their fucking business why I choose which OS to run, but it would cost them virtually nothing to keep those downloads available, particularly since they continue to support the 64-bit version.

Thanks again and to. Gilliver (John) 00:52.

Hello all, I have a Windows XP 32bit with SP3 with up to date patches. When I try to access data from a Western Digital 250G external USB HD (which is formatted as exFAT) it says that it is not formatted and asks me to format it now. This same drive works fine when I attach it to a Win7 64bit workstation. On the XP machine, I chose to format the drive using exFAT. I get the message 'windows was unable to complete the format'. Now if I format the drive using NTFS I am OK.

I even formatted the HD using exFAT on a Win7 64bit machine. When I place the HD back to the XP machine it sees the drive and the drive letter but keeps saying that it needs to be formatted. In conclusion, the drive works on my Win7 both no matter what filesystem I use but in XP it only works as NTFS. I have no trouble seeing the drive or any drive letters. I even changed around the drive letters around from F to Z and I tried disabling the firewire connection (I read this on another site).

Normally I would just use NTFS and be done with it. However I wanted to use this drive to backup some things on my XBOX360 which does not recognize NTFS.

Also (if im not mistaken) I wanted to attach this to a MAC and MAC won't recognize NTFS either but I believe it does recognize exFAT. The HD is a little old but it does work fine.

Hah, the strangest thing. I just worked around it. I no longer have a workstation that would allow me to format it to a FAT32 so that is one test I could not do. I decided to take my exFAT HD and backup some things from the xbox360 and lo and behold the 360 formatted the HD to Fat32. I can now access the data across all the machines I am using this drive for.

For poops and giggles I have a state of the art 512mb USB flash drive (sarcasm) and I formatted it exfat. It seems my XP won't recognize anything exFAT. This isn't too much of a big deal since I worked around my issue but if anyone knows how to get exFAT working on an XP box, I would gladly like to know for troubleshooting sake. If you don't have any files over 4Gb, I would use FAT32. I've actually had this exact same issue - what I did was partition the drive (160Gb) into 2 FAT32 partitions both formatted at 31Gb, then the rest of the disk space as NTFS. All three drives were recognized by both systems. Of course, the best way would be to purchase separate drives for each different file system you wish to use.

I posted my reply without seeing yours. The problem is I cant format to Fat32. It isn't even an option for me on any of my workstations (XP and 7).

I believe since I am up to date the option isn't there. Luckily my 360 did the job for me.

It is a strange workaround but it did work.