 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / System Tools / December 2006Slow computer
Help, please. My dad has an old ME computer. All he does is edit a small EXCEL file once every two months and check e-mail via AOL (dial up) daily and use an HP all in one machine. He has no patience to do more, and the slowness of his computer lately certainly isn't helping! He apparently has 128MB of RAM. AOL says they recommend 64MB of RAM for AOL 9.0, though they say even 32MB might still work. His system resources are at 100%. If I close everything down except explorer (he doesn’t have systray), I can get it down to only about 80%. I have run adaware and AVG antivirus after doing a thorough scandisk and disk defrag, all to no avail. He virtually does not go to websites or download anything, so I was not surprised to find no viruses (took 3 hrs to do a virus scan) and minimal spam. I know that both the HP software and AOL are known to be memory hogs but should they use up 100% of the 128 MB RAM? Even with everything except explorer closed, he still has 80% being used. Is there anything else that could be tying up resources? Should 128 MB RAM be enough? Even if I close everything down, is even 80% low enough? I assume an older version of AOL would help and he would not notice the difference. Do you agree? I assume I should call HP for a minimal startup configuration, right? What else could be the problem? Lastly, how do I change what program are loaded at startup, though it seems like closing AOL and HP were the only ones that made an appreciable difference. Thanks much! It could be that the PC has picked up some other nasties along the way - check in MSCONFIG (Start|Run - type MSCONFIG, and click OK) Startup list to see what's loaded. post the list here, if you like - or look here for instructions on how to clean up your startup axis, preventing unnecessary programs loading (enter any item in the startup list in MSCONFIG into the search box on the page, and click Search) http://www.sysinfo.org/startuplist.php for detailed instructions - look here http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php HTH  SignatureNoel 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 > Help, please. My dad has an old ME computer. All he does is edit a small > EXCEL file once every two months and check e-mail via AOL (dial up) daily [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Thanks much! The programs open on startup are various AOL stuff (including AOLACSDaemon), various HP stuff (associated with the all-in-one machine) and ccWasher, Dit, DiskMonitor, View mgr, HostManaager, Quick TT, Still Image Monitor. Webshots, and Microsoft Office Sartup. My system resources, just aftre rebooting are 56% - is this too low. I think I posted some numbers with everything excpet explorer closed out. Didn't that already indicate a problem? Thanks so much for your patient help. A virus scan took almost three hours (and found nothing). Everything is slow here, though it does seem to be imporving! Dean > It could be that the PC has picked up some other nasties along the way - > check in MSCONFIG (Start|Run - type MSCONFIG, and click OK) Startup list to [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > > Thanks much! Also someone suggested I run free software called "process explorer" and I did and the only big number in the CPU column was for system idle, which was 94. WAOL was 4 (AOL was the only thing I'd opened other than what's there at startup) and procexp.exe was about 1 or 2. Does this mean that my system is being tied up with stuff other than applications I might use, or am i wrong? My system resources available is 56%. Thanks! > The programs open on startup are various AOL stuff (including AOLACSDaemon), > various HP stuff (associated with the all-in-one machine) and ccWasher, Dit, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > > > > > Thanks much! Also, I ran a free software called "process explorer" and the only big number in the CPU column was under system idle, which was 94. WAOL was 4 (AOL was the only thing I'd opened other than what's there at startup) and procexp.exe was about 1 or 2. I assume that this means that my system is being tied up with stuff other than applications I might use, or am i wrong? Thanks again! Dean > The programs open on startup are various AOL stuff (including AOLACSDaemon), > various HP stuff (associated with the all-in-one machine) and ccWasher, Dit, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > > > > > Thanks much! 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>) Note (PLEASE!!) that processor usage (100-System Idle) is in NO WAY related to used resources!!!! - now go back and look again at the startup axis! SignatureNoel 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 > Also, I ran a free software called "process explorer" and the only big > number [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] >> > > >> > > Thanks much! Hey, Noel. Long time no e. Guilty as charged here ;) working to help the OP in another forum. You're exactly correct, again. Then again, it's worth looking at process explorer (as well as the startup axis and swapfile usage for memory purposes) to see if there's a CPU hog lurking in the background slowing the system. Whatta ya think of AOL 9.0 on a WinME system? Would you revert back to an older version? And, thanks for your help once again, way back when, and the lesson's learned. Happy Holidaze, Noel. KB > You can safely IGNORE anything classed as 'System Idle' in process > explorer - that's simply the difference between the available CPU power and [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > >> > > > >> > > Thanks much! Hi KB.....he is probably fast asleep, preparing for a wild New Year's Eve. But if memory serves me right, AOL 9 is NOT recommended for WinME. But he will be up and about soon and can tell you. Cheers....Heather > Hey, Noel. Long time no e. > [quoted text clipped - 171 lines] >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks much! AOL9 works fine on ME (at least here in the UK, on dialup, it does!<g>) It does mean that you need to have more RAM available, though - I'd recommend a minimum of 128MB (and check that the size of the Virtual Memory isn't limited). SignatureNoel 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 > Hi KB.....he is probably fast asleep, preparing for a wild New Year's Eve. > But if memory serves me right, AOL 9 is NOT recommended for WinME. But he [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Thanks much! Maybe it's different in the UK. Here in the states it seems to carry a heavy payload of programs that run at startup: C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\TOPSPEED\2.0\AOLTSMON.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\TOPSPEED\2.0\AOLTPSPD.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\ACS\AOLDIAL.EXE C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\QTTASK.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COOKIE WASHER\AOLWASHER.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\AIM95\AIM.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\AMERICA ONLINE 9.0A\WAOL.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\1109379641\EE\AOLHOSTMANAGER.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\1109379641\EE\AOLSERVICEHOST.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\AOL\ACS\AOLACSD.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\AMERICA ONLINE 9.0A\SHELLMON.EXE Not to mention Viewpoint! Have a great New Year, Noel. Don't have Tooo much fun <g>. > AOL9 works fine on ME (at least here in the UK, on dialup, it does!<g>) It > does mean that you need to have more RAM available, though - I'd recommend a [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Thanks much! Yeah - that's about normal for an ME install of AOL - which is why I said that it likes more RAM. it doesn't use resources too heavily though, IIRC. I'll install it on a VPC and do a before/after, later tonight SignatureNoel 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 > Maybe it's different in the UK. Here in the states it seems to carry a > heavy payload of programs that run at startup: [quoted text clipped - 210 lines] >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! Even with 128MB RAM and Virtual Memory being properly set to let Windows handle it, the system is still slow. Ran through my 15 point checklist (I do keep notes ;) ) to set up the ME system properly....just like mine...but still no joy. See how it changes simple usage, such as opening My Computer or Windows Explorer. Does it change from a few seconds to up to a minute? Thanks again, Noel. And, happy computing! > Yeah - that's about normal for an ME install of AOL - which is why I said > that it likes more RAM. it doesn't use resources too heavily though, IIRC. [quoted text clipped - 214 lines] > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! VPC - 96MB RAM System Resources 96/96% install AOL Security Edition - but it seems to only install the 'Security Edition LE' whatever that is! System Resources 90/90% immediately after install and still after first run - go to Update, and see what happens - wants to update to AOL 9!! OK - shut down and increase RAM to 128MB System Resources 90/90% - as expected run AOL resources 76/76% Startup apps AOL FAst Start AOL Host Manager AOL Dialer AolAcsDaemon1 AOL TopSpeedMonitor So much for Security - what happened to an AV?? or a Firewall?? OK _ go to Help|Checkup - it wants me to upgrade to AOL 9.0!!! OK - let's do it!! (WTF they think they're doing is anyone's guess - but lets see what happens anyhow) during the download, resources drop to 73/73% when they finish, and install, I end up with what I think is the UK version (I'll find out tomorrow) - and 62/62% free!!! CLose AOL, and it self-updates..... STill left with that stupid Search bar in my TaskBar 73% resources - with nothing apparently running (and that's without installing the McAfee crapware!!!) OMHG - no wonder people complain!!!!! by the time you install McAfee, etc, there's going to be no room to run a gnat! OK - on this basis, I'll reset the VP to its previous condition, and do the UK AOL install tomorrow afternoon..... ...to be continued SignatureNoel 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 > Even with 128MB RAM and Virtual Memory being properly set to let Windows > handle it, the system is still slow. Ran through my 15 point checklist (I [quoted text clipped - 252 lines] >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! And the end of the saga was? Curiosity is killing me and possibly the OP's ME. > VPC - 96MB RAM > System Resources 96/96% [quoted text clipped - 301 lines] > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! Sorry - had to go out and pay the piper - back later with more from the front! SignatureNoel 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 > And the end of the saga was? Curiosity is killing me and possibly the > OP's [quoted text clipped - 342 lines] >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! The AOL UK d/l at least informs you it's an 80MB file - and offers pause/resume..... 87/87% resources during the d/l reboot after d/l and before install 96/96% run installer reboot - AOL open - 71/71% (and NO taskbar invasion!!) run AOL and get online - 63% - install McAfee Online AV (3 month trial)..... reboot Take *forever* to finalise the boot!! ....and doesn't offer to update the virus defs (or connect) before scanning.... oh - OK, the defs are reasonably recenrt (28th Dec) 77% - and the system's crawling! Fire up AOL (zzzzzzz) 67/67% connect.... 65%65% run a scan.... 61/61% Update SpyZapper (ooops - forgot to shut AOL down before starting the install of the update!! - which then proceeds to install a connectivity update!) Spyware program running - 67%67% (gets very upset when I click on 'Allowed Items' during the scan!!) Running programs list in TaskMan is horrendous! Fire up AOL - 61/61% - shut down and reboot boot fails!! blank desktop - reset...... reboot succeeds this time - but an error message from McAfee - "Some components of ActiveShoield are either missing or might not have been installed properly - reinstall!!" - how to do that??? I don't have a downloaded file to use!! - OK Uninstall it first and see what I can find..... Nope! - no McAfee installer to be found! - back into AOL and try and download it again..... The connector is busted...... repairs itself easily enough..... re-d/l McAfee......reboot eventually finishes loading - 76% Go to IE, and the AOL toolbar is loaded (68%) Close IE - open AOL - 62% Log in - 59% with just the homepage open! - do a search , and at least that doesn't change much! Go for a reboot - error message! "Xprt Message Window" is stuck.... sod this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough! revert the VPC to perinstall condition.... So - When loaded: AOL UK + Spyware 2 uses 37% resources with the AV running - 33% without AOL UK default install uses 27% resources (no AV, No Spyware update) AOL US (Security Edition LE - whatever that is!!) uses 20% without the AV running A default install of AOL UK adds the following entries to the Startup Axis in ME AOL 9.0 Tray Icon c:\progra~1\aol9~1.0\aoltray.exe -check . AOL Spyware Protection "c:\progra~1\common~1\aol\aolspy~1\aolsp scheduler.exe" AolAcsDaemon1 "c:\program files\common files\aol\acs\aolacsd.exe" AOLDialer c:\program files\common files\aol\acs\aoldial.exe RealTray c:\program files\real\realplayer\realplay.exe systemboothideplayer The major slowdown appears to occur on installing McAfee's 'Online Scanner' from AOL - I have no hesitation in calling this a POS! It uses reasonable resources, but the CPU count would appear to be ridiculuous! I'm unable to install the McAfee firewall - I'm only a Dialup suscriber to AOL - but I would assume that it's as bad as their AV. HTH?? SignatureNoel 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 > And the end of the saga was? Curiosity is killing me and possibly the > OP's [quoted text clipped - 342 lines] >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Thanks much! Thanks for the feedback! That must be one heck of a party...2 days of preparation <VBG>. Hope XP is treating you well, Heather. One day I'll step up but ME's running quite well and the price of the system I want (not need, want <g>) is still a bit out of reach :( . Happy Holidays to all!!!! > Hi KB.....he is probably fast asleep, preparing for a wild New Year's > Eve. But if memory serves me right, AOL 9 is NOT recommended for WinME. [quoted text clipped - 177 lines] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks much! Chuckle!! At his age, Noel NEEDS two days to prepare for New Year's Eve. (G) XP is just amazing, and I discovered there seem to be no BSOD's with it.....so far!! I always thought they were normal (not). Got the old WinME up and connected via a new router, so can still use it. But boy, it is slow!! I thought the same as you re price.....but Willy built this for about $900 Cdn and my old WinME POC cost me $2300. Can't complain about the price. Find a tech like him and get a new one built. Just have to justify a flat panel monitor now, lol. Cheers...Heather > Thanks for the feedback! > [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks much! <lol> I doubt it <g> And how long did we tell you that XP was good <g> I thought you said Ron was buying you a flat panel for Christmas ? Joan > Chuckle!! At his age, Noel NEEDS two days to prepare for New > Year's Eve. (G) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cheers...Heather Brat!! You know all the problems I had trying to put it on my very expensive (and worthless) WinME computer!! But I have to say it is more amazing than I realized. I have been doing *mean things* to it the past week and it isn't even flinching!! Guess I will have to ask some questions in the XP groups, which is not a pleasant thought!! I really think our WinME ng should also be called "WinME'ers who upgraded to XP" or some such....grin. Off to spend some time with the Old Guy & Slim Hips. She goes back on Sunday. She bought us a DVD player and we are going to hook that up. I won a Bugatti leather backpack (like I needed it, lol) and she got that for Xmas. Hey.....why spend money?? (G) 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 > <lol> I doubt it <g> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Cheers...Heather Hey - you're not going to let SH go home without talking to me, are you?? MOOOOUUUUSSSSEEEE!!!!! - come hither!!! <GD&R - and you don't know how ffast!!!> SignatureNoel 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 > Brat!! You know all the problems I had trying to put it on my very > expensive (and worthless) WinME computer!! But I have to say it is more [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>> >>> Cheers...Heather ROFL!! I never thought to have her give you a ring......(subliminal message in there, grin) I will certainly have her call you before Sunday. I have a turkey to cook tomorrow so will be slaving over a hot stove......instead of this computer. We had a vote tonight on whether or not to cook the durned thing, and figure it will provide meals for the last 2.5 days. Perhaps she should call now......it is 2:11 am in Jolly Olde. (G) Kissies....Figgs > Hey - you're not going to let SH go home without talking to me, are you?? > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>>> >>>> Cheers...Heather <lol> I know I already sent him a card, two in fact, a real one and online one <g> Joan > 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 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 > <lol> I know I already sent him a card, two in fact, a real one and online > one <g> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> clues. >> Figgs Hoppy BarfDIY - ShunE!! :} SignatureNoel 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 > 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. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> clues. >>> Figgs Figgs, BSODs or rather Stop screens abound in XP but are primarily hardware and driver related. You're right though that once you've got your hardware sorted and the correct drivers installed you should hopefully see few blue screens in XP. In fact as few as you will see in a decent Win Me setup. Being totally honest I cannot remember when I last saw a BSOD on a PC here running Win Me, three/four years perhaps? Seen plenty of STOP screens though in XP in that time. :-) Cheers, SignatureMike M > Chuckle!! At his age, Noel NEEDS two days to prepare for New > Year's Eve. (G) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the price. Find a tech like him and get a new one built. Just have > to justify a flat panel monitor now, lol. 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 >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - 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 > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:06:10 -0000, "Noel Paton" > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Thanks for coming back to us with your story - sounds like you had a fun time!! SignatureNoel 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 >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 [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Dean 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 >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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> 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 >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > 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. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:19:55 -0800, "Dean" > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm refers. On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam@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 >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - 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. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:21:50 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam@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 :-) >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > 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 :-) > - 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. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com >> 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 OK. Primary + Extended, or multi-Primary? >> - mixture of FAT16 and FAT32 volumes >No FAT32 only OK... I wouldn't expect that to be an issue, but who knows? To this day, my small user data D: volume is FAT16 to take advantage of the large clusters, smaller FATs and easier data recovery esp. < 32k files >> - View As Web Page and active desktop are suppressed >Active Desktop disabled via TweakUI and Classic folder view selected at >Folder Options | View OK; I do that via Desktop and Folder Properties only, rather than via TweakUI, so that's a subtle difference in our SOP. >> - WSH engines are renamed away >No since I try not to be paranoid, I leave it to my doctor to do the >worrying. <g> I don't use script files, so I have no reason to leave them enabled. With so many extensions to remember and manage, I find killing the engine is an easier way to do it in these OSs (I use Walter Clayton's .REG tip to suppress scripting in XP) >> - show all files, show full path, show all file name extensions >Yes naturally :-) Kewl! Do you also find that after Safe Mode in any Win9x, the "show full path" setting is invariably lost? >> - 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. OK, that sounds similar except I more often use List than Details. >> - default folder action is Explore, not Open >Yes >> - Open is set to re-use the same window >No That's interesting - do you have navigation through Open view spawn a new window for each path traversal, a la Mac OS? >> - WinZip is installed, typically version 8.1 >Compressed folders no, WinZip yes, v8.0 OK. AFAIK Compressed Folders were absent in Win98xx, and I disable them at install time for WinME, and leave them for XP. >> - Explorer is set to open in a new instance >No That could be the issue. Apparently the logic changed after IE 5.5 and up, in that it would automatically not spawn a new instance if < 32M RAM and would automatically do so if > 32M; it was no longer a UI-controlled setting. This would imply IE 6 would do the same. But I can't recall exactly what the RAM threshold was, or whether this applied to IE, Windows Explorer, or both. I set the setting if it has a UI; if it does not, I don't force via .REG >> - 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. In the Win9x era, I generally relocated My Docs to D:, with a different name, and Pics and Music to E: likewise. I generally didn't start relocating Desktop and OE mail store (not using OE) until the XP era. Temp and TIF I leave on C: for speed, and I shrink TIF to 20M. >Documents and My Documents are suppressed on the Start Menu (TweakUI), That I don't do either, so it could be a factor. Windows can get messy when it starts playing with namespace objects; it seems that bugs abound there, such as failure to track paths or a possible tendency to confuse namespace and path as different things. >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.. Yep. Alas, it's not an obvious problem; MS never did fix it... the only person I know who may have insight is Raymond Chen, and I haven't yanked his chain on this as I expect he's uber-busy/stretched. >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Chris, Some random comments. Apologies if I've missed something. > OK. Primary + Extended, or multi-Primary? PC1, Multiboots. 3 Primaries, no extended. 2 Primaries hidden at all times. Two HDs. Second HD Extended only. PC2. Win Me only. 1 Primary + Extended. Two HDs. Second HD Extended only. > Kewl! Do you also find that after Safe Mode in any Win9x, the "show > full path" setting is invariably lost? Yep, and bugged during 9x betas to be told "by design". Funny design criteria IMO. A bit like how the Start Menu reverts to large icons after going to Safe Mode. This also "by design". > That's interesting - do you have navigation through Open view spawn a > new window for each path traversal, a la Mac OS? Yes. > Temp and TIF I leave on C: for speed, and I shrink TIF to 20M. Temp, TIF & pagefile all located in my scratch volume which is the first partition on drive 2 for both PCs. > In the Win9x era, I generally relocated My Docs to D:, with a > different name, and Pics and Music to E: likewise. In my case My Documents is a folder named Data on a volume named Data (E:). I'm nothing but original in my file and folder names. In this case accessing folder Data on Data on Win Me is nigh on impossible across a LAN even when shared correctly. Something I never bothered trying to fix as I like having something to hand at all times to swear at when the going gets tough. >>> - Explorer is set to open in a new instance >> No [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 32M RAM and would automatically do so if > 32M; it was no longer a > UI-controlled setting. This would imply IE 6 would do the same. Oh dear. Mea culpa. I've just realised that one of the two Win Me boxes is running IE5.5 SP2 (this is for support purposes). RAM is 128MB on the IE5.5 box and 384MB on the IE6 SP1 box (currently dead). I may try and revive the IE6 box as this is an all scsi box however it sounds a bit like Concorde nowadays when all fired up and ready to go. So my comments about not having seen this problem are now confined to the all scsi box since IE5.5 SP2 doesn't, from what you say, exhibit the same problem. One final comment/question. I wonder what proportion of Win9x users are running their system on a LAN since I was under the impression (correct me please if I'm wrong) that the problem only rears its head when copying files across a LAN or are you saying that it also occurs when copying or moving large numbers of files from folder to folder or volume to volume on the same PC (in which case I ASSume you have excluded the possibility of SR being a factor). SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com >>> The more useful thing is to ask: What is it about your system setups >>> that prevent you from experiencing the problem? [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - >> OK. Primary + Extended, or multi-Primary? >PC1, Multiboots. 3 Primaries, no extended. 2 Primaries hidden at all >times. Two HDs. Second HD Extended only. >PC2. Win Me only. 1 Primary + Extended. Two HDs. Second HD Extended >only. OK; mine would be more like PC2, except with only one HD. >> Kewl! Do you also find that after Safe Mode in any Win9x, the "show >> full path" setting is invariably lost? >Yep, and bugged during 9x betas to be told "by design". Funny design >criteria IMO. A bit like how the Start Menu reverts to large icons after >going to Safe Mode. This also "by design". Jeez, talk about crap design! Mind you, if we did, we'd be here all day... it's hard to take MS's "trusted" thing seriously when they seem to have so little clue on the basics, such as "don't let 'data' escalate to 'program' risk" or "don't default to less safe settings". >> That's interesting - do you have navigation through Open view spawn a >> new window for each path traversal, a la Mac OS? >Yes. O.. K... (tip-toes away quietly <g> ) >> Temp and TIF I leave on C: for speed, and I shrink TIF to 20M. >Temp, TIF & pagefile all located in my scratch volume which is the first >partition on drive 2 for both PCs. Oh, OK. Missed that there were two physical HDs there. >> In the Win9x era, I generally relocated My Docs to D:, with a >> different name, and Pics and Music to E: likewise. >In my case My Documents is a folder named Data on a volume named Data Now that's interesting, because I hit a bug I've not seen described anywhere, if I do that on a Win9x... - create a volume, call it DATA - create a dir in that volume, call it DATA as well - share this volume to LAN as DATA - expect intermittent failure to access (save to) that share - rename volume to something other than DATA - expect the problem to go away It may not be necessary to have the DATA dir set as the My Docs object, or to name the My Docs object differently (try DATA and Documents as names; as I recall, no odds either way). This bug interests me, because it is the only instance I've seen where the OS pays any attention to the volume name. Volume names are stored in two places in two ways, and often changing the volume name will update only one of these. First, at volume creation time, the label is embedded in the volume's boot sector as well as created as a directory entry in the root of the volume. Later name changes often update only the directory entry. I suspect the lookup may get confused between this volume name entry and the directory name entry, especially if the latter has an associated LFN (say, for cosmetic reasons). >I'm nothing but original in my file and folder names. In this case >accessing folder Data on Data on Win Me is nigh on impossible >across a LAN even when shared correctly. Ah, there you go; that's what I was referring to :-) >>>> - Explorer is set to open in a new instance >>> No >> That could be the issue. Apparently the logic changed after IE 5.5 >> and up, in that it would automatically not spawn a new instance if < >> 32M RAM and would automatically do so if > 32M; it was no longer a >> UI-controlled setting. This would imply IE 6 would do the same. >Oh dear. Mea culpa. I've just realised that one of the two Win Me boxes >is running IE5.5 SP2 (this is for support purposes). RAM is 128MB on the >IE5.5 box and 384MB on the IE6 SP1 box (currently dead). I may try and >revive the IE6 box as this is an all scsi box however it sounds a bit like >Concorde nowadays when all fired up and ready to go. OK. I've a slightly open mind on whether the bug happens on pre-IE6, in that I acknowledge all reports say it does not, and that I have not seen it in that context since re-looking at the bug, and yet I'm not sure I didn't see this before IE6 came out. Then again, in those days I might have blurred this issue into others, such as missing drive letters and spurious drive W: (issues attributed to WinZip effects) >So my comments about not having seen this problem are now confined to the >all scsi box since IE5.5 SP2 doesn't, from what you say, exhibit the same OK, that clarifies. I don't have any SCSI running at all; I can't see why SCSI should be a factor, but it might. >I wonder what proportion of Win9x users are running their system on >a LAN since I was under the impression (correct me please if I'm wrong) >that the problem only rears its head when copying files across a LAN No, I've seen it outside of LAN scenarios, on standalone PCs with no F&PS installed, no LAN card, and no shares created. I've seen it on PCs with one big C: too; I don't think it's related to multiple volumes and it's definitely not related to multiple primaries. The failure pattern is precipitated by a rename, creation or deletion, and typically requires such an event to involve a large number oif items. Once the failure pattern kicks in, it persists until Explorer is terminated and restarted, either via shutdown or via killing it as a task via the Ctl+Alt+Del UI. When the failure pattern is in effect, all such operations are affected, even renaming one file. >are you saying that it also occurs when copying or moving large >numbers of files from folder to folder or volume to volume on the >same PC (in which case I ASSume you have excluded the >possibility of SR being a factor). Yes, and yes (in that the problem arises on Win98xx, and I have SR disabled while *statemgr is left running in WinME). >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > It may not be necessary to have the DATA dir set as the My Docs > object, or to name the My Docs object differently (try DATA and > Documents as names; as I recall, no odds either way). I should have said this problem has nothing to do with the folder Data being the My Docs object. The problem is with folder data on volume data. My experience of this problem directly replicates yours. >>> That's interesting - do you have navigation through Open view spawn >>> a new window for each path traversal, a la Mac OS? > >> Yes. > > O.. K... (tip-toes away quietly <g> ) I "think" I may have misunderstood you here. I have multiple Explorer windows open when viewing different folders but when traversing the file tree in an Explorer window don't open up new windows with new branches but rather reuse the existing window. So the problem isn't LAN related and can occur when copying large number of files from one folder to another on the same volume in which case I can quite positively say I have never experienced the problem. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com >>> OK. Primary + Extended, or multi-Primary? > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - << 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. >> I am not sure what SR is, unless its system resources? 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. 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. So, I guess he is vulnerable, though he goes almost nowhere on the internet except one or two sites and does not use OE. If the patch to 5.5 is easy to install, perhaps I can coach him remotely. Can someone send me the link to that service pack download so I can e-mail it to him and tell me what to do to install it, with answers to any queries, as I do not have an ME machine here to test it on? Thanks Dean > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:19:55 -0800, "Dean" > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - 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 >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > 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). :-) > 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. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:28 -0800, "Dean" > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > 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. On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:36:49 -0000, "Mike M" <No_Spam@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 >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > 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) SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:20:18 -0000, "Noel Paton" >"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote >> 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 Cool - I lost mine, so I'm pulling it down again. <paste> Filename: ie55sp2.exe Size: 86,142.72 KB 84.12 MB Download time: 5.70 hrs @ 33.6kbps 3.42 hrs @ 56kbps 1.50 hrs @ 128kbps 22 mins @ 512kbps 7 mins @ 1.5mbps </paste> 4 - 6 hours via modem; costly if time is not free, and tedious if it takes multiple attempts. On my ADSL 512k, from the UK mirror I'm getting 50k per second so the server's good; on "56k"modem I used to expect about 2.5k per second. Noting that modem/ADSL speeds are in kiloBITS per second,while download speeds are in kiloBYTES per second, and that it's 10 bits per byte due to extra framing bits. >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - 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 >> Is there a manual direct link through which a trustworthy copy of IE >> 5.5 SP2 can be sourced? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is about as good as it get, Chris > (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) I much prefer AVG over the McAfee that comes down with AOL - see my trials elsewhere in this thread AVG is far better than McAfee in Win9x Systems - and if you set it right, the only time he's going to see anything is when it either wants a reboot (very rare in XP, and only occasional in ME) or when it finds a nasty! SignatureNoel 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> is about as good as it get, Chris >> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) I use AVG and much prefer it to the Norton I had struggled with for years. What would those minimum settings be? By the way, I meant "dumbed down", not "dumped down", when I referred to AOL's McAfee. Dean >I much prefer AVG over the McAfee that comes down with AOL - see my trials >elsewhere in this thread [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> is about as good as it get, Chris >>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) As for today, AntiVir is the best of the free bunch. AVG won't cut it. Norton will Kill WinME. McAfee along with AOL will make a mess of things. Look back to Noel's trial of AOL and McAfee on his virtural WinME PC. Sucks the life out of a system. Saw it waste my bosses system (running XP, PC Cillin) as nothing worked after he let the spyware, antivirus, other junk install. His AV no longer worked, he was getting errors left and right. Good career move for me was having him uninstall the stuff. All of a sudden, everything worked again. KB > I use AVG and much prefer it to the Norton I had struggled with for years. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >>> is about as good as it get, Chris > >>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) I hadn't heard about AntiVir. Do most of the other experts around here prefer it to AVG? > As for today, AntiVir is the best of the free bunch. AVG won't cut it. > Norton will Kill WinME. McAfee along with AOL will make a mess of things. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> >>> is about as good as it get, Chris >> >>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:05:54 -0800, "Dean" >I hadn't heard about AntiVir. Do most of the other experts around here >prefer it to AVG? Its detection rate may be better, partly because it delves into commercial malware, but AVG really has been having detection weaknesses lately with the WMF thing in particular. However it may be more prone to false positives than AVG, so read detection details carefully. I haven't used AntiVir as a resident scanner at all. AVG can do that and nothing else, so I prefer to use AVG in that role, so I can get better meshing with AntiVir as a backup or intervention scanner. AntiVir is one of the only scanners that does it all; resident, easy-update, on-demand behind a different resident scanner, dropped-in via Safe Mode as intervention scanner, and formally used from a Bart CDR (CDR-booted sessions in partcular, but also AutoRun). >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Hope I don't need to bring evidence to the table LOL. For today, AntiVir is the best freeware around for ME. One needs to manually update if under a week, but the update process is quite painless. Avast is the runner up freebee although it disables automatic system restore checkpoints on ME and is more user intensive in terms of setup and execution. In a year, things might change so it's best that you 'ping' me for the latest and greatest advice. Dean: Munge your email addy to avoid the spammers, please ;). KB <aka KB> BTW, try running AVG with ZA free on ME and watch your system lock when the auto scan (automatically scan after updating, right?) begins. > I hadn't heard about AntiVir. Do most of the other experts around here > prefer it to AVG? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >> >>> is about as good as it get, Chris > >> >>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) OK, thx. > Hope I don't need to bring evidence to the table LOL. For today, AntiVir > is [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >> >> >>> (actual link is here - >> >> >>> http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) You should be able to find the settings easily enough - I.m running in XP here, so they may be slightly different in ME (My ME VPC doesn't have any AV installed at present) Update Manager UNcheck 'display information about update process' CHECK 'Require confirmation to close running.....' Radio-button - 'Complete at next computer restart' if you want him not to have to worry about reboot. SignatureNoel 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 >I use AVG and much prefer it to the Norton I had struggled with for years. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>> is about as good as it get, Chris >>>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) Ok, thanks to everyone. I will do this next time I'm there. > You should be able to find the settings easily enough - I.m running in XP > here, so they may be slightly different in ME (My ME VPC doesn't have any [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>>>> is about as good as it get, Chris >>>>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) Hopefully none of you recall the ugly saga last time with my elderly Dad's computer (which I recapped on 12/31/05, if you're a glutton for punishment). He has an old ME computer, with minimum RAM, that I almost killed last time around by trying to download an 'update' with a machine with low resources, apparently there installing something corrupt. A week later, he was up and running, fortunately. I don't know what to expect this trip, but am now armed with the IE 5.5 SP2 upgrade, which I plan to install on my dad's computer. As you may not recall, last yr I left him with no AVsystem. But I am still really worried about installing anything for my elderly dad, though I know AVG is pretty simple. He maybe goes to three websites a year, and plays with a few excel files, so he seems to have no need for AV protection that he could do more harm than good with. Still everyone wants me to give him some, presumably something more than what AOL runs in the background; actually AOL 5.0 may not even have that limited AV thingee. As older threads revealed, his machine could not even handle the later versions of AOL - when I left, we managed to get AOL 5.0 back on, as I recall. Will AVG-free take up much of his RAM? He really goes almost nowhere on line. Any advice - again? Dean > Ok, thanks to everyone. I will do this next time I'm there. > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >>>>>> is about as good as it get, Chris >>>>>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) Dean.......repost this in WinME General which is really the most active of the WinME news groups. Heather > Hopefully none of you recall the ugly saga last time with my elderly > Dad's computer (which I recapped on 12/31/05, if you're a glutton for [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >>>>>>> (actual link is here - >>>>>>> http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) Ok, thanks. I just did. > Dean.......repost this in WinME General which is really the most active of > the WinME news groups. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >>>>>>>> is about as good as it get, Chris >>>>>>>> (actual link is here - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/5.5_SP2) >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? Yep. My first download attempt failed ("connection rest by peer") so I tried the second mirror link, which completed OK. >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? Yes; in such user situations I'd prefer a resident solution, though this may be difficult if the hardware resources are poor (e.g. Pentium-133, 16M RAM, that sort of thing). AVG would be my first choice there, requiring two details: 1) Do not install the email scanning component 2) Show him how to initiate an update while on line Both go about dial-up; (1) is to avoid lost outgoing mail if the email app drops the connection when "done" while the av is still processing outgoing mail, and (2) is because AVG won't be able to update automatically when it wants to if the PC is not online at that time. You may overcome (2) by allowing processes to initiate a DUN connection automatically, but I wouldn't do that, especially if there are issues with phone use (costs incurred while online, or inability to receive phone calls because the line is blocked by DUN) If your hardware is such that you cannot "afford" to run a resident av (even one reputed to be "light" on resources, such as NOD32), then it's possible to set up on-demand scanning instead. This takes a lot more planning if it is to be user-sustainable: - route all incoming material through one subtree - ensure no incoming material is hidden, e.g. files in mailboxes - create .BAT that apply parameters to your av scanner - shortcut to .BAT via easy UI, e.g. QuickLaunch, Send To - train the user to always scan between getting and using material - ensure the scanner can be updated easily I used F-Prot for DOS as the on-access scanner in the above scenario, and the challenge with that was keeping it up to date, rather than scanning material before use. You can change the av used at any time by editing the .BAT, without having to re-do the UI shortcuts; that's the point of the .BAT, which also allows multiple av to be applied sequentially via Start /W and so on. Today, I'd be more likely to use BitDefender as the on-access scanner, though it may require hardwareand OS versions in excess of those available on PCs too old and small to run resident av. The reason I'd choose BitDefender is that it's easier to keep updated, whereas F-Prot for DOS needs generic download, WinZip and location navigation skills. >is the MacAfee system that comes free with AOL, I hear, some sort >of dumped down system? It's most likely MyCIO, which is indeed dumbed-down and poo. This has virtually no UI and no way to control settings (or even know what they default to), and is used by |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message