Slow computer

Joan Archer · External Since: Mar 18, 2004 Posts: 1184

<lol> I know I already sent him a card, two in fact, a real one and online
one <g>
Joan

Heather wrote:
> Did you know that someone on here had a birthday on the 27th?? Wonder
> how old he is....lol. He ain't talkin'. I will drop further
> clues.
> Figgs

Heather · External Since: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 424

Does his name start with "S"?? Or does he use "Arfur" as a nom de plume??
If so.....lets all wish him Happy Birthday, lol.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SHANE!!

XX Figgs

"Joan Archer" <archer_joan.RemoveThis@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:egoIMrTDGHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> <lol> I know I already sent him a card, two in fact, a real one and online
> one <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
> Heather wrote:
>> Did you know that someone on here had a birthday on the 27th?? Wonder how
>> old he is....lol. He ain't talkin'. I will drop further
>> clues.
>> Figgs
>
>

Noel Paton · External Since: Oct 12, 2005 Posts: 1781

Hoppy BarfDIY - ShunE!!
:}

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Heather" <figgs.DeleteThis@invalid.nospam> wrote in message
news:eZCfooWDGHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does his name start with "S"?? Or does he use "Arfur" as a nom de plume??
> If so.....lets all wish him Happy Birthday, lol.
>
> HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SHANE!!
>
> XX Figgs
>
> "Joan Archer" <archer_joan.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:egoIMrTDGHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> <lol> I know I already sent him a card, two in fact, a real one and
>> online one <g>
>> Joan
>>
>>
>>
>> Heather wrote:
>>> Did you know that someone on here had a birthday on the 27th?? Wonder
>>> how old he is....lol. He ain't talkin'. I will drop further
>>> clues.
>>> Figgs
>>
>>
>
>

Joan Archer · External Since: Mar 18, 2004 Posts: 1184

<lol> You drank his health then <g>
Joan

Noel Paton wrote:
> Hoppy BarfDIY - ShunE!!
> :}
>
>
>

Dean · External Since: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 21

I think I started this thread. To recap, I went to visit my elderly dad and
found a computer that was absurdly slow. I was posting both on AUMHA and
here but, early on, I started getting messages that this forum was
temporarily unavailable, and this continued for days. I assumed the error
message was true but I'm now starting to think that that problem must have
had something to do with the computer I was using, since you all have been
posting since I went AWOL. In fact, this thread seems to have moved along
without my participation, quite nicely. I am sorry for dropping out, I lost
access to the forum. KB helped keep my issue alive here it seems and I
thank him for that.

In any event, after having done all the obvious things to quicken up my
dad's computer, or at least the easier things (virus scan, adaware, hijack
this, scandisk thorough, disk defrag and more), system resources were
unimpressed and remained dreadfully low. At that point, after a hijackthis
log, someone mentioned that my version of ME seemed to be out of date. At
that point I decided this meant hat I should visit Microsoft and download
and install the service pack 1. When I did, things went from bad to worse.
The operating system crashed, said it could not find explorer.exe. One
expert thinks this happened because I should not have attempted a download
with so little resources. The subsequent installation was thereby bad.

In any event, my dad did not have an installation CD so I was in big trouble
with an inoperable system and facing a potential total loss of data, as he
never backed anything up either. Fortunately, someone VERY nice found and
overnight fedexed me a windows ME reinstallation CD and I reinstalled over
the old installation, which lost no data or programs, after getting some
instruction in bios settings and telling it to boot from a CD, etc. Before
that, I restored to the most recent registry which was a year old, since I
was desperate, something I was not supposed to do. But the new
reinstallation seemed to work fine, despite that, and system resources are
now at 80%. So all is well, which was just barely in time, as I had to end
my vacation with my dad, which due to this mess, was a pretty lousy
vacation, though I did get to spend a ton of quality time with my dad's old
computer; and it is now happy, as is he!

In summary, I am sorry I dripped out of the thread. I didn't mean to. I
thank you all for your help. it appears that you enjoyed my thread without
me!

Happy new yr all!

Dean
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews RemoveThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:bib7r113i62e6f0ch4dunfvnnd7j80vol5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:06:10 -0000, "Noel Paton"
>
>>You can safely IGNORE anything classed as 'System Idle' in process
>>explorer - that's simply the difference between the available CPU power
>>and
>>the 'used' CPU power (for want of a better phrase after too many pints of
>>ale<g>)
>
> Which means if the PC is slow while idle is 90% or so, it's something
> other than CPU that is keeping you waiting - e.g. failing HD retries.
>
>>Note processor usage is in NO WAY related to used resources!!!!
>
> True. If resource heaps run out, PC crashes at full speed, much as it
> would with defective RAM. Defective HD causes slowdowns because the
> errors are detected and the operation is re-tried, often endlessly.
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Noel Paton · External Since: Oct 12, 2005 Posts: 1781

Thanks for coming back to us with your story - sounds like you had a fun
time!!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Dean" <Whooshbopbang4 RemoveThis @adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:lqCdnV95Qby3oSrenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>I think I started this thread. To recap, I went to visit my elderly dad
>and found a computer that was absurdly slow. I was posting both on AUMHA
>and here but, early on, I started getting messages that this forum was
>temporarily unavailable, and this continued for days. I assumed the error
>message was true but I'm now starting to think that that problem must have
>had something to do with the computer I was using, since you all have been
>posting since I went AWOL. In fact, this thread seems to have moved along
>without my participation, quite nicely. I am sorry for dropping out, I
>lost access to the forum. KB helped keep my issue alive here it seems and
>I thank him for that.
>
> In any event, after having done all the obvious things to quicken up my
> dad's computer, or at least the easier things (virus scan, adaware, hijack
> this, scandisk thorough, disk defrag and more), system resources were
> unimpressed and remained dreadfully low. At that point, after a
> hijackthis log, someone mentioned that my version of ME seemed to be out
> of date. At that point I decided this meant hat I should visit Microsoft
> and download and install the service pack 1. When I did, things went from
> bad to worse. The operating system crashed, said it could not find
> explorer.exe. One expert thinks this happened because I should not have
> attempted a download with so little resources. The subsequent
> installation was thereby bad.
>
> In any event, my dad did not have an installation CD so I was in big
> trouble with an inoperable system and facing a potential total loss of
> data, as he never backed anything up either. Fortunately, someone VERY
> nice found and overnight fedexed me a windows ME reinstallation CD and I
> reinstalled over the old installation, which lost no data or programs,
> after getting some instruction in bios settings and telling it to boot
> from a CD, etc. Before that, I restored to the most recent registry which
> was a year old, since I was desperate, something I was not supposed to do.
> But the new reinstallation seemed to work fine, despite that, and system
> resources are now at 80%. So all is well, which was just barely in time,
> as I had to end my vacation with my dad, which due to this mess, was a
> pretty lousy vacation, though I did get to spend a ton of quality time
> with my dad's old computer; and it is now happy, as is he!
>
> In summary, I am sorry I dripped out of the thread. I didn't mean to. I
> thank you all for your help. it appears that you enjoyed my thread
> without me!
>
> Happy new yr all!
>
> Dean

Joan Archer · External Since: Mar 18, 2004 Posts: 1184

Glad you managed to get things sorted out with your Dads computer Dean.
As you noticed it doesn't take long for a thread in any of the WinME ng's
to go OT <g> but we're such a friendly group here and if someone is helped
along the way that's good and we're all happy.
Happy New Year to you as well from us <g>
Joan

Dean wrote:
>I think I started this thread. To recap, I went to visit my elderly
> dad and found a computer that was absurdly slow. I was posting both
> on AUMHA and here but, early on, I started getting messages that this
> forum was temporarily unavailable, and this continued for days. I
> assumed the error message was true but I'm now starting to think that
> that problem must have had something to do with the computer I was
> using, since you all have been posting since I went AWOL. In fact,
> this thread seems to have moved along without my participation, quite
> nicely. I am sorry for dropping out, I lost access to the forum.

>snip>

"cquirke · External Since: Mar 06, 2005 Posts: 395

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:19:55 -0800, "Dean"

>In any event, after having done all the obvious things to quicken up my
>dad's computer, or at least the easier things (virus scan, adaware, hijack
>this, scandisk thorough, disk defrag and more), system resources were
>unimpressed and remained dreadfully low.

Low resources have no performance significance. Rather, they are a
significant cause of stability issues, when they run out.

>At that point, after a hijackthis log, someone mentioned that my version
>of ME seemed to be out of date. At that point I decided this meant hat
>I should visit Microsoft and download and install the service pack 1.

I presume you mean IE6 SP1, given that there is no SPs in the world of
Win9x, and XP is on SP2 already?

IE6 on Win98/SE/ME can cause an issue that can be interpreted as
"slowing down the system", as described here...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm

....and also by Rick Chauvin (sp?)at his site.

>When I did, things went from bad to worse.

See above. Please be more specific in your terminology, i.e. "Service
Pack 1" of what? MS Office have Service Packs too, y'see.

>In any event, my dad did not have an installation CD so I was in big trouble
>with an inoperable system and facing a potential total loss of data, as he
>never backed anything up either. Fortunately, someone VERY nice found and
>overnight fedexed me a windows ME reinstallation CD and I reinstalled over
>the old installation, which lost no data or programs

....but blew away patches and re-created vulnerabilities...

>So all is well, which was just barely in time

A very hairy road. Did you have (and did you re-apply) the WinME fix
for SR? If so, you should have been able to undo the botched "SP1"
via SR rollback. I hope you didn't leave him using WinME's
MIME-spoofable 5.5 version of IE and OE? <worry>

If you want to avoid the profound Explorer slowdowns that can afflict
WinME, Win98 and Win98SE with IE 6, then go IE 5.5 SP2.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm refers.

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Mike M1 · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 4241

> IE6 on Win98/SE/ME can cause an issue that can be interpreted as
> "slowing down the system", as described here...

It should however be noted that this problem appears to affect only a very
very small sample of Win 9x users. The vast majority of Win9x users never
experience such problems and should without question be running IE6 SP1 if
at all possible.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby.TakeThisOut@gmail.com

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews.TakeThisOut@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:19:55 -0800, "Dean"
>
>> In any event, after having done all the obvious things to quicken up
>> my dad's computer, or at least the easier things (virus scan,
>> adaware, hijack this, scandisk thorough, disk defrag and more),
>> system resources were unimpressed and remained dreadfully low.
>
> Low resources have no performance significance. Rather, they are a
> significant cause of stability issues, when they run out.
>
>> At that point, after a hijackthis log, someone mentioned that my
>> version
>> of ME seemed to be out of date. At that point I decided this meant
>> hat
>> I should visit Microsoft and download and install the service pack 1.
>
> I presume you mean IE6 SP1, given that there is no SPs in the world of
> Win9x, and XP is on SP2 already?
>
> IE6 on Win98/SE/ME can cause an issue that can be interpreted as
> "slowing down the system", as described here...
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
>
> ...and also by Rick Chauvin (sp?)at his site.
>
>> When I did, things went from bad to worse.
>
> See above. Please be more specific in your terminology, i.e. "Service
> Pack 1" of what? MS Office have Service Packs too, y'see.
>
>> In any event, my dad did not have an installation CD so I was in big
>> trouble with an inoperable system and facing a potential total loss
>> of data, as he never backed anything up either. Fortunately,
>> someone VERY nice found and overnight fedexed me a windows ME
>> reinstallation CD and I reinstalled over the old installation, which
>> lost no data or programs
>
> ...but blew away patches and re-created vulnerabilities...
>
>> So all is well, which was just barely in time
>
> A very hairy road. Did you have (and did you re-apply) the WinME fix
> for SR? If so, you should have been able to undo the botched "SP1"
> via SR rollback. I hope you didn't leave him using WinME's
> MIME-spoofable 5.5 version of IE and OE? <worry>
>
> If you want to avoid the profound Explorer slowdowns that can afflict
> WinME, Win98 and Win98SE with IE 6, then go IE 5.5 SP2.
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm refers.

"cquirke · External Since: Mar 06, 2005 Posts: 395

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam.DeleteThis@Corned_Beef.Only>

>> IE6 on Win98/SE/ME can cause an issue that can be interpreted as
>> "slowing down the system", as described here...

>It should however be noted that this problem appears to affect only a very
>very small sample of Win 9x users. The vast majority of Win9x users never
>experience such problems and should without question be running IE6 SP1 if
>at all possible.

Nope, Mike; it is a very reproduceable problem - almost to the point
where I'd predict that any Win98/SE/ME system + IE6 will be affected,
and that does include IE6 SP1.

I suspect in a lot of cases, the failure pattern is not recognised, or
is mis-attributed to low heap resources, "system is too slow", "oh
well just time to shutdown" or even "oh well time to re-install".

I'd like everyone to be on IE6 SP1 (as that's the highest ground
possible for such users, against the ever-rising tide of exploited
defects in the wretched embedded HTML renderer) but I don't believe in
glossing over the downsides. Anyone who copies more than a few
hundred files at a time, is likely to hit this problem.

So you could say "most users never copy (or move, or delete) more than
100 files at a time", but copying files is a core OS functionality,
and should work. It reflects poorly on MS, that they left the
erstwhile recommended OS/IE combo in this state, unfixed.

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Mike M1 · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 4241

Chris,

I said NOTHING about the problem not being reproducible,

What I said and will stand by is that this problem only affects a small
proportion of those PCs running Win9x systems. Having run two Win Me
systems here for six years, now reduced to just one, both connected to a
LAN with at times huge numbers of files being moved around I can
confidently state that I have never personally observed the problem. I
can also assure you that I have not misattributed this problem to low heap
resources or a slow system for the simple reason that I have never
observed it.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby.RemoveThis@gmail.com

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews.RemoveThis@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam.RemoveThis@Corned_Beef.Only>
>
>>> IE6 on Win98/SE/ME can cause an issue that can be interpreted as
>>> "slowing down the system", as described here...
>
>> It should however be noted that this problem appears to affect only
>> a very very small sample of Win 9x users. The vast majority of
>> Win9x users never experience such problems and should without
>> question be running IE6 SP1 if at all possible.
>
> Nope, Mike; it is a very reproduceable problem - almost to the point
> where I'd predict that any Win98/SE/ME system + IE6 will be affected,
> and that does include IE6 SP1.
>
> I suspect in a lot of cases, the failure pattern is not recognised, or
> is mis-attributed to low heap resources, "system is too slow", "oh
> well just time to shutdown" or even "oh well time to re-install".
>
> I'd like everyone to be on IE6 SP1 (as that's the highest ground
> possible for such users, against the ever-rising tide of exploited
> defects in the wretched embedded HTML renderer) but I don't believe in
> glossing over the downsides. Anyone who copies more than a few
> hundred files at a time, is likely to hit this problem.
>
> So you could say "most users never copy (or move, or delete) more than
> 100 files at a time", but copying files is a core OS functionality,
> and should work. It reflects poorly on MS, that they left the
> erstwhile recommended OS/IE combo in this state, unfixed.
>
>
>
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

"cquirke · External Since: Mar 06, 2005 Posts: 395

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:28 -0800, "Dean"

>I am not sure what SR is, unless its system resources?

System Restore, as per...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/sr-sfp.htm

....which is most useful in exactly this system, i.e. as a "system
undo" where you have to perform some hairy deeply-embedded install,
knowing that you cannot trust the uninstaller (if one is even
present). DirectX, IE upgrades, WMP etc. all come to mind.

>I was told to check his ME system for updates and the first thing it
>came up with was a service pack, plus about 16 other, seemingly,
>less important updates. I was also told to do the service pack first,
>and that is when I allegedly killed everything by downloading, with
>such low memory, then installing such.

There's no "Service Pack" for WinME or any other Win9x since Win95
SP1. Was this perhaps an IE upgrade, such as IE 6 SP1? Or perhaps a
security roll-up, such as was released for Win9x users on CD?

>With the re-installation CD, after getting him back up and running, I
>installed the service pack but it indicated that IE 6.0 could not be
>installed (plus about 6 other things within the service pack that I
>did not recognize), so I was left with 5.5, surely not with the SP2 fix.

Hmm. You aren't really a "detail guy" eh? <g>

Alas, he'd never have IE 6 SP2 as that's only in XP SP2. That version
of IE 6 was not tested as a retro-fit for earlier OSs, and much of SP2
may extend across both OS and IE to the point that such a thing as a
stand-alone IE 6 SP2 may be impossible to exist.

The pain of embedding IE in the OS continues... endlessly...

>So, I guess he is vulnerable, though he goes almost nowhere on
>the internet except one or two sites and does not use OE.

What email app does he use?

>If the patch to 5.5 is easy to install, perhaps I can coach him remotely.

It won't be an easy download on dial-up. The scandal of this
MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version of
IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
baselines were always above what shipped. You'd have to download and
install bulky IE 5.5 SP1 and then you can install the little patch, or
you could install IE 5.5 SP2 instead as that includes the patch.

Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy, as I'm fairly sure it
won't still be on MS's site. Even IE 6 SP1 may not be (or not in a
form that installs on Win9x), as we're all supposed to throw away PCs
too skinny for XP, and buy new ones with XP SP2 instead.

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Mike M1 · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 4241

> The scandal of this
> MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version of
> IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
> baselines were always above what shipped.

Get real Chris and join the real world please. <vbg> IE6 and later IE6
SP1 were made available for Win Me and users should upgrade to the latest
version with patches still for the moment being released for IE6 SP1. Why
you choose to blame Microsoft for not patching IE5.5 when later and more
secure versions are available escapes me but then again you've always had
your own agenda (and long shall you continue to do so). Smile

> Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy

Correct. Visiting the WU site with a clean install of Win Me running
IE5.5 build (5.50.4134.0100) one is now only offered the stub for
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 although for the time being
if visiting with IE5.5 SP2 one is still offered hotfixes for that version
as well as being urged to upgrade to IE6 SP1.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby DeleteThis @gmail.com

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews DeleteThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:28 -0800, "Dean"
>
>> I am not sure what SR is, unless its system resources?
>
> System Restore, as per...
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/sr-sfp.htm
>
> ...which is most useful in exactly this system, i.e. as a "system
> undo" where you have to perform some hairy deeply-embedded install,
> knowing that you cannot trust the uninstaller (if one is even
> present). DirectX, IE upgrades, WMP etc. all come to mind.
>
>> I was told to check his ME system for updates and the first thing it
>> came up with was a service pack, plus about 16 other, seemingly,
>> less important updates. I was also told to do the service pack
>> first, and that is when I allegedly killed everything by
>> downloading, with
>> such low memory, then installing such.
>
> There's no "Service Pack" for WinME or any other Win9x since Win95
> SP1. Was this perhaps an IE upgrade, such as IE 6 SP1? Or perhaps a
> security roll-up, such as was released for Win9x users on CD?
>
>> With the re-installation CD, after getting him back up and running, I
>> installed the service pack but it indicated that IE 6.0 could not be
>> installed (plus about 6 other things within the service pack that I
>> did not recognize), so I was left with 5.5, surely not with the SP2
>> fix.
>
> Hmm. You aren't really a "detail guy" eh? <g>
>
> Alas, he'd never have IE 6 SP2 as that's only in XP SP2. That version
> of IE 6 was not tested as a retro-fit for earlier OSs, and much of SP2
> may extend across both OS and IE to the point that such a thing as a
> stand-alone IE 6 SP2 may be impossible to exist.
>
> The pain of embedding IE in the OS continues... endlessly...
>
>> So, I guess he is vulnerable, though he goes almost nowhere on
>> the internet except one or two sites and does not use OE.
>
> What email app does he use?
>
>> If the patch to 5.5 is easy to install, perhaps I can coach him
>> remotely.
>
> It won't be an easy download on dial-up. The scandal of this
> MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version of
> IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
> baselines were always above what shipped. You'd have to download and
> install bulky IE 5.5 SP1 and then you can install the little patch, or
> you could install IE 5.5 SP2 instead as that includes the patch.
>
> Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy, as I'm fairly sure it
> won't still be on MS's site. Even IE 6 SP1 may not be (or not in a
> form that installs on Win9x), as we're all supposed to throw away PCs
> too skinny for XP, and buy new ones with XP SP2 instead.

"cquirke · External Since: Mar 06, 2005 Posts: 395

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:21:50 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam.DeleteThis@Corned_Beef.Only>

>What I said and will stand by is that this problem only affects a small
>proportion of those PCs running Win9x systems.

That is the assertion I am contesting.

>Having run two Win Me systems here for six years, now reduced to
>just one, both connected to a LAN with at times huge numbers of files
>being moved around I can confidently state that I have never personally
>observed the problem.

Now this is where one of two things can happen.

The usual thing is to flame your assertion on the basis that my own
mileage is different (as indeed it is).

The more useful thing is to ask: What is it about your system setups
that prevent you from experiencing the problem?

Standard settings I use:
- multiple HD volumes
- mixture of FAT16 and FAT32 volumes
- View As Web Page and active desktop are suppressed
- WSH engines are renamed away
- show all files, show full path, show all file name extensions
- List View, Status and Tool bars enabled
- default folder action is Explore, not Open
- Open is set to re-use the same window
- WinZip is installed, typically version 8.1
- Explorer is set to open in a new instance
- My Documents is redirected off C:

None of the above suggest themselves as causes for the problem, yet
because I always apply these, they may account for my different
mileage compared to one who never applies them.

In particular, given some mileage with shell issues in Vista beta, I'm
wondering about "browse in a new process". This may well create some
scope for race conditions, i.e. fatal embrace between parallel
instances of Explorer, e.g. getting tied up waiting for each other's
windows to refresh or whatever.

>I can also assure you that I have not misattributed this problem to low
>heap resources or a slow system

Yes, I know you well enough to believe you on that Smile

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Mike M1 · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 4241

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews.TakeThisOut@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

> The more useful thing is to ask: What is it about your system setups
> that prevent you from experiencing the problem?
>
> Standard settings I use:
> - multiple HD volumes
Yes

> - mixture of FAT16 and FAT32 volumes
No FAT32 only

> - View As Web Page and active desktop are suppressed
Active Desktop disabled via TweakUI and Classic folder view selected at
Folder Options | View

> - WSH engines are renamed away
No since I try not to be paranoid, I leave it to my doctor to do the
worrying.

> - show all files, show full path, show all file name extensions
Yes naturally Smile

> - List View, Status and Tool bars enabled
Details View, Status and Standard Buttons & Address bar enabled but not
Links which is also suppressed on the Favourites menu.

> - default folder action is Explore, not Open
Yes

> - Open is set to re-use the same window
No

> - WinZip is installed, typically version 8.1
Compressed folders no, WinZip yes, v8.0

> - Explorer is set to open in a new instance
No

> - My Documents is redirected off C:
Yes, as is desktop, Temp and SysTemp objects, TIF, message store, etc,
etc, Note though that relocating the desktop does cause top level content
on the desktop such as jpg, etc, to open much slower than if located
elsewhere including in a folder on the desktop. This is also true in XP.
Documents and My Documents are suppressed on the Start Menu (TweakUI),

> None of the above suggest themselves as causes for the problem, yet
> because I always apply these, they may account for my different
> mileage compared to one who never applies them.

A few differences in our typical setups but none that necessarily would
immediately seem an obvious cause of the problem however enough for us to
possibly have a very different experience..

> In particular, given some mileage with shell issues in Vista beta, I'm
> wondering about "browse in a new process". This may well create some
> scope for race conditions, i.e. fatal embrace between parallel
> instances of Explorer, e.g. getting tied up waiting for each other's
> windows to refresh or whatever.

Seems quite possible. As for Vista I really have little interest at
present although that will no doubt change in due course. For now I find
the GUI not to my liking and feel there is still too much emphasis on eye
candy.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby.TakeThisOut@gmail.com

"cquirke · External Since: Mar 06, 2005 Posts: 395

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:36:49 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam.DeleteThis@Corned_Beef.Only>

>> The scandal of this
>> MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version of
>> IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
>> baselines were always above what shipped.

>Get real Chris and join the real world please. <vbg> IE6 and later IE6
>SP1 were made available for Win Me and users should upgrade to the latest
>version with patches still for the moment being released for IE6 SP1. Why
>you choose to blame Microsoft for not patching IE5.5 when later and more
>secure versions are available

It's called "modem dial-up networking", and it makes downloading huge
wads of IE difficult, if not impossible, and can make it costly if one
is paying persecond phone charges to access the Internet (as well all
have to do in this particular country).

I gave up trying to download IE 6 SP1, as the line would not stay
connected long enough to complete the download. My copy of IE 6 SP1
came from a warez bunny, and that's what I used to fix all systems
subsequently. I'd obviously have preferred to get it on CD(R) from MS
or one of MS's local distributors, but that was not an option.

Fixing MIME-spoofing predates IE 6, which was released subsequently
with the problem fixed, as were IE 5.5 SP2 and IE 5.01 SP2. For such
a critical defect, IMO there should have been a patch for IE 5.00 and
certainly for IE 5.5 SP0

If MS is to take an unattainable code base as the baseline, then they
need to make that code base attainable. The easiest way would be to
leverage the channel by distributing CDs through this to sysytem
builders and techs, so we could have a known-good source of this
material to update our clients. As it is, they don't vene have the
stuff mirrored locally for faster download.

Since this debacle, MS has indeed stepped up to the plate with the
Win98+ security rollup and XP SP2 CDs distributed directly to end
users - something that I found quite impressive.

Still, it beats me why they overlook the channel as a more
cost-effective way of getting things done. It's all there, from
favored primary distributors through wholesalers to resellers, and can
be used independently of direct MS-to-reseller channels. But as it
is, neither primary distie nor wholesaler does anything other than
sell on sellable material, and MS's direct communications have always
been sales-orientated, with CDs containing nil but sales fluff.

As system builders, we are happy to take on the responsability of
maintaining the OS from MS. But FFS, give us the tools to do so!
It's far more cost-effective than trying to get a CD to each end user.

>> Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy

>Correct. Visiting the WU site with a clean install of Win Me running
>IE5.5 build (5.50.4134.0100) one is now only offered the stub for
>Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 although for the time being
>if visiting with IE5.5 SP2 one is still offered hotfixes for that version
>as well as being urged to upgrade to IE6 SP1.

Is there a manual direct link through which a trustworthy copy of IE
5.5 SP2 can be sourced?

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Noel Paton · External Since: Oct 12, 2005 Posts: 1781

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews DeleteThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:ft1ir1hhn9qin90h04gsgu6cc2kqstlnop@4ax.com...

> Is there a manual direct link through which a trustworthy copy of IE
> 5.5 SP2 can be sourced?
>

http://www.petri.co.il/ie_55_sp2_info.htm

is about as good as it get, Chris
(actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Dean · External Since: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 21

So, assuming I don't forget, I can download this now and burn it to a CDR
and take it with me to visit my dad in one year and install it on his ME
computer, right?

Is there any antivirus system for an elderly man who is clueless about such
and may do strange things like stop it in the middle when it pops up, and
who knows what else? is the MacAfee system that comes free with AOL, I
hear, some sort of dumped down system? Or is AVG still safer. For now, I
left him with none, the saving grace is that he virtually surfs to maybe 10
sites a year. Any thoughts?

Thanks

"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless DeleteThis @crashfixpc.com> wrote in message
news:%235oW954DGHA.2292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews DeleteThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
> message news:ft1ir1hhn9qin90h04gsgu6cc2kqstlnop@4ax.com...
>
>> Is there a manual direct link through which a trustworthy copy of IE
>> 5.5 SP2 can be sourced?
>>
>
> http://www.petri.co.il/ie_55_sp2_info.htm
>
> is about as good as it get, Chris
> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2)
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>

Mike M1 · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 4241

Careful, HTML isn't part of UseNet newsgroups with the result that all
text has the same colour for those using plain text such as CQ and myself.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby RemoveThis @gmail.com

Dean <Whooshbopbang4 RemoveThis @adelphia.net> wrote:

> see me in red font!
>
> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews RemoveThis @nospam.mvps.org>
> wrote in message news:ltqgr1hfjsndf6udoquhd511ie6cgi7q59@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:28 -0800, "Dean"
>>
>>> I am not sure what SR is, unless its system resources?
>>
>> System Restore, as per...
>>
>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/sr-sfp.htm
>>
>> ...which is most useful in exactly this system, i.e. as a "system
>> undo" where you have to perform some hairy deeply-embedded install,
>> knowing that you cannot trust the uninstaller (if one is even
>> present). DirectX, IE upgrades, WMP etc. all come to mind.
>>
>>> I was told to check his ME system for updates and the first thing it
>>> came up with was a service pack, plus about 16 other, seemingly,
>>> less important updates. I was also told to do the service pack
>>> first, and that is when I allegedly killed everything by
>>> downloading, with
>>> such low memory, then installing such.
>>
>> There's no "Service Pack" for WinME or any other Win9x since Win95
>> SP1. Was this perhaps an IE upgrade, such as IE 6 SP1? Or perhaps a
>> security roll-up, such as was released for Win9x users on CD?
>
> All that I remember is that I selected ME as the operating system and
> it came up with about 17 things, mostly security updates. The first
> was called service pack 1. If there is no ME service pack 1, then
> I'm pretty sure it was an IE service pack.
>
>>
>>> With the re-installation CD, after getting him back up and running,
>>> I installed the service pack but it indicated that IE 6.0 could not
>>> be installed (plus about 6 other things within the service pack
>>> that I
>>> did not recognize), so I was left with 5.5, surely not with the SP2
>>> fix.
>>
>> Hmm. You aren't really a "detail guy" eh? <g>
>
> Actually, I am, but when you have a broken computer and disengaged
> printer and oddles of stuff that's wrong, you're not inlcined to copy
> it all by hand and list it all
>
>>
>> Alas, he'd never have IE 6 SP2 as that's only in XP SP2.
>
> I'm not the one who said SP2. Someone esle did and they were talking
> about IE 5.5, not 6.0
>
> That version of IE 6 was not tested as a retro-fit for earlier OSs,
> and much of SP2
>> may extend across both OS and IE to the point that such a thing as a
>> stand-alone IE 6 SP2 may be impossible to exist.
>>
>> The pain of embedding IE in the OS continues... endlessly...
>>
>>> So, I guess he is vulnerable, though he goes almost nowhere on
>>> the internet except one or two sites and does not use OE.
>>
>> What email app does he use? He has dial up access via AOL, and he
>> typically either deletes his e-mail, sometimes inadvertently, or
>> reads and deletes it, seldom a response!!
>>
>>> If the patch to 5.5 is easy to install, perhaps I can coach him
>>> remotely.
>>
>> It won't be an easy download on dial-up. The scandal of this
>> MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version
>> of
>> IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
>> baselines were always above what shipped. You'd have to download and
>> install bulky IE 5.5 SP1 and then you can install the little patch,
>> or
>> you could install IE 5.5 SP2 instead as that includes the patch.
>>
>> Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy, as I'm fairly sure
>> it
>> won't still be on MS's site. Even IE 6 SP1 may not be (or not in a
>> form that installs on Win9x), as we're all supposed to throw away PCs
>> too skinny for XP, and buy new ones with XP SP2 instead.
>>
>> OK, I'll try to install it when I visit next yr. I feel a tiny bit
>> guilty about not leaving him with any working virus scan, but I was
>> afriad he would do more harm than good with it. The one he had
>> wasn't working to begin with and, he only goes to about two internet
>> sites, always the same ones. I ran AVG and it found nothing aftre
>> one year since the last time I did so.
>
>>
>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Dean · External Since: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 21

OK, thanks!

"Mike M" <No_Spam.TakeThisOut@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:elWgnx8DGHA.724@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Careful, HTML isn't part of UseNet newsgroups with the result that all
> text has the same colour for those using plain text such as CQ and myself.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby.TakeThisOut@gmail.com
>
>
> Dean <Whooshbopbang4.TakeThisOut@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> see me in red font!
>>
>> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews.TakeThisOut@nospam.mvps.org>
>> wrote in message news:ltqgr1hfjsndf6udoquhd511ie6cgi7q59@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:28 -0800, "Dean"
>>>
>>>> I am not sure what SR is, unless its system resources?
>>>
>>> System Restore, as per...
>>>
>>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/sr-sfp.htm
>>>
>>> ...which is most useful in exactly this system, i.e. as a "system
>>> undo" where you have to perform some hairy deeply-embedded install,
>>> knowing that you cannot trust the uninstaller (if one is even
>>> present). DirectX, IE upgrades, WMP etc. all come to mind.
>>>
>>>> I was told to check his ME system for updates and the first thing it
>>>> came up with was a service pack, plus about 16 other, seemingly,
>>>> less important updates. I was also told to do the service pack
>>>> first, and that is when I allegedly killed everything by
>>>> downloading, with
>>>> such low memory, then installing such.
>>>
>>> There's no "Service Pack" for WinME or any other Win9x since Win95
>>> SP1. Was this perhaps an IE upgrade, such as IE 6 SP1? Or perhaps a
>>> security roll-up, such as was released for Win9x users on CD?
>>
>> All that I remember is that I selected ME as the operating system and
>> it came up with about 17 things, mostly security updates. The first
>> was called service pack 1. If there is no ME service pack 1, then
>> I'm pretty sure it was an IE service pack.
>>
>>>
>>>> With the re-installation CD, after getting him back up and running,
>>>> I installed the service pack but it indicated that IE 6.0 could not
>>>> be installed (plus about 6 other things within the service pack
>>>> that I
>>>> did not recognize), so I was left with 5.5, surely not with the SP2
>>>> fix.
>>>
>>> Hmm. You aren't really a "detail guy" eh? <g>
>>
>> Actually, I am, but when you have a broken computer and disengaged
>> printer and oddles of stuff that's wrong, you're not inlcined to copy
>> it all by hand and list it all
>>
>>>
>>> Alas, he'd never have IE 6 SP2 as that's only in XP SP2.
>>
>> I'm not the one who said SP2. Someone esle did and they were talking
>> about IE 5.5, not 6.0
>>
>> That version of IE 6 was not tested as a retro-fit for earlier OSs,
>> and much of SP2
>>> may extend across both OS and IE to the point that such a thing as a
>>> stand-alone IE 6 SP2 may be impossible to exist.
>>>
>>> The pain of embedding IE in the OS continues... endlessly...
>>>
>>>> So, I guess he is vulnerable, though he goes almost nowhere on
>>>> the internet except one or two sites and does not use OE.
>>>
>>> What email app does he use? He has dial up access via AOL, and he
>>> typically either deletes his e-mail, sometimes inadvertently, or
>>> reads and deletes it, seldom a response!!
>>>
>>>> If the patch to 5.5 is easy to install, perhaps I can coach him
>>>> remotely.
>>>
>>> It won't be an easy download on dial-up. The scandal of this
>>> MIME-spoofing bug is that MS didn't provide a patch for ANY version
>>> of
>>> IE that shipped with ANY pre-XP version of Windows - the patchable
>>> baselines were always above what shipped. You'd have to download and
>>> install bulky IE 5.5 SP1 and then you can install the little patch,
>>> or
>>> you could install IE 5.5 SP2 instead as that includes the patch.
>>>
>>> Finding IE 5.5 SP2 for download may not be easy, as I'm fairly sure
>>> it
>>> won't still be on MS's site. Even IE 6 SP1 may not be (or not in a
>>> form that installs on Win9x), as we're all supposed to throw away PCs
>>> too skinny for XP, and buy new ones with XP SP2 instead.
>>>
>>> OK, I'll try to install it when I visit next yr. I feel a tiny bit
>>> guilty about not leaving him with any working virus scan, but I was
>>> afriad he would do more harm than good with it. The one he had
>>> wasn't working to begin with and, he only goes to about two internet
>>> sites, always the same ones. I ran AVG and it found nothing aftre
>>> one year since the last time I did so.
>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>>> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>