BITS Error 1290: 0x50a following updates

I believe that late last summer growing issues with windows updates and with the dysfunctional BITS were being increasingly reported in increasing numbers in the September updates time frame. So there could be a separate windows update isssue causing a dysfuctional BITS similarly as has been identified for the Fix it tools.  Or there could be a different windows update issue like the 100% CPU spiking that would have that effect by sending people troubleshooting the windows update issue to use a faulty Fix it tool which would then aggravate the windows problem by creating an additional new and different problem involving BITS.  Based on the flurry of trouble reports timing I would think the windows update issue or other event would be in the time frame of the September monthly updates. Of course with a continuing issue the aggravation over time could cause an avalanche of reports even a month later so it is difficult to tell with exactness when the issue with windows update first began.

**My own personal timeline of SVCHOST and BITS problems is as follows:**I was fist hit by the SVCHOST problem back in June or July 2013 - and had no idea what it was.

All I knew was my Dell laptop was crippled due to a 100% CPU overload caused by an svchost process. This was a real pain as it was my "field engineers" computer - used on callouts to a customers site. I didn't have time to diagnose it and swapped over to my newer Win7 laptop - which previously stayed at home.

Then on Tuesday November 12th 2013 - around midnight - I was hit again, this time on my personal desktop computer.

I tried the usual Windows Update fixes but nothing worked - so I tried the Microsoft Fix-It - and it declared an unfixable error. Rebooted and tried Windows Update again - still no joy, and svchost was stuck at full throttle again. I knew by that time how to kill the runaway svchost - go to services.msc - Disable and then Stop the Windows Update service - which is when I noticed BITS was missing!

**I knew BITS was there before I ran the Fix-It - and that was only 5-10 minutes ago - WTF!!**The Fix-It had obviously gone wrong - so rather than mess around I did an immediate System Restore - and returned to finding a fix for the SVCHOST problem. I filed the BITS problem away in my mind for a later time. The rest is history as they say.

I think the timelines of the current epidemic of BITS registry "corruption" is directly linked to the current SVCHOST problem. Both Xircal and myself resorted to the MS Fix-It to try and resolve the Windows Update freeze (SVCHOST problem) - before we were aware of the correct fix.

I am sure most tech people would have done the same - and it was what Microsoft themselves suggest if you have Windows Update issues. Thus once the faulty Fix-It was released everyone who used it - to try and fix a Windows Update freeze - would get hit by the BITS problem!

The SVCHOST problem timeline can be seen in the following articles:

The first really helpful article I found was the first InfoWorld article - dated November 13, 2013

It had a nice catchy title and claimed to offer a fix:

 Windows XP update locks machines with SVCHOST redlined at 100%: Fix it with KB 2879017http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/windows-xp-update-locks-machines-svchost-redlined-100-fix-it-kb-2879017-230733  --  The only problem was by the time it was published that KB2879017 fix was no longer valid - as it referred to the October Cumulative Update. Once I worked out you needed the November update the fix worked.

That article had some interesting timeline information - which is why I am writing this section:

[QUOTE] --------------------------------------

Microsoft has known about the problem for months -- probably years -- but it hasn't fixed it.

I first saw the problem described in a TechNet post for the June 2013 Black Tuesday patches.

In September, reader warwagon on the Neowin support forum described the same problem -- and drew more than 100 comments, many of which repeated the same story. Jeff Duntemann talked about the problem in October -- and he traces its origins back to 2004. -- Now the November 2013 Black Tuesday patches are bringing back the same litany, and Microsoft hasn't made any moves to fix it.

[/QUOTE] --------------------------------------

So the timeframe of the current SVCHOST problem starts in June 2013 - develops into a full blown epidemic in  September and  October - and hits the News websites when it happens again on November 12th. I suspect the BITS problem follows the same timeline - just depends on when Microsoft first released the faulty Fix-It utility. We know the faulty Fix-It was available from  November 19th - as we have a digitally signed and dated faulty copy!!

The earliest indication - so far - of the Fix-It declaring an "unfixable service registration" (BITS ???) was in the October 3rd forum post that you found - but it is quite possible the faulty Fix-It was available before that date - that is at present unknown. 

The second InfoWorld article came out two days later - dated November 15, 2013

Microsoft to fix Windows XP update SVCHOST redline issue 'soon'http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/microsoft-fix-windows-xp-update-svchost-redline-issue-soon-230940

This contained details of the actual cause of the SVCHOST problem from Doug Neal of Microsoft.

DougCuk

Doug, The December 16 infoworld article follows the same general track and yeah from reading back in the 35 to 50 pages of indexed posts on the topic in this group it becomes apparent the problem was being posted about in this community with increasing frequency in the late summer to early fall time range of September.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/microsoft-promises-fix-windows-xp-svchost-redlining-soon-possible-232675?page=0,0

The more powerful a users computer would tend to delay the effect being felt so much of the CPU spiking and at first the computers having slower CPU's and lower system resources would be affected most adversely, while users having faster computers would not see a drastic sudden slowdown or a drastic CPU spiking, but each month the problem would grow worse as the catalog of updates being polled and compiled would grow larger and the CPU spiking would have its effect on users with more powerful computers who are still running XP.

By October the issue had grown to an intensity that even "power users" with maxed out 32 bit machines were being hit by the intensity of the CPU loading to the point all system resources were being consumed with 100% CPU loading by what is supposed to be a "background task" for which the CPU is supposed to be throttled back to a low level like 10% maximum so that windows update does not interfere with other tasks and is multitasking friendly.  It is not an isolated issue for the windows update website alone when "remote management" via remote procedure call of a users machine can monopolize system resources and cause a task or "procedure" execution consuming 10 times *more* CPU usage than what is supposed to be the governed limit of tasking for that particular task supposed to be only a "background service" enabled on a users computer.

Windows Update should have been modeled after something like an ftp client or P2P client which can reside on a machine running quietly and unobtrusively in the background at a low level of CPU loading while the user is browsing the web or doing other things. Third party software providers seem to be able to write programs that work just fine to accomplish low CPU loading and sharing resources with other tasks in what should be a polite multitasking environment so why not Microsoft? Windows Update needs to be taught ninja invisibility as a background task and stop taking center stage as a priority task hogging 100% CPU which is an overt "application crash". What is Windows Update really supposed to be, only an automatic "smart" downloader that comfortably resides on a users machine. Microsoft should be able to get right a downloader so that it does the job it is designed to do as a low demand on resources background task.

Microsoft should be able to provide an updated browser that works in "silent mode" and filters out all the mulitple feed "ad sponsor' and multimedia marketing and tracking popped up or filled in either one, that has become an uninvited and unwelcome guest as part of the "windows experience" which seems to be more defined by hardware and software "partners" of Microsoft than by anything that actual owners and users of computers have ever said is what they want or need. I get it completely about HTPC and gamer tasked machines, but that is entertainment and has nearly zero to do with productivity and business use which is the purpose for which many users of computers own a computer in the first place. Instead of showing all that marketing spam on every page and having the actual page content load last, why not prioritize the actual page and just leave the rest of the garbage blank spaces with a red "X" placeholder for spam on which a user can click if they want to see marketing spam to better enjoy a true "windows experience"?

Where is my "spam free zone" user select option on my Internet Explorer browser?

Put me on the web page sponsor / internet website spammer "Do not call list".

Allow my browser to "unsubcribe me" from all the multiple feeds of web page spam.

I buy my own bandwidth to view the web so webmaster don't spam me ....."partner"

What is next in the "true windows experience" will there be commercial breaks worldwide

every ten minutes for the entire internet for television modeled live advertisements?

Let's just make the world wide web into a cesspool of spam modeled after TV and

then we can all enjoy the "true windows experience".  Why have a TV when you can

have a computer and get spammed a hundred times more?  And hey it's "interactive"

so then it must be "good" right?

500 million computers that are not essentially HTPC and gaming computers are now according to Microsoft "unworthy" to provide the true "windows experience" and after April 8 all that "obsolete equipment" should just be collected by recyclers and for the most part sent to the garbage dump along with all associated hardware for having been designated "end of mission" by management geniuses at Microsoft? A half billion computers presently run windows XP ! Not a few thousand, a half billion ! Microsoft is making a huge miscalculation not doing a bona fide SP4 and extended support for XP even if it required a nominal fee based licensing for renewal.

I for one will say this, the board of directors at Microsoft is NOT the appointed "death panel" for *any*

computer I own or for any associated hardware I own.  Whatever gets orphaned by Microsoft is going to get adopted by Linux.