 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / System Tools / April 2004That Startup List
Among the many processes listed on my Startup List there are four different pairs that are first checked "on" and a little lower down the list the same process names appear unchecked. I don't understand it nor do I know how they got that way or even it it's incorrect. Shouldn't there be some consistency here? Thanks Ken Bland Ken The fact that they're both 'checked' and 'unchecked' is nothing to be concerned about, as such - it does however indicate that using MSCONFIG is not the best way to disable them. The reason for their appearance is simple - there's something that's re-enabling them (I have the same problem with Realschd.exe, here). You need to establish what's enabling them, and then use any options within that program's preferences that will turn them off permanently (unfortunately for me, I can't find any such option, except uninstalling AOL - which would be a major PITA). What particular programs are we talking about, here?  SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's or http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp > Among the many processes listed on my Startup List there are four different > pairs that are first checked "on" and a little lower down the list the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ken Bland Thanks for your prompt response, Noel. In answer to your question about the processes themselves, there are four, appearing in this order and assuming they are executed in this order: Cookie Pal (a cookie examiner; first on, then off) Quick Time Task (first on, then off) SchedulingAgent (first on, then off) ScriptBlocking (first on, then off) Ken Bland > Ken > The fact that they're both 'checked' and 'unchecked' is nothing to be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > Ken Bland ScriptBlocking is, I suspect, from Norton?? - you may want to reconsider your choice of AV! I've never used CookiePal - I personally don't see the need, with the abilities built into IE6SP1 QuickTime Task - Use the Preferences in QT to set what you need/want - then either check, or uncheck the appropriate entry in MSCONFIG - you'll end up with a single entry. SchedulingAgent..... could be a number of things - what's the executable's path/name?? . SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's or http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp > Thanks for your prompt response, Noel. > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > > > Ken Bland Thanks again Noel. Here's what I've found so far. > ScriptBlocking is, I suspect, from Norton?? - you may want to reconsider > your choice of AV! No offense, Noel, but I know your feelings toward Norton, no doubt justified in your experience, but NAV Systemworks 2004 has never given me any trouble whatever. Yes, ScriptBlocking is part of NAV and Pacman's Portal tells me to keep it in and activated. Here's the excerpt: Update to Norton AntiVirus 2001. Detects certain types of script-based viruses without the need for specific virus definitions - such as JavaScript and VBScript. This will help protect you from these viruses even before virus definitions are available. Note - some users complain of problems once the update is installed > I've never used CookiePal - I personally don't see the need, with the > abilities built into IE6SP1 CookiePal is an excellent and trustworthy little program that gives me all kinds of options and control over what's accepted and rejected. I love it (and besides, I paid $15 for it.) It predates IE6SP1 by a couple of years. > QuickTime Task - Use the Preferences in QT to set what you need/want - then > either check, or uncheck the appropriate entry in MSCONFIG - you'll end up > with a single entry. Okay, I can handle this one. I don't know how often or how much I need QuickTime, but it seems that once in a while someone sends me something that requires it. > SchedulingAgent..... could be a number of things - what's the executable's > path/name?? SchedulingAgent: mstask.exe. Pacman's Portal tells me that I don't need it at all for the way I have things configured. Here's the excerpt: MS Scheduling Agent displayed as a box with a stopwatch in the System Tray that is only needed if you have regular scheduled disk defragmenting, ScanDisk, etc. Required if you have regularily scheduled events such as weekly virus scans > . ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ken Bland Sounds reasonable to me - except for Norton!<g> - even diehard Norton fans have come to realise that Symantec orphaned off ME back in 2001, and will NOT provide either proper support, or proper applications for it. Many are flocking away. YMMV, obviously. If the choice is a flakey ME, or no Norton - there's only one way to go, IMHO - and only one company to blame! Every other AV provider can do it - why can't Symantec? SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's or http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp > Thanks again Noel. Here's what I've found so far. > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Ken Bland Here is a little Symantec NAV jewel from my recent troubleshooting: Norton tries to connect on startup Norton Antivirus 2004 keeps trying to dial my ISP, how do I stop it? http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/tips/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=29022&subsect ionid=616 ---- The Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/ ICSA Labs - TrueSecure Corp. http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certifiedproducts.shtml AV-Test http://www.av-test.org/ University of Hamburg Computer Science Dept. http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc SignatureJack E. Martinelli 2002-04 MVP for Win9X / DTS Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ Your cooperation is very appreciated. ____ > Sounds reasonable to me - except for Norton!<g> - even diehard Norton fans > have come to realise that Symantec orphaned off ME back in 2001, and will [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > > > Ken Bland |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.