Strange Content.IE5 behavior

[PCR]

Angel wrote:
| Hi Bill,
| I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
| forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
| Angel

"Control Panel, Internet Options, Delete Files button, bolt Delete all
offline content, OK, OK"

That does a credible job, in IE6 anyway. Note: It may take a few
moments: DON"T be impatient. The Index.dat inside Content.IE5 will
retain it's size, but is cleared or reset to emptiness. You still will
see Cookies in the main TIF folder, but all the weirdly named folders in
Content.IE5 will be gone.

These were your Temporary Internet Files, which, since V4, has an
involvement with Windows Update. It's main purpose is to hold
bits/pieces of sites you visit, to make it quicker to load next visit.
Also, it is a work area for OE6. Naturally, TIFs will grow back. It's
size is controllable by the slider & input box under the Settings
button. Mine is set for 125 MB there. Many say to go smaller-- say, 40
MB.

If that fails to get them all, then...

Some Cookies bleed into TIFs, so... "START, Settings, Control Panel,
Internet Options, Delete Cookies button". (Note, some site specific
passwords/settings may be wiped-- but that never bothers me.)

If you STILL have matter in TIFs or in Cookies after that, it is
possible you have a horrible corruption that can likely be cured with a
DOS delete...

Verify, in Windows, where these folders are located before proceeding.

(a) "START button, Find, F/F".
(b) Enter "Cookies, Tempor~1, History" (no quotes) in "Named".
(c) Click the "Advanced" button, & use the dropdown to select
"Folder".
(d) Then click the "Find Now" button.
If it is not in "C:\Windows", adjust the Deltree's below. If you
have more than one of any, then perhaps stop & report back.
(c) "Control Panel, Internet Options, Settings button"
Where does it say Temporary Internet Files are located? Use that
path below, but substitute "Tempor~1" for "Temporary Internet Files".

(1) "START, Shut Down, Restart in MS-DOS Mode"

(2) SMARTDRV
This speeds up hard drive processing considerably in DOS--
considerably, & yet it may still seem slow if TIFs are incredibly huge!

(3) DELTREE C:\Windows\Cookies\ /y
These are your Cookies. They may hold settings & passwords, site
specific.

(4) DELTREE C:\Windows\Tempor~1\ /y
These are your Temporary Internet Files. A DOS delete does reset
the Index.dat in Content.IE5 to 32 KB. It won't stay that small for
long. However, Cookies in the top TIF folder would survive this Deltree.

(5) DELTREE C:\Windows\History\ /y
This is a collection of the sites you have visited. It will begin
to grow again, depending upon "Days to keep..." at "Internet Options,
General tab".

(6) EXIT or Ctrl-Alt-Del to Windows

WARNING: DELTREE is a powerful command. It will wipe out the folder you
specify. DO NOT HIT ENTER too soon, or you will wipe out your system.
Get all the way to the end of those DELTREE lines.

| "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

....snip
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.

Angel wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
forgot
> how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
> Angel
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder that
>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the hard
>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and separately in
>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
cache,
>> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
a
>> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of small
>> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the command
>> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes for
the
>> TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>>
>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to first
use
>> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most of
the
>> files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the complete
>> cleanup.
>>
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be due
to
>>>> a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>
>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and then
>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely delete
>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand new
TIF
>>>> after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose that
way.
> I
>>>> assume you know the procedure.
>>>>
>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing that
has
>>>> never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF thing
>>>> several times.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not do
that
>>>>> large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies. NO, I don't
>>>>> think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems with
Malware,
>>>>> etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
>>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a problem
with
>>>>> my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to do that
>>>>> again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that would
be
>>>>>> different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how "page
cannot
>>>>>> be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you have a
>>>>>> corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and
letting
>>>>>> it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit
much,
>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me to
set
>>>>>>> my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000. This
>>>>>>> means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and I
reset
>>>>>>> it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week
trying
>>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while, I think.
I
>>>>>>> have not used it for that long. IE can be used for about 5 to 10
>>>>>>> minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I talked
to
>>>>>>> 3 techs at ATT and they all had different suggestions.
>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can go
>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again to
the
>>>>>>>> TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've limited my
TIF
>>>>>>>> to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes the
>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there already
>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although I
>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
article
>>>>>>>> that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend limiting
the
>>>>>>>> TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see any
>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
browser
>>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers or on
>>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
have
>>>>>>>>> played a part.
>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents eventually
gets
>>>>>>>>>> replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back to that
web
>>>>>>>>>> page (since it has to reload it all in again). Just by some
>>>>>>>>>> regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size to go up by
10 MB
>>>>>>>>>> or more on a single day (meaning some content is being dumped out
to
>>>>>>>>>> make room for the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your TIF,
>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
needing
>>>>>>>>>> to wait until the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed at
>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at 50MB
>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented with
>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between
50MB
>>>>>>>>>>> and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller with
high
>>>>>>>>>>> speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually recommend
>>>>>>>>>>> another browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
dial-up,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time it takes IE to
>>>>>>>>>>>> load stuff in from the web pages is often quite noticeable on
>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache still seems to
help.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't, but I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure 64MB
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of space
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
guard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any such
item?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but never
pinned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and noticed
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where one
might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e. -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders (Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also
get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including those
which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5 to create
its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customary large quantity of different sub-folders, but to no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avail. 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the number of different types of websites /images/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics/ banners /etc should have easily caused Content.IE5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders to mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local Settings.
That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I changed
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem persists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[Angel]

Bill,
No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it if I
should.
Angel

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>
> Angel wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> > I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
> forgot
> > how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
> > Angel
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder that
> >> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the hard
> >> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and separately
in
> >> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
> cache,
> >> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC).
Makes
> a
> >> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of small
> >> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the command
> >> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes
for
> the
> >> TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
> >>
> >> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to first
> use
> >> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most
of
> the
> >> files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the complete
> >> cleanup.
> >>
> >> Angel wrote:
> >>> Hi Bill,
> >>> What is Smartdrv?
> >>> Angel
> >>>
> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be
due
> to
> >>>> a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and
then
> >>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
delete
> >>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand
new
> TIF
> >>>> after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose that
> way.
> > I
> >>>> assume you know the procedure.
> >>>>
> >>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing
that
> has
> >>>> never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF thing
> >>>> several times.
> >>>>
> >>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not
do
> that
> >>>>> large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies. NO, I
don't
> >>>>> think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems with
> Malware,
> >>>>> etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
> >>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a problem
> with
> >>>>> my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to do that
> >>>>> again. Any suggestions? Angel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> >>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
would
> be
> >>>>>> different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how "page
> cannot
> >>>>>> be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you have a
> >>>>>> corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and
> letting
> >>>>>> it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit
> much,
> >>>>>> however.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
> >>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me to
> set
> >>>>>>> my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000.
This
> >>>>>>> means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and I
> reset
> >>>>>>> it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week
> trying
> >>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while, I
think.
> I
> >>>>>>> have not used it for that long. IE can be used for about 5 to 10
> >>>>>>> minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I
talked
> to
> >>>>>>> 3 techs at ATT and they all had different suggestions.
> >>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can
go
> >>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again
to
> the
> >>>>>>>> TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've limited
my
> TIF
> >>>>>>>> to 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes the
> >>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
already
> >>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although
I
> >>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
> article
> >>>>>>>> that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend limiting
> the
> >>>>>>>> TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see any
> >>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
> browser
> >>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers or
on
> >>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
> YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
> have
> >>>>>>>>> played a part.
> >>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
eventually
> gets
> >>>>>>>>>> replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back to
that
> web
> >>>>>>>>>> page (since it has to reload it all in again). Just by some
> >>>>>>>>>> regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size to go up by
> 10 MB
> >>>>>>>>>> or more on a single day (meaning some content is being dumped
out
> to
> >>>>>>>>>> make room for the new stuff)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
> >>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your
TIF,
> >>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
> needing
> >>>>>>>>>> to wait until the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed
at
> >>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
50MB
> >>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
with
> >>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between
> 50MB
> >>>>>>>>>>> and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller with
> high
> >>>>>>>>>>> speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually
recommend
> >>>>>>>>>>> another browser than IE. -) --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
> dial-up,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time it takes IE
to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> load stuff in from the web pages is often quite noticeable on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache still seems to
> help.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't, but I've
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stayed at 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest
you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure
64MB
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of space
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for
IE
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sort through it.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant
for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
> guard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any such
> item?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but never
> pinned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> down the cause.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and noticed
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where one
> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders. It
looked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e. -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
> giving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders (Temporary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS, once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
> created,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also
> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including those
> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5 to
create
> its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> customary large quantity of different sub-folders, but to
no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> avail. 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the number of different types of websites
/images/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics/ banners /etc should have easily caused
Content.IE5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders to mutiply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local Settings.
> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I changed
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
persists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
> anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Not necessarily, if it is done in windows. You'll have to go down to DOS
and do the deltree routine, if you really want to completely clean it out,
including the index.dat file. You can't do it in windows. But most
people never go that far, only us nerdy types.

Angel wrote:
> Bill,
> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it if I
> should.
> Angel
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
forgot
>>> how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder that
>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the hard
>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and separately
in
>>>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
cache,
>>>> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes a
>>>> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of small
>>>> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the command
>>>> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes
for
>>>> the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>>>>
>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to first
use
>>>> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most
of
>>>> the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the
complete
>>>> cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>> Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be
due
>>>>>> to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and
then
>>>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
delete
>>>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand
new
>>>>>> TIF after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
that
>>>>>> way. I assume you know the procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing
that
>>>>>> has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF
thing
>>>>>> several times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not
do
>>>>>>> that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies. NO,
I
>>>>>>> don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems
with
>>>>>>> Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp
file
>>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
problem
>>>>>>> with my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to do
>>>>>>> that again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
would
>>>>>>>> be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how
"page
>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you
have
>>>>>>>> a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and
>>>>>>>> letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is
a
>>>>>>>> bit much, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me to
set
>>>>>>>>> my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000.
This
>>>>>>>>> means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and I
>>>>>>>>> reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a
week
>>>>>>>>> trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
I
>>>>>>>>> think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used for about
5
>>>>>>>>> to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I
>>>>>>>>> talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all had different suggestions.
>>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can
go
>>>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again
to
>>>>>>>>>> the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've
limited
>>>>>>>>>> my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes the
>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
already
>>>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although
I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
article
>>>>>>>>>> that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend limiting
the
>>>>>>>>>> TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see any
>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
browser
>>>>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers or
on
>>>>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
have
>>>>>>>>>>> played a part.
>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
eventually
>>>>>>>>>>>> gets replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back
to
>>>>>>>>>>>> that web page (since it has to reload it all in again).
Just
>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size to
go
>>>>>>>>>>>> up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning some content is
being
>>>>>>>>>>>> dumped out to make room for the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your
TIF,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
needing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to wait until the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed
at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
50MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend another browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest
you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure
64MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of
space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IE to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
guard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item? Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but
never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinned down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where
one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP.
i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders (Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also
get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
sub-folders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all which were created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that the number of different types of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local Settings.
That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I changed
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
persists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Correction on smartdrv:
To be more precise, smartdrv (for DOS) is used to create a disk cache in
conventional memory or extended memory, and (if I have this right), it can
cache up to about 2 MB (so forget the 64K I said below).

But as I said, if you are doing some heavy, multiple file, disk access
activity down there in DOS land, it can make a big difference. And the
converse is also true: if you're not, just ignore this.

Bill in Co. wrote:
> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder that
> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the hard
> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and separately in
> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache,
> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
a
> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of small
> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the command
> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes for
the
> TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>
> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to first
use
> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most of
the
> files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the complete
> cleanup.
>
> Angel wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>> What is Smartdrv?
>> Angel
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be due
to a
>>> corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>
>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and then
boot
>>> into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely delete the
TIF
>>> (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose that way. I
>>> assume you know the procedure.
>>>
>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing that
has
>>> never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF thing
several
>>> times.
>>>
>>> Angel wrote:
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not do
that
>>>> large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies. NO, I don't
>>>> think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems with
Malware,
>>>> etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a problem
with
>>>> my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to do that
>>>> again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that would
be
>>>>> different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how "page
cannot
>>>>> be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you have a
>>>>> corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and letting
it
>>>>> rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit much,
>>>>> however.
>>>>>
>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
anything
>>>>>> on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me to set my
security
>>>>>> to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO
>>>>>> protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and I reset it
to100.
>>>>>> I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week trying to use
the
>>>>>> IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while, I think. I have not
used
>>>>>> it for that long. IE can be used for about 5 to 10 minutes before it
>>>>>> comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT
and
>>>>>> they all had different suggestions.
>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can go
>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again to
the
>>>>>>> TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've limited my
TIF
>>>>>>> to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes the
system
>>>>>>> longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there already than to
>>>>>>> simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although I haven't
>>>>>>> (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented article that
spells
>>>>>>> out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend limiting the
TIF
>>>>>>> to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see any
>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
browser
>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers or on
>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
YMMV.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may have
>>>>>>>> played a part.
>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents eventually
gets
>>>>>>>>> replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back to that
web
>>>>>>>>> page (since it has to reload it all in again). Just by some
>>>>>>>>> regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size to go up by 10
MB
>>>>>>>>> or more on a single day (meaning some content is being dumped out
to
>>>>>>>>> make room for the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
function
>>>>>>>>> of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your TIF, the
longer
>>>>>>>>> you get to wait! before you reach that point (of needing to wait
until
>>>>>>>>> the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed at
>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at 50MB
max.
>>>>>>>>>> I never saw the least difference when I experimented with making
it
>>>>>>>>>> larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between 50MB and
100MB
>>>>>>>>>> for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller with high speed
>>>>>>>>>> Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually recommend
another
>>>>>>>>>> browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
dial-up, I
>>>>>>>>>>> think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time it takes IE to
load
>>>>>>>>>>> stuff in from the web pages is often quite noticeable on
dial-up,
>>>>>>>>>>> and having a somewhat larger cache still seems to help. I
haven't
>>>>>>>>>>> yet determined the point where it doesn't, but I've stayed at
100
>>>>>>>>>>> MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest you
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure 64MB
and
>>>>>>>>>>>> web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of space and
>>>>>>>>>>>> time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
to
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make the
>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
guard
>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any such
item?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but never pinned
>>>>>>>>>>>> down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
attribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was looking for something in there and noticed that it no
longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resembled the regular appearance, where one might find 10 or
more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like the
Content.IE5
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one might find in WinXP. i.e. - generally having roughly
4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
giving me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders (Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including those
which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5 to create
its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> customary large quantity of different sub-folders, but to no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> avail. 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite the
fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the number of different types of websites /images/
graphics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> banners /etc should have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local Settings.
That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I changed it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem persists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Just another note, Angel.
Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a try and
see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does get rid of
most of it, so, no worries.

Angel wrote:
> Bill,
> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it if I
> should.
> Angel
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
forgot
>>> how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder that
>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the hard
>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and separately
in
>>>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
cache,
>>>> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes a
>>>> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of small
>>>> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the command
>>>> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes
for
>>>> the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>>>>
>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to first
use
>>>> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most
of
>>>> the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the
complete
>>>> cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>> Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be
due
>>>>>> to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and
then
>>>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
delete
>>>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand
new
>>>>>> TIF after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
that
>>>>>> way. I assume you know the procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing
that
>>>>>> has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF
thing
>>>>>> several times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not
do
>>>>>>> that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies. NO,
I
>>>>>>> don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems
with
>>>>>>> Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp
file
>>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
problem
>>>>>>> with my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to do
>>>>>>> that again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
would
>>>>>>>> be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how
"page
>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you
have
>>>>>>>> a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and
>>>>>>>> letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is
a
>>>>>>>> bit much, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me to
set
>>>>>>>>> my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000.
This
>>>>>>>>> means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and I
>>>>>>>>> reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a
week
>>>>>>>>> trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
I
>>>>>>>>> think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used for about
5
>>>>>>>>> to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I
>>>>>>>>> talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all had different suggestions.
>>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can
go
>>>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again
to
>>>>>>>>>> the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've
limited
>>>>>>>>>> my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes the
>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
already
>>>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although
I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
article
>>>>>>>>>> that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend limiting
the
>>>>>>>>>> TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see any
>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
browser
>>>>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers or
on
>>>>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
have
>>>>>>>>>>> played a part.
>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
eventually
>>>>>>>>>>>> gets replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back
to
>>>>>>>>>>>> that web page (since it has to reload it all in again).
Just
>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size to
go
>>>>>>>>>>>> up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning some content is
being
>>>>>>>>>>>> dumped out to make room for the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your
TIF,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
needing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to wait until the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed
at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
50MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend another browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest
you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure
64MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of
space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IE to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
guard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item? Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but
never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinned down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where
one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP.
i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders (Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also
get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
sub-folders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all which were created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that the number of different types of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local Settings.
That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I changed
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
persists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[Angel]

Hi Bill,
I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files of
files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file. The
TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go back
to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast! and AdAware.
Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up good and the
IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said "right now" because I
do not know when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow
and getting slower.
I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should re-load
Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory to
run XP. I don't think so, do you?
Angel

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just another note, Angel.
> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a try
and
> see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does get rid of
> most of it, so, no worries.
>
> Angel wrote:
> > Bill,
> > No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
> > emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it if
I
> > should.
> > Angel
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
> >>
> >> Angel wrote:
> >>> Hi Bill,
> >>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
> forgot
> >>> how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
> >>> Angel
> >>>
> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
that
> >>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the
hard
> >>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and
separately
> in
> >>>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
> cache,
> >>>> for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
a
> >>>> HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands of
small
> >>>> files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the
command
> >>>> prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes
> for
> >>>> the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
> >>>>
> >>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
first
> use
> >>>> IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting most
> of
> >>>> the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do the
> complete
> >>>> cleanup.
> >>>>
> >>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>> What is Smartdrv?
> >>>>> Angel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be
> due
> >>>>>> to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and
> then
> >>>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
> delete
> >>>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand
> new
> >>>>>> TIF after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
> that
> >>>>>> way. I assume you know the procedure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing
> that
> >>>>>> has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF
> thing
> >>>>>> several times.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not
> do
> >>>>>>> that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies.
NO,
> I
> >>>>>>> don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems
> with
> >>>>>>> Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp
> file
> >>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
> problem
> >>>>>>> with my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not want to
do
> >>>>>>> that again. Any suggestions? Angel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> >>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
> would
> >>>>>>>> be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how
> "page
> >>>>>>>> cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you
> have
> >>>>>>>> a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out and
> >>>>>>>> letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB
is
> a
> >>>>>>>> bit much, however.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
> >>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me
to
> set
> >>>>>>>>> my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000.
> This
> >>>>>>>>> means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and
I
> >>>>>>>>> reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a
> week
> >>>>>>>>> trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long
while,
> I
> >>>>>>>>> think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used for
about
> 5
> >>>>>>>>> to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be
displayed".I
> >>>>>>>>> talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all had different suggestions.
> >>>>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can
> go
> >>>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again
> to
> >>>>>>>>>> the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've
> limited
> >>>>>>>>>> my TIF to 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes
the
> >>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
> already
> >>>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up).
Although
> I
> >>>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
> article
> >>>>>>>>>> that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
limiting
> the
> >>>>>>>>>> TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see
any
> >>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
> browser
> >>>>>>>>>>> performance and page load speed, either on my home computers
or
> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> those at work which used dial-up for a period of time. Again,
> YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> played a part.
> >>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
> eventually
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gets replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that web page (since it has to reload it all in again).
> Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size
to
> go
> >>>>>>>>>>>> up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning some content is
> being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dumped out to make room for the new stuff)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your
> TIF,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
> needing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to wait until the page content is reloaded into the TIF).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed
> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
> 50MB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value
between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend another browser than IE. -) --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time
it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest
> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure
> 64MB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of
> space
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IE to sort through it.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to
make
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change for you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
> guard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your internet traffic? Have you recently installed any
such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item? Or any other major app? I've seen this effect, but
> never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinned down the cause.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where
> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders.
It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP.
> i.e.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
> giving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
(Temporary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS,
once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
> created,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5 which
also
> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5
to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
> sub-folders,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all which were
created,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that the number of different types of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have
easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
Settings.
> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
changed
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
> persists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
> anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help me with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

You did the "clean boot"? Which "clean boot" are we talking about here?
Are you talking about the DOS clean TIF thing? If so, that is indeed
strange, because that has never been a problem for me really strange.

By "the TEMP file did not rebuild" below, I assume you mean the temporary
internet files FOLDER, right? And not the windows\temp folder!! Those
are two entirely different folders!

But again, I don't why the TIF (folder) wouldn't rebuild on bootup, unless
(possibly) one of those antivirus programs got in the way during bootup (or
else perhaps some system files have gone awry, which seems strange, since
windows does indeed run for you).

As for having only 256MB memory for XP, I would think that would be pretty
marginal, from what I have heard. Even on Win98SE, I appreciate having
512 MB. Plus there is still the old hardware to consider. I don't think
the solution to your problem necessitates installing XP, and maybe your
machine, like mine, would be marginal for doing that (I have an older Dell,
800 MHz, circa 2000). Even though I have 512 MB of RAM, I think that is a
bit light for XP, plus the fact that the rest of the machine is a bit dated.
And I only have an 800 MHz computer (also pretty dated and a bit marginal
for XP, I think).

But a fresh new install (and not just an overinstall, as tedious as that
is), of Win98SE might be another solution to consider, albeit a pretty
drastic one. Not sure you have to go there yet, however. So do you
know your way around DOS ok? (I assuming at this point you do). If so,
one idea might be to temporarily uninstall Avast and Adware, reboot, see if
your TIF is still there, and if so, then go back and do the DOS clean TIF
routine, reboot, and see what happens (hopefully you WILL then have a
perfectly clean TIF). Then, if that works out ok, consider reinstalling
those two apps a bit later.

Angel wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files of
> files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file. The
> TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go back
> to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone
Alarm.
> The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast! and AdAware.
> Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up good and the
> IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said "right now" because
I
> do not know when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still
slow
> and getting slower.
> I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should re-load
> Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory to
> run XP. I don't think so, do you?
> Angel
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Just another note, Angel.
>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a try
and
>> see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does get rid
of
>> most of it, so, no worries.
>>
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
>>> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it if
I
>>> should.
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
>>>>> forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
>>>>> Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
that
>>>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the
hard
>>>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and
separately in
>>>>>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
>>>>>> cache, for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time,
IIRC).
>>>>>> Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands
of
>>>>>> small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at the
>>>>>> command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15
>>>>>> minutes for the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a
minute
>>>>>> or two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
first
>>>>>> use IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by deleting
>>>>>> most of the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do
the
>>>>>> complete cleanup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may be
due
>>>>>>>> to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE, and
then
>>>>>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
delete
>>>>>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a brand
new
>>>>>>>> TIF after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
>>>>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when doing
that
>>>>>>>> has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean TIF
>>>>>>>> thing several times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did not
do
>>>>>>>>> that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies.
NO, I
>>>>>>>>> don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems
with
>>>>>>>>> Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp
file
>>>>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
>>>>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I really do not
>>>>>>>>> want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
would
>>>>>>>>>> be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how
"page
>>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless you
>>>>>>>>>> have a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it out
and
>>>>>>>>>> letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB
is a
>>>>>>>>>> bit much, however.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to do
>>>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me
to
>>>>>>>>>>> set my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to
1000.
>>>>>>>>>>> This means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem
>>>>>>>>>>> and I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for
over
>>>>>>>>>>> a week trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a
long
>>>>>>>>>>> while, I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be
used
>>>>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page cannot
be
>>>>>>>>>>> displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all had different
>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I can
go
>>>>>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in again
to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've
limited
>>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes
the
>>>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
already
>>>>>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although I
>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
>>>>>>>>>>>> article that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
limiting
>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see
any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser performance and page load speed, either on my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers or on those at work which used dial-up for a period
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Again, YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have played a part.
>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
eventually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets replaced, and then you really notice it when you go back
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that web page (since it has to reload it all in again).
>> Just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size
to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning some content is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being dumped out to make room for the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger your
TIF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needing to wait until the page content is reloaded into the
TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually maxed
at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
50MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value
between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also
usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend another browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I suggest
you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the figure
64MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space and time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes for IE to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application meant
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to
make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the change for you. Perhaps some utility that you
installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to guard your internet traffic? Have you recently
installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
effect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but never pinned down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance, where
one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might find 10 or more alphanumerically named subfolders.
It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
(Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS,
once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created, there are also 4 sub-folders within Content.IE5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also get created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get Content.IE5
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
sub-folders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all which were
created,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that the number of different types of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have
easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
Settings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
changed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
persists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered. Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[PCR]

Angel wrote:
| Hi Bill,
| I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
| files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the
| TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly.
| So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.

You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?...

Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files may
return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will come back
next boot or when you run McAfee.

I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to see
whether there is an error message or something inside. It was too late
for me by then.

Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to un/re-install
elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system files in there
perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in there. That shouldn't be!
Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP mentioned in any of these
Registry keys...?...

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
ll Folders
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
r Shell Folders

| Today, I got rid
| of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.

SpyBot...?...

START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*

.... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.

| The only things, as far as protection goes
| now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
| Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
| something is still wrong.

Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see whether
it is normal or not!

| I said "right now" because I do not know
| when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow and
| getting slower. I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they
| think I should re-load Windows, update my computer to XP. They say
| that 256 is enough memory to run XP. I don't think so, do you?
| Angel
|
| "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> Just another note, Angel.
|> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
|> try and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows
|> does get rid of most of it, so, no worries.
|>
|> Angel wrote:
|> > Bill,
|> > No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
|> > be emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to
|> > empty it if I should.
|> > Angel
|> >
|> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> > news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> >> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
|> >>
|> >> Angel wrote:
|> >>> Hi Bill,
|> >>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp
|> >>> file. I forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please
|> >>> refresh my memory. Angel
|> >>>
|> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> >>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> >>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows
|> >>>> folder that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing
|> >>>> activity, so that the hard drive doesn't go out and read in
|> >>>> each file individually and separately in time, but instead,
|> >>>> reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache, for a
|> >>>> large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
|> >>>> a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands
|> >>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there
|> >>>> (at the command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it
|> >>>> took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to get all the files
|> >>>> deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
|> >>>>
|> >>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure
|> >>>> to first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even
|> >>>> quicker (by deleting most of the files there). Then you can
|> >>>> reboot into true DOS and do the complete cleanup.
|> >>>>
|> >>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>> Hi Bill,
|> >>>>> What is Smartdrv?
|> >>>>> Angel
|> >>>>>
|> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> >>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
|> >>>>>> may be due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on
|> >>>>>> this.
|> >>>>>>
|> >>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in
|> >>>>>> IE, and then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down
|> >>>>>> there to completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run
|> >>>>>> smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
|> >>>>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
|> >>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
|> >>>>>>
|> >>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
|> >>>>>> doing that has never presented a problem for me, and I've
|> >>>>>> done this clean TIF thing several times.
|> >>>>>>
|> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>>> Hi Bill,
|> >>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really
|> >>>>>>> did not do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to
|> >>>>>>> accept all cookies. NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't
|> >>>>>>> "accepting all cookies" cause problems with Malware, etc? I
|> >>>>>>> do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
|> >>>>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
|> >>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I
|> >>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
|> >>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>> message news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
|> >>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
|> >>>>>>>> that would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I
|> >>>>>>>> don't see how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the
|> >>>>>>>> TIF size or TIF unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which
|> >>>>>>>> case you could try clearing it out and letting it rebuild
|> >>>>>>>> itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit much,
|> >>>>>>>> however.
|> >>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
|> >>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
|> >>>>>>>>> to do anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the
|> >>>>>>>>> techs told me to set my security to "accept all cookies"
|> >>>>>>>>> and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO protection. I had
|> >>>>>>>>> it set at 50 before this problem and I reset it to100. I
|> >>>>>>>>> am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week trying
|> >>>>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
|> >>>>>>>>> I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used
|> >>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
|> >>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and
|> >>>>>>>>> they all had different suggestions. Angel
|> >>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>> message news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer
|> >>>>>>>>>> I can go without having to wait for the page data to be
|> >>>>>>>>>> brought in again to the TIF, the better. (well,
|> >>>>>>>>>> up to a point, as I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
|> >>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
|> >>>>>>>>>> takes the system longer to search thru the TIF to see if
|> >>>>>>>>>> its in there already than to simply reload in the page
|> >>>>>>>>>> (even on dial-up). Although I haven't (yet) come across
|> >>>>>>>>>> an authoritative, fully documented article that spells
|> >>>>>>>>>> out exactly what size TIF that is.
|> >>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
|> >>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
|> >>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
|> >>>>>>>>>>> see any noticable difference from having it set at 100MB
|> >>>>>>>>>>> in terms of browser performance and page load speed,
|> >>>>>>>>>>> either on my home computers or on those at work which
|> >>>>>>>>>>> used dial-up for a period of time. Again, YMMV.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so
|> >>>>>>>>>>> that may have played a part.
|> >>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
|> >>>>>>>>>>> --
|> >>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
|> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|> >>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>>> message news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> when you go back to that web page (since it has to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> reload it all in again).
|> Just
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> some content is being dumped out to make room for the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> direct function of how large your TIF is meaning, the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> larger your TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> reach that point (of needing to wait until the page
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> content is reloaded into the TIF).
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maxed at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF set at 50MB max. I never saw the least
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference when I experimented with making it larger.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between 50MB and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also usually recommend another browser than IE. -) --
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us on dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time it takes IE to load stuff in from the web
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages is often quite noticeable on dial-up, and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a somewhat larger cache still seems to help. I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't,
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I've stayed at 100 MB.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than that is a waste of space and time (the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sort through it.)
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vista) decided to make the change for you. Perhaps
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some utility that you installed to guard your
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet traffic? Have you recently installed any
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, but never pinned down the cause.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar attribute. I was looking for something in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and noticed that it no longer resembled the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular appearance, where one might find 10 or more
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends up giving me the same
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same issue persists. :-(
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS, once rebooted, although Index.dat and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop.ini are newly created, there are also 4
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain a Desktop.ini file.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including those which might assist me) to see if I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could get Content.IE5 to create its customary large
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity of different sub-folders, but to no avail.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that the number of different types of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF's/Content.IE5 is
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later) that mysteriously, the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed it back to it's
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered. Can anyone help me with
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Bill in Co.]

I, for one (or for two), do not randomly delete what is in the Windows\Temp
folder, as there is often some interesting stuff in there. Some files I
do delete, but only the ones I have no use for (historical or otherwise).
And as PCR said, a few files in there may still be in use.

NOTE: This time we're talking about the Windows\Temp folder, and NOT the
Windows\Temporary Internet Files files folder, which is a completely
different animal.


PCR wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
>> files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the
>> TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly.
>> So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
>
> You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?...
>
> Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
> files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
> something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
> will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
> know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files may
> return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will come back
> next boot or when you run McAfee.
>
> I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
> those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to see
> whether there is an error message or something inside. It was too late
> for me by then.
>
> Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
> might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to un/re-install
> elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system files in there
> perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in there. That shouldn't be!
> Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP mentioned in any of these
> Registry keys...?...
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
> ll Folders
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
> r Shell Folders
>
>> Today, I got rid
>> of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
>
> SpyBot...?...
>
> START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
> START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
>
> ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
> screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
>
>> The only things, as far as protection goes
>> now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
>> Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
>> something is still wrong.
>
> Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see whether
> it is normal or not!
>
>> I said "right now" because I do not know
>> when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow and
>> getting slower. I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they
>> think I should re-load Windows, update my computer to XP. They say
>> that 256 is enough memory to run XP. I don't think so, do you?
>> Angel
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Just another note, Angel.
>>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
>>> try and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows
>>> does get rid of most of it, so, no worries.
>>>
>>> Angel wrote:
>>>> Bill,
>>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
>>>> be emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to
>>>> empty it if I should.
>>>> Angel
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp
>>>>>> file. I forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please
>>>>>> refresh my memory. Angel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows
>>>>>>> folder that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing
>>>>>>> activity, so that the hard drive doesn't go out and read in
>>>>>>> each file individually and separately in time, but instead,
>>>>>>> reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache, for a
>>>>>>> large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
>>>>>>> a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands
>>>>>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there
>>>>>>> (at the command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it
>>>>>>> took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to get all the files
>>>>>>> deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure
>>>>>>> to first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even
>>>>>>> quicker (by deleting most of the files there). Then you can
>>>>>>> reboot into true DOS and do the complete cleanup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
>>>>>>>>> may be due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in
>>>>>>>>> IE, and then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down
>>>>>>>>> there to completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run
>>>>>>>>> smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
>>>>>>>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
>>>>>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
>>>>>>>>> doing that has never presented a problem for me, and I've
>>>>>>>>> done this clean TIF thing several times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really
>>>>>>>>>> did not do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to
>>>>>>>>>> accept all cookies. NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> "accepting all cookies" cause problems with Malware, etc? I
>>>>>>>>>> do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
>>>>>>>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
>>>>>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I
>>>>>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
>>>>>>>>>>> that would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't see how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the
>>>>>>>>>>> TIF size or TIF unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which
>>>>>>>>>>> case you could try clearing it out and letting it rebuild
>>>>>>>>>>> itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit much,
>>>>>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> techs told me to set my security to "accept all cookies"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO protection. I had
>>>>>>>>>>>> it set at 50 before this problem and I reset it to100. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week trying
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and
>>>>>>>>>>>> they all had different suggestions. Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go without having to wait for the page data to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in again to the TIF, the better. (well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to a point, as I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the system longer to search thru the TIF to see if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its in there already than to simply reload in the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even on dial-up). Although I haven't (yet) come across
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an authoritative, fully documented article that spells
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out exactly what size TIF that is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any noticable difference from having it set at 100MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of browser performance and page load speed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either on my home computers or on those at work which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used dial-up for a period of time. Again, YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that may have played a part.
>>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you go back to that web page (since it has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reload it all in again).
>>> Just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some content is being dumped out to make room for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct function of how large your TIF is meaning, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger your TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach that point (of needing to wait until the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is reloaded into the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxed at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF set at 50MB max. I never saw the least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference when I experimented with making it larger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between 50MB and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also usually recommend another browser than IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us on dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time it takes IE to load stuff in from the web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages is often quite noticeable on dial-up, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a somewhat larger cache still seems to help. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than that is a waste of space and time (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vista) decided to make the change for you. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some utility that you installed to guard your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet traffic? Have you recently installed any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, but never pinned down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar attribute. I was looking for something in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and noticed that it no longer resembled the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular appearance, where one might find 10 or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends up giving me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same issue persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS, once rebooted, although Index.dat and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop.ini are newly created, there are also 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain a Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including those which might assist me) to see if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could get Content.IE5 to create its customary large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity of different sub-folders, but to no avail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that the number of different types of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later) that mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed it back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered. Can anyone help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Angel]

Hi Bill,
I did the Clean Boot that Gary has on his website. No, I did not go
into DOS. I did it from the Windows 98SE side. I may have done something
wrong. I learned DOS back in '92. It has a big problem, if you don't
absolutely get the spelling right with all the spaces, etc, it becomes very
frustrating.
I took off the SpyBot and Zone Alarm from the Add/ Remove program. I
think that with the updates in Spybot every week, it was "getting too big
for its britches"= too bloated. Shortly before I started having problems, I
had done the updates on the SpyBot. So far, it seems to be working. I will
find out more in a few days.
Both of the computer guys that I talked to on the phone had computers
for sell if you needed one.they did not like Windows 98SE. One had a
computer he built from bits and pieces he got from computers that he found
thrown out by people at the curbside. He had to buy a couple of parts. So he
was selling it for what he put into it. He had used it himself for a couple
of years.He would sell it for $200 and no guarantee at all. That is not a
bargain. He tried to convince me that he was taking a loss on it!! . The
other one had refurbished machines sell for $400 it had a year guarantee on
hardware. Neither had the original XP disk to give me. I do not think that
is a bargain neither. Maybe they think that all women are really dumb enough
to swallow the BS. Some of us, investigate and find out all we can about
this stuff. Can't afford to throw my money away.
My computer is also 800MHz With 256 MB of RAM. Bought it new 6/1/2000.
I thought I was right that the computer would not handle XP with the age,
etc.
Angel


Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OdO1sY5AIHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You did the "clean boot"? Which "clean boot" are we talking about
here?
> Are you talking about the DOS clean TIF thing? If so, that is indeed
> strange, because that has never been a problem for me really strange.
>
> By "the TEMP file did not rebuild" below, I assume you mean the temporary
> internet files FOLDER, right? And not the windows\temp folder!!
Those
> are two entirely different folders!
>
> But again, I don't why the TIF (folder) wouldn't rebuild on bootup, unless
> (possibly) one of those antivirus programs got in the way during bootup
(or
> else perhaps some system files have gone awry, which seems strange, since
> windows does indeed run for you).
>
> As for having only 256MB memory for XP, I would think that would be pretty
> marginal, from what I have heard. Even on Win98SE, I appreciate having
> 512 MB. Plus there is still the old hardware to consider. I don't
think
> the solution to your problem necessitates installing XP, and maybe your
> machine, like mine, would be marginal for doing that (I have an older
Dell,
> 800 MHz, circa 2000). Even though I have 512 MB of RAM, I think that is
a
> bit light for XP, plus the fact that the rest of the machine is a bit
dated.
> And I only have an 800 MHz computer (also pretty dated and a bit marginal
> for XP, I think).
>
> But a fresh new install (and not just an overinstall, as tedious as that
> is), of Win98SE might be another solution to consider, albeit a pretty
> drastic one. Not sure you have to go there yet, however. So do you
> know your way around DOS ok? (I assuming at this point you do). If
so,
> one idea might be to temporarily uninstall Avast and Adware, reboot, see
if
> your TIF is still there, and if so, then go back and do the DOS clean TIF
> routine, reboot, and see what happens (hopefully you WILL then have a
> perfectly clean TIF). Then, if that works out ok, consider reinstalling
> those two apps a bit later.
>
> Angel wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> > I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files
of
> > files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file.
The
> > TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go
back
> > to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone
> Alarm.
> > The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast! and
AdAware.
> > Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up good and
the
> > IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said "right now"
because
> I
> > do not know when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still
> slow
> > and getting slower.
> > I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should re-load
> > Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory
to
> > run XP. I don't think so, do you?
> > Angel
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Just another note, Angel.
> >> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
try
> and
> >> see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does get rid
> of
> >> most of it, so, no worries.
> >>
> >> Angel wrote:
> >>> Bill,
> >>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
> >>> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it
if
> I
> >>> should.
> >>> Angel
> >>>
> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
> >>>>> forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
> >>>>> Angel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
> that
> >>>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the
> hard
> >>>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and
> separately in
> >>>>>> time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a
> >>>>>> cache, for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time,
> IIRC).
> >>>>>> Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting
thousands
> of
> >>>>>> small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at
the
> >>>>>> command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps
15
> >>>>>> minutes for the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a
> minute
> >>>>>> or two.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
> first
> >>>>>> use IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by
deleting
> >>>>>> most of the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do
> the
> >>>>>> complete cleanup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
> >>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may
be
> due
> >>>>>>>> to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE,
and
> then
> >>>>>>>> boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to completely
> delete
> >>>>>>>> the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first), and then have a
brand
> new
> >>>>>>>> TIF after rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to
lose
> >>>>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
doing
> that
> >>>>>>>> has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this clean
TIF
> >>>>>>>> thing several times.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did
not
> do
> >>>>>>>>> that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all cookies.
> NO, I
> >>>>>>>>> don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause problems
> with
> >>>>>>>>> Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp
> file
> >>>>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
> >>>>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I really do
not
> >>>>>>>>> want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> >>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
> would
> >>>>>>>>>> be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't see how
> "page
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or TIF unless
you
> >>>>>>>>>> have a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it
out
> and
> >>>>>>>>>> letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB
> is a
> >>>>>>>>>> bit much, however.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to
do
> >>>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> set my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to
> 1000.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this
problem
> >>>>>>>>>>> and I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for
> over
> >>>>>>>>>>> a week trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a
> long
> >>>>>>>>>>> while, I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be
> used
> >>>>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page cannot
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all had
different
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. Angel
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I
can
> go
> >>>>>>>>>>>> without having to wait for the page data to be brought in
again
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point, as I've
> limited
> >>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF to 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
> already
> >>>>>>>>>>>> than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up). Although
I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully documented
> >>>>>>>>>>>> article that spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
> limiting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see
> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> browser performance and page load speed, either on my home
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> computers or on those at work which used dial-up for a
period
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Again, YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that
may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have played a part.
> >>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
> eventually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets replaced, and then you really notice it when you go
back
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that web page (since it has to reload it all in again).
> >> Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF size
> to go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning some content
is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being dumped out to make room for the new stuff)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger
your
> TIF,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the longer you get to wait! before you reach that point (of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needing to wait until the page content is reloaded into the
> TIF).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
maxed
> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set at
> 50MB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> max. I never saw the least difference when I experimented
> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value
> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually
smaller
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I also
> usually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend another browser than IE. -) --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often
quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point where
it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
suggest
> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the
figure
> 64MB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and web-pages serve up fine. More than that is a waste
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space and time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer
it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes for IE to sort through it.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
meant
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to
> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the change for you. Perhaps some utility that you
> installed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to guard your internet traffic? Have you recently
> installed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
> effect,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but never pinned down the cause.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance,
where
> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might find 10 or more alphanumerically named
subfolders.
> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find in
WinXP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
> subfolders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends
up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving me the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
> (Temporary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS,
> once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created, there are also 4 sub-folders within
Content.IE5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also get created anew. They are void of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
> those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get
Content.IE5
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
> sub-folders,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all which were
> created,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that the number of different types of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have
> easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later)
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
> Settings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
> changed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
> persists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered.
Can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
>

 

[Angel]

Hi PCR,
Replies in line:

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:OkOECe6AIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Angel wrote:
> | Hi Bill,
> | I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
> | files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the
> | TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly.
> | So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
>
> You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?.

Yes, I meant C:\Windows\TEMP.
No, it did not rebuild after fresh boot, That was the problem!! I already
went back to the Backup in Disk Image.
>
> Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
> files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
> something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
> will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
> know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files may
> return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will come back
> next boot or when you run McAfee.

I do not use McAfee at all. I have Avast!
>
> I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
> those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to see
> whether there is an error message or something inside. It was too late
> for me by then.
>
> Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
> might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to un/re-install
> elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system files in there
> perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in there. That shouldn't be!
> Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP mentioned in any of these
> Registry keys...?...
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
> ll Folders
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
> r Shell Folders

It is too late to even mess with it. I am not messing with the registry
anyway. To look for these keys?? Why??
>
> | Today, I got rid
> | of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
>
> SpyBot...?...

SpyBot, Yes so I goofed on the spelling. I don't think this is DOS!!
>
> START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
> START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
>
> ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
> screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.

I REMOVED SpyBot and ZoneAlarm
>
> | The only things, as far as protection goes
> | now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
> | Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
> | something is still wrong.
>
> Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see whether
> it is normal or not!

ALL of them!! NEVER downloaded at all!! I could not even get into the ATT
web site, Would not find the website. In fact, the IE and/or Mozilla would
time out and it would say "page could not be displayed" I thought I
explained this before in this string. I thought that Mozilla may work. A
teacher friend of mine, brought down a copy on a disk so I could install it,
that did not work either. That went with the downloading the backup.

I am signing off for now,
Angel
>
> | I said "right now" because I do not know
> | when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow and
> | getting slower. I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they
> | think I should re-load Windows, update my computer to XP. They say
> | that 256 is enough memory to run XP. I don't think so, do you?
> | Angel
> |
> | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> | news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> Just another note, Angel.
> |> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
> |> try and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows
> |> does get rid of most of it, so, no worries.
> |>
> |> Angel wrote:
> |> > Bill,
> |> > No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
> |> > be emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to
> |> > empty it if I should.
> |> > Angel
> |> >
> |> > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |> > news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> |> >> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
> |> >>
> |> >> Angel wrote:
> |> >>> Hi Bill,
> |> >>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp
> |> >>> file. I forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please
> |> >>> refresh my memory. Angel
> |> >>>
> |> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |> >>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows
> |> >>>> folder that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing
> |> >>>> activity, so that the hard drive doesn't go out and read in
> |> >>>> each file individually and separately in time, but instead,
> |> >>>> reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache, for a
> |> >>>> large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
> |> >>>> a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands
> |> >>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there
> |> >>>> (at the command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it
> |> >>>> took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to get all the files
> |> >>>> deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
> |> >>>>
> |> >>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure
> |> >>>> to first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even
> |> >>>> quicker (by deleting most of the files there). Then you can
> |> >>>> reboot into true DOS and do the complete cleanup.
> |> >>>>
> |> >>>> Angel wrote:
> |> >>>>> Hi Bill,
> |> >>>>> What is Smartdrv?
> |> >>>>> Angel
> |> >>>>>
> |> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |> >>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
> |> >>>>>> may be due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on
> |> >>>>>> this.
> |> >>>>>>
> |> >>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in
> |> >>>>>> IE, and then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down
> |> >>>>>> there to completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run
> |> >>>>>> smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
> |> >>>>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
> |> >>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
> |> >>>>>>
> |> >>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
> |> >>>>>> doing that has never presented a problem for me, and I've
> |> >>>>>> done this clean TIF thing several times.
> |> >>>>>>
> |> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
> |> >>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> |> >>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really
> |> >>>>>>> did not do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to
> |> >>>>>>> accept all cookies. NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't
> |> >>>>>>> "accepting all cookies" cause problems with Malware, etc? I
> |> >>>>>>> do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
> |> >>>>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
> |> >>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I
> |> >>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
> |> >>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> |> >>>>>>> message news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> |> >>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
> |> >>>>>>>> that would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I
> |> >>>>>>>> don't see how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the
> |> >>>>>>>> TIF size or TIF unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which
> |> >>>>>>>> case you could try clearing it out and letting it rebuild
> |> >>>>>>>> itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit much,
> |> >>>>>>>> however.
> |> >>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> |> >>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> |> >>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
> |> >>>>>>>>> to do anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the
> |> >>>>>>>>> techs told me to set my security to "accept all cookies"
> |> >>>>>>>>> and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO protection. I had
> |> >>>>>>>>> it set at 50 before this problem and I reset it to100. I
> |> >>>>>>>>> am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week trying
> |> >>>>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
> |> >>>>>>>>> I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used
> |> >>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
> |> >>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and
> |> >>>>>>>>> they all had different suggestions. Angel
> |> >>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> |> >>>>>>>>> message news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer
> |> >>>>>>>>>> I can go without having to wait for the page data to be
> |> >>>>>>>>>> brought in again to the TIF, the better. (well,
> |> >>>>>>>>>> up to a point, as I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
> |> >>>>>>>>>> takes the system longer to search thru the TIF to see if
> |> >>>>>>>>>> its in there already than to simply reload in the page
> |> >>>>>>>>>> (even on dial-up). Although I haven't (yet) come across
> |> >>>>>>>>>> an authoritative, fully documented article that spells
> |> >>>>>>>>>> out exactly what size TIF that is.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
> |> >>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> see any noticable difference from having it set at 100MB
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> in terms of browser performance and page load speed,
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> either on my home computers or on those at work which
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> used dial-up for a period of time. Again, YMMV.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> that may have played a part.
> |> >>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> |> >>>>>>>>>>> message news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> when you go back to that web page (since it has to
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> reload it all in again).
> |> Just
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> some content is being dumped out to make room for the
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> direct function of how large your TIF is meaning, the
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> larger your TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> reach that point (of needing to wait until the page
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> content is reloaded into the TIF).
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maxed at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF set at 50MB max. I never saw the least
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference when I experimented with making it larger.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between 50MB and
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also usually recommend another browser than IE. -) --
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us on dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time it takes IE to load stuff in from the web
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages is often quite noticeable on dial-up, and
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a somewhat larger cache still seems to help. I
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't,
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I've stayed at 100 MB.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than that is a waste of space and time (the
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sort through it.)
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vista) decided to make the change for you. Perhaps
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some utility that you installed to guard your
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet traffic? Have you recently installed any
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, but never pinned down the cause.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar attribute. I was looking for something in
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and noticed that it no longer resembled the
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular appearance, where one might find 10 or more
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends up giving me the same
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same issue persists. :-(
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS, once rebooted, although Index.dat and
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop.ini are newly created, there are also 4
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain a Desktop.ini file.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including those which might assist me) to see if I
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could get Content.IE5 to create its customary large
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity of different sub-folders, but to no avail.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that the number of different types of
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders to
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later) that mysteriously, the
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed it back to it's
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered. Can anyone help me with
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
>

 

[Angel]

Bill,
There were NO files in the Windows\TEMP file after I deleted them. It
said "0" before I rebooted. The file did NOT rebuild!!
I know the difference between TIF and TEMP files..
I did NOT randomly delete the files. I used the Clean Boot that is on
Gary's Website that I was told by some to use. This is the second time that
it has caused a disaster!
Angel

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e3%23$zL7AIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I, for one (or for two), do not randomly delete what is in the
Windows\Temp
> folder, as there is often some interesting stuff in there. Some files
I
> do delete, but only the ones I have no use for (historical or otherwise).
> And as PCR said, a few files in there may still be in use.
>
> NOTE: This time we're talking about the Windows\Temp folder, and NOT
the
> Windows\Temporary Internet Files files folder, which is a completely
> different animal.
>
>
> PCR wrote:
> > Angel wrote:
> >> Hi Bill,
> >> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
> >> files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the
> >> TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly.
> >> So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
> >
> > You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?...
> >
> > Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
> > files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
> > something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
> > will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
> > know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files may
> > return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will come back
> > next boot or when you run McAfee.
> >
> > I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
> > those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to see
> > whether there is an error message or something inside. It was too late
> > for me by then.
> >
> > Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
> > might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to un/re-install
> > elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system files in there
> > perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in there. That shouldn't be!
> > Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP mentioned in any of these
> > Registry keys...?...
> >
> > HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
> > ll Folders
> > HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
> > r Shell Folders
> >
> >> Today, I got rid
> >> of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
> >
> > SpyBot...?...
> >
> > START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
> > START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
> >
> > ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
> > screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
> >
> >> The only things, as far as protection goes
> >> now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
> >> Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
> >> something is still wrong.
> >
> > Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see whether
> > it is normal or not!
> >
> >> I said "right now" because I do not know
> >> when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow and
> >> getting slower. I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they
> >> think I should re-load Windows, update my computer to XP. They say
> >> that 256 is enough memory to run XP. I don't think so, do you?
> >> Angel
> >>
> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>> Just another note, Angel.
> >>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
> >>> try and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows
> >>> does get rid of most of it, so, no worries.
> >>>
> >>> Angel wrote:
> >>>> Bill,
> >>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
> >>>> be emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to
> >>>> empty it if I should.
> >>>> Angel
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp
> >>>>>> file. I forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please
> >>>>>> refresh my memory. Angel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows
> >>>>>>> folder that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing
> >>>>>>> activity, so that the hard drive doesn't go out and read in
> >>>>>>> each file individually and separately in time, but instead,
> >>>>>>> reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache, for a
> >>>>>>> large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC). Makes
> >>>>>>> a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting thousands
> >>>>>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there
> >>>>>>> (at the command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it
> >>>>>>> took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to get all the files
> >>>>>>> deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure
> >>>>>>> to first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even
> >>>>>>> quicker (by deleting most of the files there). Then you can
> >>>>>>> reboot into true DOS and do the complete cleanup.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
> >>>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
> >>>>>>>>> may be due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on
> >>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in
> >>>>>>>>> IE, and then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down
> >>>>>>>>> there to completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run
> >>>>>>>>> smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
> >>>>>>>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
> >>>>>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
> >>>>>>>>> doing that has never presented a problem for me, and I've
> >>>>>>>>> done this clean TIF thing several times.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really
> >>>>>>>>>> did not do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to
> >>>>>>>>>> accept all cookies. NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't
> >>>>>>>>>> "accepting all cookies" cause problems with Malware, etc? I
> >>>>>>>>>> do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file has
> >>>>>>>>>> "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I had a
> >>>>>>>>>> problem with my computer and had to go to backup. I
> >>>>>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> >>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> that would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't see how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> TIF size or TIF unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which
> >>>>>>>>>>> case you could try clearing it out and letting it rebuild
> >>>>>>>>>>> itself. I think a TIF setting of 1000 MB is a bit much,
> >>>>>>>>>>> however.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to do anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> techs told me to set my security to "accept all cookies"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO protection. I had
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it set at 50 before this problem and I reset it to100. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> am on their DSL. Have had problems for over a week trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express for a long while,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can be used
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they all had different suggestions. Angel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can go without having to wait for the page data to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in again to the TIF, the better. (well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up to a point, as I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the system longer to search thru the TIF to see if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> its in there already than to simply reload in the page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (even on dial-up). Although I haven't (yet) come across
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an authoritative, fully documented article that spells
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out exactly what size TIF that is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any noticable difference from having it set at 100MB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of browser performance and page load speed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either on my home computers or on those at work which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used dial-up for a period of time. Again, YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that may have played a part.
> >>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you go back to that web page (since it has to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reload it all in again).
> >>> Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the TIF
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day (meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some content is being dumped out to make room for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct function of how large your TIF is meaning, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger your TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach that point (of needing to wait until the page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is reloaded into the TIF).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxed at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my TIF set at 50MB max. I never saw the least
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference when I experimented with making it larger.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value between 50MB and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100MB for a dial-up connection, and usually smaller
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high speed Internet (cable, DSL). Of course, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also usually recommend another browser than IE. -) --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us on dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time it takes IE to load stuff in from the web
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages is often quite noticeable on dial-up, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a somewhat larger cache still seems to help. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't yet determined the point where it doesn't,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I've stayed at 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More than that is a waste of space and time (the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger the TIF capacity, the longer it takes for IE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sort through it.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vista) decided to make the change for you. Perhaps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some utility that you installed to guard your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet traffic? Have you recently installed any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such item? Or any other major app? I've seen this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, but never pinned down the cause.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar attribute. I was looking for something in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and noticed that it no longer resembled the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular appearance, where one might find 10 or more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends up giving me the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same issue persists. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS, once rebooted, although Index.dat and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop.ini are newly created, there are also 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain a Desktop.ini file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including those which might assist me) to see if I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could get Content.IE5 to create its customary large
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity of different sub-folders, but to no avail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 subfolders were all which were created, despite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that the number of different types of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websites /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later) that mysteriously, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed it back to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered. Can anyone help me with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks or Good Luck,
> > There may be humor in this post, and,
> > Naturally, you will not sue,
> > Should things get worse after this,
> > PCR
> > pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Angel wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I did the Clean Boot that Gary has on his website. No, I did not go
> into DOS. I did it from the Windows 98SE side. I may have done something
> wrong. I learned DOS back in '92. It has a big problem, if you don't
> absolutely get the spelling right with all the spaces, etc, it becomes
very
> frustrating.

True enough.

> I took off the SpyBot and Zone Alarm from the Add/ Remove program. I
> think that with the updates in Spybot every week, it was "getting too big
> for its britches"= too bloated. Shortly before I started having problems,
I
> had done the updates on the SpyBot. So far, it seems to be working. I will
> find out more in a few days.

Good. That sounds promising.

> Both of the computer guys that I talked to on the phone had computers
> for sell if you needed one.they did not like Windows 98SE.

I wonder why not. I sure do (like Win98SE). It's a no-excess-baggage,
lean and mean, operating system. Well, OK, maybe not as lean and mean as
some others, but compared to XP, and Vista? GAG! Thanks, but no thanks
(esp on Vista).

> One had a
> computer he built from bits and pieces he got from computers that he found
> thrown out by people at the curbside. He had to buy a couple of parts. So
he
> was selling it for what he put into it. He had used it himself for a
couple
> of years.He would sell it for $200 and no guarantee at all. That is not a
> bargain. He tried to convince me that he was taking a loss on it!! . The
> other one had refurbished machines sell for $400 it had a year guarantee
on
> hardware. Neither had the original XP disk to give me. I do not think that
> is a bargain neither.

Right.

> Maybe they think that all women are really dumb enough
> to swallow the BS.

LOL. Almost sounds like the good ole, auto mechanic story, too.

> Some of us, investigate and find out all we can about
> this stuff. Can't afford to throw my money away.
> My computer is also 800MHz With 256 MB of RAM. Bought it new
6/1/2000.
> I thought I was right that the computer would not handle XP with the age,
> etc.
> Angel

Well, I'm not saying it won't, just that (from what I've read), it would be
marginal at best (just like mine).

But then again, I have no interest in going to XP (or Vista). Thanks, but
no thanks! Won't go until I have to, (literally), and expect that to be
*quite* a ways off! The last thing I want is more bloatware, and a
hand-holding, color-crayon oriented, dumbed-down-for-the-masses, bloated,
operating system, with a Mr. Wizard running around the screen to "assist" or
"help" me (presumably because I'm too illiterate to know what I want to do,
or how to do it (cough). Oh yeah, and let's not forget the (apparently
routine and obligatory) periodic "authorizations" from Big Brother up in
Seattle.


> Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OdO1sY5AIHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> You did the "clean boot"? Which "clean boot" are we talking about
here?
>> Are you talking about the DOS clean TIF thing? If so, that is indeed
>> strange, because that has never been a problem for me really strange.
>>
>> By "the TEMP file did not rebuild" below, I assume you mean the temporary
>> internet files FOLDER, right? And not the windows\temp folder!!
> Those
>> are two entirely different folders!
>>
>> But again, I don't why the TIF (folder) wouldn't rebuild on bootup,
unless
>> (possibly) one of those antivirus programs got in the way during bootup
(or
>> else perhaps some system files have gone awry, which seems strange, since
>> windows does indeed run for you).
>>
>> As for having only 256MB memory for XP, I would think that would be
pretty
>> marginal, from what I have heard. Even on Win98SE, I appreciate
having
>> 512 MB. Plus there is still the old hardware to consider. I don't
think
>> the solution to your problem necessitates installing XP, and maybe your
>> machine, like mine, would be marginal for doing that (I have an older
Dell,
>> 800 MHz, circa 2000). Even though I have 512 MB of RAM, I think that
is a
>> bit light for XP, plus the fact that the rest of the machine is a bit
dated.
>> And I only have an 800 MHz computer (also pretty dated and a bit marginal
>> for XP, I think).
>>
>> But a fresh new install (and not just an overinstall, as tedious as that
>> is), of Win98SE might be another solution to consider, albeit a pretty
>> drastic one. Not sure you have to go there yet, however. So do you
>> know your way around DOS ok? (I assuming at this point you do). If
so,
>> one idea might be to temporarily uninstall Avast and Adware, reboot, see
if
>> your TIF is still there, and if so, then go back and do the DOS clean TIF
>> routine, reboot, and see what happens (hopefully you WILL then have a
>> perfectly clean TIF). Then, if that works out ok, consider reinstalling
>> those two apps a bit later.
>>
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files
of
>>> files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file.
The
>>> TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go
back
>>> to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone
Alarm.
>>> The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast! and
AdAware.
>>> Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up good and
the
>>> IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said "right now"
because I
>>> do not know when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still
slow
>>> and getting slower.
>>> I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should re-load
>>> Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory
to
>>> run XP. I don't think so, do you?
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Just another note, Angel.
>>>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
try
>>>> and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does get
>>>> rid of most of it, so, no worries.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Bill,
>>>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should be
>>>>> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty it
if I
>>>>> should.
>>>>> Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file. I
>>>>>>> forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my memory.
>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
that
>>>>>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that the
hard
>>>>>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and
separately
>>>>>>>> in time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files
in a
>>>>>>>> cache, for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time,
IIRC).
>>>>>>>> Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting
thousands
>>>>>>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there (at
the
>>>>>>>> command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps
15
>>>>>>>> minutes for the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a
minute
>>>>>>>> or two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
first
>>>>>>>> use IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by
deleting
>>>>>>>> most of the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and do
the
>>>>>>>> complete cleanup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem may
be
>>>>>>>>>> due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE,
and
>>>>>>>>>> then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to
>>>>>>>>>> completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first),
and
>>>>>>>>>> then have a brand new TIF after rebooting. And I don't think
you
>>>>>>>>>> have anything to lose that way. I assume you know the procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
doing
>>>>>>>>>> that has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this
clean
>>>>>>>>>> TIF thing several times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did
not
>>>>>>>>>>> do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all
cookies.
>>>>>>>>>>> NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause
>>>>>>>>>>> problems with Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how to
>>>>>>>>>>> help. My Temp file has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I
cleared
>>>>>>>>>>> it out I had a problem with my computer and had to go to backup.
I
>>>>>>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't
see
>>>>>>>>>>>> how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or
TIF
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearing it out and letting it rebuild itself. I think a
TIF
>>>>>>>>>>>> setting of 1000 MB is a bit much, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE to
do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told me
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to
1000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this
problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over a week trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express
for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long while, I think. I have not used it for that long. IE can
be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all
had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different suggestions. Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I
can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go without having to wait for the page data to be brought in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to the TIF, the better. (well, up to a point,
as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it takes
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already than to simply reload in the page (even on dial-up).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I haven't (yet) come across an authoritative, fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented article that spells out exactly what size TIF that
is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
limiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not see
any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser performance and page load speed, either on my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers or on those at work which used dial-up for a
period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Again, YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that
may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have played a part.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you go back to that web page (since it has to reload it all
in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again). Just by some regular web searching I can easily get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (meaning some content is being dumped out to make room for
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger
your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you reach that
point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of needing to wait until the page content is reloaded into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
maxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF set
at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB max. I never saw the least difference when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented with making it larger. YMMV. I always
recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIF value between 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up
connection,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and usually smaller with high speed Internet (cable, DSL).
Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, I also usually recommend another browser than IE.
-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The time
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often
quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine. More than that
is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a waste of space and time (the larger the TIF capacity,
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer it takes for IE to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the change for you. Perhaps some utility that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed to guard your internet traffic? Have you
recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed any such item? Or any other major app? I've
seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect, but never pinned down the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance,
where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one might find 10 or more alphanumerically named
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders. It looked like the Content.IE5 that one
might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find in WinXP. i.e. - generally having roughly 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends
up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
(Temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system. Same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in DOS,
once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created, there are also 4 sub-folders within
Content.IE5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also get created anew. They are void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get
Content.IE5 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders, but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all
which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were created, despite the fact that the number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different types of websites /images/ graphics/ banners
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /etc should have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later)
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
Settings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
changed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered.
Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[PCR]

Angel wrote:
| Bill,
| There were NO files in the Windows\TEMP file after I deleted
| them. It said "0" before I rebooted. The file did NOT rebuild!!

Best create one yourself using Explorer, then. Some programs may want to
use it! The folder should be... C:\Windows\TEMP.

"START button, Run, SysEdit", & post both Config.sys & Autoexec.bat. I
want to see what mention of TEMP may be in those.

| I know the difference between TIF and TEMP files..
| I did NOT randomly delete the files. I used the Clean Boot that
| is on Gary's Website that I was told by some to use. This is the
| second time that it has caused a disaster!

I haven't read through that in a while. It's a big one!

| Angel
|
| "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:e3%23$zL7AIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> I, for one (or for two), do not randomly delete what is in the
|> Windows\Temp folder, as there is often some interesting stuff in
|> there. Some files I do delete, but only the ones I have no use
|> for (historical or otherwise). And as PCR said, a few files in there
|> may still be in use.
|>
|> NOTE: This time we're talking about the Windows\Temp folder, and
|> NOT the Windows\Temporary Internet Files files folder, which is a
|> completely different animal.
|>
|>
|> PCR wrote:
|> > Angel wrote:
|> >> Hi Bill,
|> >> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
|> >> files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in
|> >> the TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up
|> >> badly. So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
|> >
|> > You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?...
|> >
|> > Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
|> > files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
|> > something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install.
|> > You will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you
|> > should know whether you've installed something since boot. Now,
|> > some files may return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one.
|> > That will come back next boot or when you run McAfee.
|> >
|> > I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse
|> > through those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be
|> > interesting to see whether there is an error message or something
|> > inside. It was too late for me by then.
|> >
|> > Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP,
|> > there might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to
|> > un/re-install elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had
|> > system files in there perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files
|> > in there. That shouldn't be! Well, to be certain, is
|> > C:\Windows\TEMP mentioned in any of these Registry keys...?...
|> >
|> >
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
|> > ll Folders
|> >
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
|> > r Shell Folders
|> >
|> >> Today, I got rid
|> >> of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
|> >
|> > SpyBot...?...
|> >
|> > START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's
|> > asterisk-dot-asterisk) START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
|> >
|> > ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the
|> > Settings screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
|> >
|> >> The only things, as far as protection goes
|> >> now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
|> >> Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
|> >> something is still wrong.
|> >
|> > Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see
|> > whether it is normal or not!
|> >
|> >> I said "right now" because I do not know
|> >> when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still slow
|> >> and getting slower. I spoke to a couple of computer guys and
|> >> they
|> >> think I should re-load Windows, update my computer to XP. They say
|> >> that 256 is enough memory to run XP. I don't think so, do you?
|> >> Angel
|> >>
|> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> >> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> >>> Just another note, Angel.
|> >>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give
|> >>> it a try and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think
|> >>> windows does get rid of most of it, so, no worries.
|> >>>
|> >>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>> Bill,
|> >>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder
|> >>>> should be emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to
|> >>>> try to empty it if I should.
|> >>>> Angel
|> >>>>
|> >>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> >>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
|> >>>>>
|> >>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>> Hi Bill,
|> >>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp
|> >>>>>> file. I forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please
|> >>>>>> refresh my memory. Angel
|> >>>>>>
|> >>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|> >>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows
|> >>>>>>> folder that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing
|> >>>>>>> activity, so that the hard drive doesn't go out and read in
|> >>>>>>> each file individually and separately in time, but instead,
|> >>>>>>> reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files in a cache, for a
|> >>>>>>> large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time, IIRC).
|> >>>>>>> Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting
|> >>>>>>> thousands of small files. Once I forgot to invoke
|> >>>>>>> smartdrv down there (at the command prompt) before doing the
|> >>>>>>> TIF deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to
|> >>>>>>> get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
|> >>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be
|> >>>>>>> sure to first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even
|> >>>>>>> quicker (by deleting most of the files there). Then you can
|> >>>>>>> reboot into true DOS and do the complete cleanup.
|> >>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
|> >>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
|> >>>>>>>> Angel
|> >>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>> message news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your
|> >>>>>>>>> problem may be due to a corrupted TIF. Others might
|> >>>>>>>>> weigh in on this.
|> >>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in
|> >>>>>>>>> IE, and then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down
|> >>>>>>>>> there to completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run
|> >>>>>>>>> smartdrv first), and then have a brand new TIF after
|> >>>>>>>>> rebooting. And I don't think you have anything to lose
|> >>>>>>>>> that way. I assume you know the procedure.
|> >>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF
|> >>>>>>>>> when doing that has never presented a problem for me, and
|> >>>>>>>>> I've done this clean TIF thing several times.
|> >>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
|> >>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really
|> >>>>>>>>>> did not do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to
|> >>>>>>>>>> accept all cookies. NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't
|> >>>>>>>>>> "accepting all cookies" cause problems with Malware, etc?
|> >>>>>>>>>> I do not think that they know how to help. My Temp file
|> >>>>>>>>>> has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I cleared it out I
|> >>>>>>>>>> had a problem with my computer and had to go to
|> >>>>>>>>>> backup. I
|> >>>>>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions?
|> >>>>>>>>>> Angel
|> >>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>> message news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
|> >>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF,
|> >>>>>>>>>>> and that would be different, (and you can rebuild it).
|> >>>>>>>>>>> But I don't see how "page cannot be displayed" is
|> >>>>>>>>>>> related to the TIF size or TIF unless you have a
|> >>>>>>>>>>> corrupted TIF, in which case you could try clearing it
|> >>>>>>>>>>> out and letting it rebuild itself. I think a TIF
|> >>>>>>>>>>> setting of 1000 MB is a bit much, however.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> IE to do anything on the web. I called ATT and one of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> the techs told me to set my security to "accept all
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> cookies" and to set my TIF to 1000. This means NO
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> protection. I had it set at 50 before this problem and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> for over a week trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> Express for a long while, I think. I have not used it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> for that long. IE can be used for about 5 to 10
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes before it comes up with "page cannot be
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> they all had different suggestions. Angel
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> longer I can go without having to wait for the page
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> data to be brought in again to the TIF, the better.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (well, up to a point, as I've limited my TIF to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 100 MB.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the system longer to search thru the TIF to see
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if its in there already than to simply reload in the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> page (even on dial-up). Although I haven't (yet) come
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> across an authoritative, fully documented article that
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spells out exactly what size TIF that is.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not see any noticable difference from having it set
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 100MB in terms of browser performance and page
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> load speed, either on my home computers or on those
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at work which used dial-up for a period of time.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, YMMV.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that may have played a part.
|> >>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when you go back to that web page (since it has to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reload it all in again).
|> >>> Just
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by some regular web searching I can easily get the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (meaning some content is being dumped out to make
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room for the new stuff)
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a direct function of how large your TIF is
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning, the larger your TIF, the longer you get to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait! before you reach that point (of needing to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait until the page content is reloaded into the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF).
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (usually maxed at 26400) for nearly nine years, and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always had my TIF set at 50MB max. I never saw the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least difference when I experimented with making it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger. YMMV. I always recommend a TIF value
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up connection,
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and usually smaller with high speed Internet
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (cable, DSL). Of course, I also usually recommend
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another browser than IE. -) -- Glen Ventura, MS
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MVP Shell/User, A+
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us on dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better. The time it takes IE to load stuff in from
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the web pages is often quite noticeable on
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, and having a somewhat larger cache still
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you reduce the size limit on the TIF
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folder. I use the figure 64MB and web-pages serve
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up fine. More than that is a waste of space and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time (the larger the TIF capacity, the longer it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes for IE to sort through it.)
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application meant for Windows NT versions (NT4,
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XP, 2K3 or Vista) decided to make the change for
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Perhaps some utility that you installed to
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guard your internet traffic? Have you recently
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed any such item? Or any other major app?
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this effect, but never pinned down the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar attribute. I was looking for something
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in there and noticed that it no longer resembled
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the regular appearance, where one might find 10
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more alphanumerically named subfolders. It
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like the Content.IE5 that one might find
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in WinXP. i.e. - generally having roughly 4
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumeric subfolders.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends up giving me the same
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same issue persists. :-(
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS, once rebooted, although Index.dat and
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop.ini are newly created, there are also 4
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders within Content.IE5 which also get
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created anew. They are void of
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain a Desktop.ini file.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including those which might assist me) to see
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I could get Content.IE5 to create its
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customary large quantity of different
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders, but to no avail. 4 subfolders were
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all which were created, despite the fact that
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of different types of websites
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /images/ graphics/ banners /etc should have
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders to mutiply.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the TIF's/Content.IE5 is
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later) that mysteriously, the
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anomaly. I changed it back to it's
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem persists despite all kinds of techniques
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix it..
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered. Can anyone help me with
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
|> >
|> > --
|> > Thanks or Good Luck,
|> > There may be humor in this post, and,
|> > Naturally, you will not sue,
|> > Should things get worse after this,
|> > PCR
|> > pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

Angel wrote:
| Hi PCR,
| Replies in line:
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:OkOECe6AIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> Angel wrote:
|> | Hi Bill,
|> | I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
|> | files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in
|> | the TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up
|> | badly. So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
|>
|> You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?.
|
| Yes, I meant C:\Windows\TEMP.
| No, it did not rebuild after fresh boot, That was the problem!! I
| already went back to the Backup in Disk Image.

OK. If you've got it back, then probably we do not need to look inside
Config.sys & Autoexec.bat.

|>
|> Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
|> files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
|> something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
|> will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
|> know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files
|> may return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will
|> come back next boot or when you run McAfee.
|
| I do not use McAfee at all. I have Avast!

Avast! also seems to put a folder in there-- _avast4_
And sometimes I believe I see other stuff as well.

|> I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
|> those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to
|> see whether there is an error message or something inside. It was
|> too late for me by then.
|>
|> Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
|> might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to
|> un/re-install elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system
|> files in there perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in
|> there. That shouldn't be! Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP
|> mentioned in any of these Registry keys...?...
|>
|>
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
|> ll Folders
|>
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
|> r Shell Folders
|
| It is too late to even mess with it. I am not messing with the
| registry anyway. To look for these keys?? Why??

TEMP should not be mentioned in those Registry keys. If it were, it
would mean important system stuff might go into it. Then, it would be
harder to pick/choose what to delete from in there!

|> | Today, I got rid
|> | of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
|>
|> SpyBot...?...
|
| SpyBot, Yes so I goofed on the spelling. I don't think this is DOS!!
|>
|> START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
|> START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
|>
|> ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
|> screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
|
| I REMOVED SpyBot and ZoneAlarm

STILL-- check that those files were not left behind! Each time you ran
SpyBot, more & more of them may have accumulated!

|> | The only things, as far as protection goes
|> | now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
|> | Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
|> | something is still wrong.
|>
|> Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see
|> whether it is normal or not!
|
| ALL of them!! NEVER downloaded at all!! I could not even get into the
| ATT web site, Would not find the website. In fact, the IE and/or
| Mozilla would time out and it would say "page could not be displayed"
| I thought I explained this before in this string. I thought that
| Mozilla may work. A teacher friend of mine, brought down a copy on a
| disk so I could install it, that did not work either. That went with
| the downloading the backup.

I don't see where you did mention this before in this thread. Maybe
start a new thread on it, as this one really belongs to Eugenia, I
think.

If no URL at all will work, it must be something on your end doing it.
Are you saying, after you restored a full system backup-- still no URL
will work? Not even a simple one, like...?...

http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm
EICAR virus test site

Sometimes, when I get a timeout, a simple click on the REFRESH button
gets it to download. I the following could be worth a try...

(1) "START, Run, MSInfo32, Tools menu, IE Repair Tool"
It produces a rather large "Fix IE Log.txt" in C:\Windows. IE & E
are basically one & the same. If this crashes, an over-install of IE is
indicated.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=194177
Description of the Internet Explorer Repair Tool

(2) Over-install IE. Try first without, but I believe it will request an
internet connection. Perhaps it is best to let it connect, actually. If
you don't care to get this fancy, just skip to step (c).

(a) Turn off interfering programs. Use http://www.pcmag.com/ 's
"StartupCop" or "EndItAll2". Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab".
Note what is unchecked, if anything. Then, go to the General tab &
disable the entire Startup Group, by clicking "Selective.." & unchecking
"Load Startup...". Reboot.

(b) Perhaps, if you haven't got EndItAll2, then "Ctrl-Alt-Del" & end
task all but Explorer & Systray. If this goes badly, start again from
top, & skip it next time.

(c) "START, Find, F/F, IE6Setup.exe". Click it in the Find window.
NOTE: If you are IE5, then it's "IE5Setup.exe". If there are more
than one (I have two each), click the one in "C:\WINDOWS\Windows
Update Setup Files" or "C:\Windows Update Setup Files", as applicable.

(d) Re-enable the Startup Group. That will automatically check all
items. Go to the Startup tab & uncheck any noted in step (a). Reboot.

(e) Perhaps go to Windows Update, to see whether it now offers
criticals.

....snip

 

[Angel]

Hi PCR,
I had re-installed MY LAST backup, it did the same thing again. Then I
deleted the SpyBot and the ZoneAlarm and all is going OK now. I will see if
this works good before I do anything else. I will then start another string.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions and help.
Angel

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uz3xlQHBIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Angel wrote:
> | Hi PCR,
> | Replies in line:
> |
> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> | news:OkOECe6AIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> Angel wrote:
> |> | Hi Bill,
> |> | I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
> |> | files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in
> |> | the TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up
> |> | badly. So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
> |>
> |> You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?.
> |
> | Yes, I meant C:\Windows\TEMP.
> | No, it did not rebuild after fresh boot, That was the problem!! I
> | already went back to the Backup in Disk Image.
>
> OK. If you've got it back, then probably we do not need to look inside
> Config.sys & Autoexec.bat.
>
> |>
> |> Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
> |> files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
> |> something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
> |> will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
> |> know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files
> |> may return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will
> |> come back next boot or when you run McAfee.
> |
> | I do not use McAfee at all. I have Avast!
>
> Avast! also seems to put a folder in there-- _avast4_
> And sometimes I believe I see other stuff as well.
>
> |> I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
> |> those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to
> |> see whether there is an error message or something inside. It was
> |> too late for me by then.
> |>
> |> Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
> |> might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to
> |> un/re-install elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system
> |> files in there perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in
> |> there. That shouldn't be! Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP
> |> mentioned in any of these Registry keys...?...
> |>
> |>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
> |> ll Folders
> |>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
> |> r Shell Folders
> |
> | It is too late to even mess with it. I am not messing with the
> | registry anyway. To look for these keys?? Why??
>
> TEMP should not be mentioned in those Registry keys. If it were, it
> would mean important system stuff might go into it. Then, it would be
> harder to pick/choose what to delete from in there!
>
> |> | Today, I got rid
> |> | of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
> |>
> |> SpyBot...?...
> |
> | SpyBot, Yes so I goofed on the spelling. I don't think this is DOS!!
> |>
> |> START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
> |> START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
> |>
> |> ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
> |> screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
> |
> | I REMOVED SpyBot and ZoneAlarm
>
> STILL-- check that those files were not left behind! Each time you ran
> SpyBot, more & more of them may have accumulated!
>
> |> | The only things, as far as protection goes
> |> | now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
> |> | Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
> |> | something is still wrong.
> |>
> |> Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see
> |> whether it is normal or not!
> |
> | ALL of them!! NEVER downloaded at all!! I could not even get into the
> | ATT web site, Would not find the website. In fact, the IE and/or
> | Mozilla would time out and it would say "page could not be displayed"
> | I thought I explained this before in this string. I thought that
> | Mozilla may work. A teacher friend of mine, brought down a copy on a
> | disk so I could install it, that did not work either. That went with
> | the downloading the backup.
>
> I don't see where you did mention this before in this thread. Maybe
> start a new thread on it, as this one really belongs to Eugenia, I
> think.
>
> If no URL at all will work, it must be something on your end doing it.
> Are you saying, after you restored a full system backup-- still no URL
> will work? Not even a simple one, like...?...
>
> http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm
> EICAR virus test site
>
> Sometimes, when I get a timeout, a simple click on the REFRESH button
> gets it to download. I the following could be worth a try...
>
> (1) "START, Run, MSInfo32, Tools menu, IE Repair Tool"
> It produces a rather large "Fix IE Log.txt" in C:\Windows. IE & E
> are basically one & the same. If this crashes, an over-install of IE is
> indicated.
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=194177
> Description of the Internet Explorer Repair Tool
>
> (2) Over-install IE. Try first without, but I believe it will request an
> internet connection. Perhaps it is best to let it connect, actually. If
> you don't care to get this fancy, just skip to step (c).
>
> (a) Turn off interfering programs. Use http://www.pcmag.com/ 's
> "StartupCop" or "EndItAll2". Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab".
> Note what is unchecked, if anything. Then, go to the General tab &
> disable the entire Startup Group, by clicking "Selective.." & unchecking
> "Load Startup...". Reboot.
>
> (b) Perhaps, if you haven't got EndItAll2, then "Ctrl-Alt-Del" & end
> task all but Explorer & Systray. If this goes badly, start again from
> top, & skip it next time.
>
> (c) "START, Find, F/F, IE6Setup.exe". Click it in the Find window.
> NOTE: If you are IE5, then it's "IE5Setup.exe". If there are more
> than one (I have two each), click the one in "C:\WINDOWS\Windows
> Update Setup Files" or "C:\Windows Update Setup Files", as applicable.
>
> (d) Re-enable the Startup Group. That will automatically check all
> items. Go to the Startup tab & uncheck any noted in step (a). Reboot.
>
> (e) Perhaps go to Windows Update, to see whether it now offers
> criticals.
>
> ...snip
>
>

 

[Angel]

Hi Bill,
I forgot to tell you what one of the computer guys said about Windows
98SE. He said, " it self destructs and needs to be re-installed often". He
could not believe that the last time I went back to factory backup was over
5 years ago. He thought that was a record for re-installing Windows 98SE. I
am LOL about that.
The University and the libraries are using the Professional XP. They
won't update to Vista for a very, very long time. *Too many bugs* in it.
I do not plan on buying a new machine until I absolutely have to. I
will not put the XP on this *old gal*. It has been good to me. My teacher
calls it a dinosaur, ancient etc (because I can't get his podcasts).
Angel

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ujVHJk8AIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Angel wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> > I did the Clean Boot that Gary has on his website. No, I did not go
> > into DOS. I did it from the Windows 98SE side. I may have done something
> > wrong. I learned DOS back in '92. It has a big problem, if you don't
> > absolutely get the spelling right with all the spaces, etc, it becomes
> very
> > frustrating.
>
> True enough.
>
> > I took off the SpyBot and Zone Alarm from the Add/ Remove program.
I
> > think that with the updates in Spybot every week, it was "getting too
big
> > for its britches"= too bloated. Shortly before I started having
problems,
> I
> > had done the updates on the SpyBot. So far, it seems to be working. I
will
> > find out more in a few days.
>
> Good. That sounds promising.
>
> > Both of the computer guys that I talked to on the phone had
computers
> > for sell if you needed one.they did not like Windows 98SE.
>
> I wonder why not. I sure do (like Win98SE). It's a
no-excess-baggage,
> lean and mean, operating system. Well, OK, maybe not as lean and mean
as
> some others, but compared to XP, and Vista? GAG! Thanks, but no
thanks
> (esp on Vista).
>
> > One had a
> > computer he built from bits and pieces he got from computers that he
found
> > thrown out by people at the curbside. He had to buy a couple of parts.
So
> he
> > was selling it for what he put into it. He had used it himself for a
> couple
> > of years.He would sell it for $200 and no guarantee at all. That is not
a
> > bargain. He tried to convince me that he was taking a loss on it!! . The
> > other one had refurbished machines sell for $400 it had a year guarantee
> on
> > hardware. Neither had the original XP disk to give me. I do not think
that
> > is a bargain neither.
>
> Right.
>
> > Maybe they think that all women are really dumb enough
> > to swallow the BS.
>
> LOL. Almost sounds like the good ole, auto mechanic story, too.

>
> > Some of us, investigate and find out all we can about
> > this stuff. Can't afford to throw my money away.
> > My computer is also 800MHz With 256 MB of RAM. Bought it new
> 6/1/2000.
> > I thought I was right that the computer would not handle XP with the
age,
> > etc.
> > Angel
>
> Well, I'm not saying it won't, just that (from what I've read), it would
be
> marginal at best (just like mine).
>
> But then again, I have no interest in going to XP (or Vista). Thanks,
but
> no thanks! Won't go until I have to, (literally), and expect that to be
> *quite* a ways off! The last thing I want is more bloatware, and a
> hand-holding, color-crayon oriented, dumbed-down-for-the-masses, bloated,
> operating system, with a Mr. Wizard running around the screen to "assist"
or
> "help" me (presumably because I'm too illiterate to know what I want to
do,
> or how to do it (cough). Oh yeah, and let's not forget the (apparently
> routine and obligatory) periodic "authorizations" from Big Brother up in
> Seattle.
>
>
> > Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:OdO1sY5AIHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> You did the "clean boot"? Which "clean boot" are we talking about
> here?
> >> Are you talking about the DOS clean TIF thing? If so, that is indeed
> >> strange, because that has never been a problem for me really strange.
> >>
> >> By "the TEMP file did not rebuild" below, I assume you mean the
temporary
> >> internet files FOLDER, right? And not the windows\temp folder!!
> > Those
> >> are two entirely different folders!
> >>
> >> But again, I don't why the TIF (folder) wouldn't rebuild on bootup,
> unless
> >> (possibly) one of those antivirus programs got in the way during bootup
> (or
> >> else perhaps some system files have gone awry, which seems strange,
since
> >> windows does indeed run for you).
> >>
> >> As for having only 256MB memory for XP, I would think that would be
> pretty
> >> marginal, from what I have heard. Even on Win98SE, I appreciate
> having
> >> 512 MB. Plus there is still the old hardware to consider. I don't
> think
> >> the solution to your problem necessitates installing XP, and maybe your
> >> machine, like mine, would be marginal for doing that (I have an older
> Dell,
> >> 800 MHz, circa 2000). Even though I have 512 MB of RAM, I think that
> is a
> >> bit light for XP, plus the fact that the rest of the machine is a bit
> dated.
> >> And I only have an 800 MHz computer (also pretty dated and a bit
marginal
> >> for XP, I think).
> >>
> >> But a fresh new install (and not just an overinstall, as tedious as
that
> >> is), of Win98SE might be another solution to consider, albeit a pretty
> >> drastic one. Not sure you have to go there yet, however. So do
you
> >> know your way around DOS ok? (I assuming at this point you do). If
> so,
> >> one idea might be to temporarily uninstall Avast and Adware, reboot,
see
> if
> >> your TIF is still there, and if so, then go back and do the DOS clean
TIF
> >> routine, reboot, and see what happens (hopefully you WILL then have a
> >> perfectly clean TIF). Then, if that works out ok, consider
reinstalling
> >> those two apps a bit later.
> >>
> >> Angel wrote:
> >>> Hi Bill,
> >>> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files
> of
> >>> files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file.
> The
> >>> TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go
> back
> >>> to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone
> Alarm.
> >>> The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast! and
> AdAware.
> >>> Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up good and
> the
> >>> IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said "right now"
> because I
> >>> do not know when it will stop working on me. It seems that it is still
> slow
> >>> and getting slower.
> >>> I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should
re-load
> >>> Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory
> to
> >>> run XP. I don't think so, do you?
> >>> Angel
> >>>
> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>> Just another note, Angel.
> >>>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
> try
> >>>> and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does
get
> >>>> rid of most of it, so, no worries.
> >>>>
> >>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>> Bill,
> >>>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
be
> >>>>> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty
it
> if I
> >>>>> should.
> >>>>> Angel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file.
I
> >>>>>>> forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my
memory.
> >>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
> that
> >>>>>>>> caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so that
the
> hard
> >>>>>>>> drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually and
> separately
> >>>>>>>> in time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole bunch of files
> in a
> >>>>>>>> cache, for a large group (like 64K of memory's worth at a time,
> IIRC).
> >>>>>>>> Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end up deleting
> thousands
> >>>>>>>> of small files. Once I forgot to invoke smartdrv down there
(at
> the
> >>>>>>>> command prompt) before doing the TIF deltree, and it took perhaps
> 15
> >>>>>>>> minutes for the TIF to get all the files deleted, vs, perhaps a
> minute
> >>>>>>>> or two.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
> first
> >>>>>>>> use IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by
> deleting
> >>>>>>>> most of the files there). Then you can reboot into true DOS and
do
> the
> >>>>>>>> complete cleanup.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
> >>>>>>>>> Angel
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
may
> be
> >>>>>>>>>> due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE,
> and
> >>>>>>>>>> then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to
> >>>>>>>>>> completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first),
> and
> >>>>>>>>>> then have a brand new TIF after rebooting. And I don't think
> you
> >>>>>>>>>> have anything to lose that way. I assume you know the
procedure.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
> doing
> >>>>>>>>>> that has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this
> clean
> >>>>>>>>>> TIF thing several times.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did
> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all
> cookies.
> >>>>>>>>>>> NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause
> >>>>>>>>>>> problems with Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how
to
> >>>>>>>>>>> help. My Temp file has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I
> cleared
> >>>>>>>>>>> it out I had a problem with my computer and had to go to
backup.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> really do not want to do that again. Any suggestions?
Angel
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't
> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>> how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or
> TIF
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try
> >>>>>>>>>>>> clearing it out and letting it rebuild itself. I think a
> TIF
> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting of 1000 MB is a bit much, however.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
to
> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told
me
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> set my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF to
> 1000.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before this
> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had problems
for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> over a week trying to use the IE. I can use Outlook Express
> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long while, I think. I have not used it for that long. IE
can
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> used for about 5 to 10 minutes before it comes up with "page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be displayed".I talked to 3 techs at ATT and they all
> had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> different suggestions. Angel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I
> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> go without having to wait for the page data to be brought
in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to the TIF, the better. (well, up to a
point,
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
takes
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already than to simply reload in the page (even on
dial-up).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I haven't (yet) come across an authoritative,
fully
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented article that spells out exactly what size TIF
that
> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
> limiting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
see
> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in terms
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser performance and page load speed, either on my home
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers or on those at work which used dial-up for a
> period of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Again, YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that
> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have played a part.
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you go back to that web page (since it has to reload it
all
> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again). Just by some regular web searching I can easily
get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single day
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (meaning some content is being dumped out to make room
for
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new stuff)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
> direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger
> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you reach that
> point
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of needing to wait until the page content is reloaded
into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
> maxed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF
set
> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50MB max. I never saw the least difference when I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented with making it larger. YMMV. I always
> recommend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIF value between 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up
> connection,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and usually smaller with high speed Internet (cable,
DSL).
> Of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, I also usually recommend another browser than
IE.
> -)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us
on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The
time
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is often
> quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat larger
cache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still seems to help. I haven't yet determined the point
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine. More than
that
> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a waste of space and time (the larger the TIF
capacity,
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer it takes for IE to sort through it.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
> meant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista)
decided
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the change for you. Perhaps some utility that you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed to guard your internet traffic? Have you
> recently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed any such item? Or any other major app? I've
> seen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect, but never pinned down the cause.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
peculiar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it no longer resembled the regular appearance,
> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one might find 10 or more alphanumerically named
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders. It looked like the Content.IE5 that one
> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find in WinXP. i.e. - generally having roughly 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumeric subfolders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends
> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving me the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
> (Temporary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Files /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
Same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue persists. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
DOS,
> once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are
newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created, there are also 4 sub-folders within
> Content.IE5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also get created anew. They are void of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain
a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
> those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might assist me) to see if I could get
> Content.IE5 to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its customary large quantity of different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-folders, but to no avail. 4 subfolders were all
> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were created, despite the fact that the number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different types of websites /images/ graphics/
banners
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /etc should have easily caused Content.IE5 subfolders
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutiply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later)
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
> Settings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was where it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
> changed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered.
> Can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

I'm with you on this one.
Unfortunately, if and when the day comes that we "have" to get a new
computer, it will probably be near impossible to find one that will work
with Win98SE, or probably even WinXP, by that point. By that time, the
current hardware wouldn't be able to use either Win98SE, or even WinXP, I
bet (due to drivers, etc) - (looking waaaaaaay down the road).

The only other option would be getting an older, used, computer, somewhere
(maybe even on eBay). Like one made circa 2000 or so, or just a very few
years later.

And Vista? The King of Bloatware? Thanks, but no thanks. Ever.


Angel wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I forgot to tell you what one of the computer guys said about Windows
> 98SE. He said, " it self destructs and needs to be re-installed often". He
> could not believe that the last time I went back to factory backup was
over
> 5 years ago. He thought that was a record for re-installing Windows 98SE.
I
> am LOL about that.
> The University and the libraries are using the Professional XP. They
> won't update to Vista for a very, very long time. *Too many bugs* in it.
> I do not plan on buying a new machine until I absolutely have to. I
> will not put the XP on this *old gal*. It has been good to me. My teacher
> calls it a dinosaur, ancient etc (because I can't get his podcasts).
> Angel
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ujVHJk8AIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> I did the Clean Boot that Gary has on his website. No, I did not go
>>> into DOS. I did it from the Windows 98SE side. I may have done something
>>> wrong. I learned DOS back in '92. It has a big problem, if you don't
>>> absolutely get the spelling right with all the spaces, etc, it becomes
very
>>> frustrating.
>>
>> True enough.
>>
>>> I took off the SpyBot and Zone Alarm from the Add/ Remove program.
I
>>> think that with the updates in Spybot every week, it was "getting too
big
>>> for its britches"= too bloated. Shortly before I started having
problems, I
>>> had done the updates on the SpyBot. So far, it seems to be working. I
will
>>> find out more in a few days.
>>
>> Good. That sounds promising.
>>
>>> Both of the computer guys that I talked to on the phone had
computers
>>> for sell if you needed one.they did not like Windows 98SE.
>>
>> I wonder why not. I sure do (like Win98SE). It's a
no-excess-baggage,
>> lean and mean, operating system. Well, OK, maybe not as lean and mean
as
>> some others, but compared to XP, and Vista? GAG! Thanks, but no
thanks
>> (esp on Vista).
>>
>>> One had a
>>> computer he built from bits and pieces he got from computers that he
found
>>> thrown out by people at the curbside. He had to buy a couple of parts.
So he
>>> was selling it for what he put into it. He had used it himself for a
couple
>>> of years.He would sell it for $200 and no guarantee at all. That is not
a
>>> bargain. He tried to convince me that he was taking a loss on it!! . The
>>> other one had refurbished machines sell for $400 it had a year guarantee
on
>>> hardware. Neither had the original XP disk to give me. I do not think
that
>>> is a bargain neither.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> Maybe they think that all women are really dumb enough
>>> to swallow the BS.
>>
>> LOL. Almost sounds like the good ole, auto mechanic story, too.
>
>>
>>> Some of us, investigate and find out all we can about
>>> this stuff. Can't afford to throw my money away.
>>> My computer is also 800MHz With 256 MB of RAM. Bought it new
6/1/2000.
>>> I thought I was right that the computer would not handle XP with the
age,
>>> etc.
>>> Angel
>>
>> Well, I'm not saying it won't, just that (from what I've read), it would
be
>> marginal at best (just like mine).
>>
>> But then again, I have no interest in going to XP (or Vista). Thanks,
but
>> no thanks! Won't go until I have to, (literally), and expect that to
be
>> *quite* a ways off! The last thing I want is more bloatware, and a
>> hand-holding, color-crayon oriented, dumbed-down-for-the-masses, bloated,
>> operating system, with a Mr. Wizard running around the screen to "assist"
or
>> "help" me (presumably because I'm too illiterate to know what I want to
do,
>> or how to do it (cough). Oh yeah, and let's not forget the (apparently
>> routine and obligatory) periodic "authorizations" from Big Brother up in
>> Seattle.
>>
>>
>>> Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OdO1sY5AIHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> You did the "clean boot"? Which "clean boot" are we talking about
here?
>>>> Are you talking about the DOS clean TIF thing? If so, that is indeed
>>>> strange, because that has never been a problem for me really strange.
>>>>
>>>> By "the TEMP file did not rebuild" below, I assume you mean the
temporary
>>>> internet files FOLDER, right? And not the windows\temp folder!!
Those
>>>> are two entirely different folders!
>>>>
>>>> But again, I don't why the TIF (folder) wouldn't rebuild on bootup,
unless
>>>> (possibly) one of those antivirus programs got in the way during bootup
(or
>>>> else perhaps some system files have gone awry, which seems strange,
since
>>>> windows does indeed run for you).
>>>>
>>>> As for having only 256MB memory for XP, I would think that would be
pretty
>>>> marginal, from what I have heard. Even on Win98SE, I appreciate
having
>>>> 512 MB. Plus there is still the old hardware to consider. I don't
think
>>>> the solution to your problem necessitates installing XP, and maybe your
>>>> machine, like mine, would be marginal for doing that (I have an older
Dell,
>>>> 800 MHz, circa 2000). Even though I have 512 MB of RAM, I think that
is
>>>> a bit light for XP, plus the fact that the rest of the machine is a bit
>>>> dated. And I only have an 800 MHz computer (also pretty dated and a bit
>>>> marginal for XP, I think).
>>>>
>>>> But a fresh new install (and not just an overinstall, as tedious as
that
>>>> is), of Win98SE might be another solution to consider, albeit a pretty
>>>> drastic one. Not sure you have to go there yet, however. So do
you
>>>> know your way around DOS ok? (I assuming at this point you do). If
so,
>>>> one idea might be to temporarily uninstall Avast and Adware, reboot,
see if
>>>> your TIF is still there, and if so, then go back and do the DOS clean
TIF
>>>> routine, reboot, and see what happens (hopefully you WILL then have a
>>>> perfectly clean TIF). Then, if that works out ok, consider
reinstalling
>>>> those two apps a bit later.
>>>>
>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>> I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some files
of
>>>>> files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in the TEMP file.
The
>>>>> TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up badly. So I had to go
back
>>>>> to the Backup late last night. Today, I got rid of Spy Bot and Zone
>>>>> Alarm. The only things, as far as protection goes now, is my Avast!
and
>>>>> AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages. Some still do not load up
>>>>> good and the IE times-out. I think something is still wrong. I said
>>>>> "right now" because I do not know when it will stop working on me. It
>>>>> seems that it is still slow and getting slower.
>>>>> I spoke to a couple of computer guys and they think I should
re-load
>>>>> Windows, update my computer to XP. They say that 256 is enough memory
to
>>>>> run XP. I don't think so, do you?
>>>>> Angel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eqvZfizAIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Just another note, Angel.
>>>>>> Even if the TIF is not entirely empty now you should still give it a
try
>>>>>> and see if your problem is fixed. Although I think windows does
get
>>>>>> rid of most of it, so, no worries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>> No, he did not. After emptying the TIF, the TEMP folder should
be
>>>>>>> emptied, shouldn't it? That is the one I was going to try to empty
it
>>>>>>> if I should.
>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:%230HQZevAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> OK, looks like PCR has already answered it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>> I am still having trouble. Thinking of deleting the Temp file.
I
>>>>>>>>> forgot how to do it from the Windows side. Please refresh my
memory.
>>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:u%23K%23HujAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> It's a dos-based exe program that you have in the \windows folder
>>>>>>>>>> that caches a lot of the dish reading and writing activity, so
that
>>>>>>>>>> the hard drive doesn't go out and read in each file individually
and
>>>>>>>>>> separately in time, but instead, reads in (or writes) a whole
bunch
>>>>>>>>>> of files in a cache, for a large group (like 64K of memory's
worth
>>>>>>>>>> at a time, IIRC). Makes a HUGE difference down there when you end
up
>>>>>>>>>> deleting thousands of small files. Once I forgot to invoke
>>>>>>>>>> smartdrv down there (at the command prompt) before doing the TIF
>>>>>>>>>> deltree, and it took perhaps 15 minutes for the TIF to get all
the
>>>>>>>>>> files deleted, vs, perhaps a minute or two.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But before you do any of this in DOS, assuming you do, be sure to
>>>>>>>>>> first use IE to clear the cache first to make it even quicker (by
>>>>>>>>>> deleting most of the files there). Then you can reboot into true
>>>>>>>>>> DOS and do the complete cleanup.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>>>> What is Smartdrv?
>>>>>>>>>>> Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:ewyzqDhAIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess one significant point is whether or not your problem
may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> due to a corrupted TIF. Others might weigh in on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you're willing, you can always clear out the TIF in IE,
and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then boot into true DOS mode and use deltree down there to
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely delete the TIF (but be sure to run smartdrv first),
and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then have a brand new TIF after rebooting. And I don't think
you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to lose that way. I assume you know the
procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The deletion of desktop.ini file in the root of the TIF when
doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> that has never presented a problem for me, and I've done this
clean
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF thing several times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not use that large TIF. I use the 100. I really did
not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do that large TIF file, they also wanted me to accept all
cookies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO, I don't think so!! Wouldn't "accepting all cookies" cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems with Malware, etc? I do not think that they know how
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> help. My Temp file has "desktop.ini" in it. The last time I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleared it out I had a problem with my computer and had to go
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup. I really do not want to do that again. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions? Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uGLYNkYAIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think your problem below is due to the TIF size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, one might possibly suspect a "corrupted" TIF, and
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be different, (and you can rebuild it). But I don't
see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how "page cannot be displayed" is related to the TIF size or
TIF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you have a corrupted TIF, in which case you could try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearing it out and letting it rebuild itself. I think a
TIF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting of 1000 MB is a bit much, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Angel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About TIF file size, I have had problem going to my IE
to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on the web. I called ATT and one of the techs told
me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to set my security to "accept all cookies" and to set my TIF
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1000. This means NO protection. I had it set at 50 before
this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and I reset it to100. I am on their DSL. Have had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems for over a week trying to use the IE. I can use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outlook Express for a long while, I think. I have not used
it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that long. IE can be used for about 5 to 10 minutes
before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it comes up with "page cannot be displayed".I talked to 3
techs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at ATT and they all had different suggestions. Angel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u1qp#UMAIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Cache Sentry Pro too. But as I said, the longer I
can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go without having to wait for the page data to be brought
in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to the TIF, the better. (well, up to a
point, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And as has been noted, there may be a point at which it
takes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the system longer to search thru the TIF to see if its in
there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already than to simply reload in the page (even on
dial-up).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I haven't (yet) come across an authoritative,
fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented article that spells out exactly what size TIF
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, as has been suggested, many seem to recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the TIF to 50 or 100 MB, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I had it set to 50MB with dial-up and did not
see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any noticable difference from having it set at 100MB in
terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of browser performance and page load speed, either on my
home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers or on those at work which used dial-up for a
period
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time. Again, YMMV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also used the Cache Sentry utility on my system, so that
may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have played a part.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.enigmaticsoftware.com/cachesentry/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ucsy82KAIHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is noticeable because the TIF contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually gets replaced, and then you really notice it
when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you go back to that web page (since it has to reload it
all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in again). Just by some regular web searching I can
easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the TIF size to go up by 10 MB or more on a single
day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (meaning some content is being dumped out to make room
for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new stuff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how long it takes to reach that point in time is a
direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of how large your TIF is meaning, the larger
your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF, the longer you get to wait! before you reach that
point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of needing to wait until the page content is reloaded
into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TIF).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I was on a very slow dial-up connection (usually
maxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 26400) for nearly nine years, and always had my TIF
set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 50MB max. I never saw the least difference when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented with making it larger. YMMV. I always
recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIF value between 50MB and 100MB for a dial-up
connection,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and usually smaller with high speed Internet (cable,
DSL).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I also usually recommend another browser than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IE. -) --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:u1hx%23qGAIHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably generally a good idea, except for those of us
on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dial-up, I think maybe 100 MB is a bit better. The
time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it takes IE to load stuff in from the web pages is
often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite noticeable on dial-up, and having a somewhat
larger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache still seems to help. I haven't yet determined the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point where it doesn't, but I've stayed at 100 MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more than four of those sub-folders, I
suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you reduce the size limit on the TIF folder. I use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure 64MB and web-pages serve up fine. More than
that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a waste of space and time (the larger the TIF
capacity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the longer it takes for IE to sort through it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Local Settings folder indicates some application
meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Windows NT versions (NT4, XP, 2K3 or Vista)
decided to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the change for you. Perhaps some utility that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed to guard your internet traffic? Have you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently installed any such item? Or any other major
app?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this effect, but never pinned down the
cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eugenia" <noneofyour@beeswax.non> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:OvlCF50$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W98se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Content.IE5 Folder and subfolders took on a
peculiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute. I was looking for something in there and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed that it no longer resembled the regular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearance, where one might find 10 or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumerically named subfolders. It looked like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Content.IE5 that one might find in WinXP. i.e. -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally having roughly 4 alphanumeric subfolders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried everything: DOS Deltree - which still ends
up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving me the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result - and then simply deleting those folders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Temporary Internet Files /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cookies / History) from another operating system.
Same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue persists. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even after performing the Deltree of Tempor~1 in
DOS,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once rebooted, although Index.dat and desktop.ini are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly created, there are also 4 sub-folders within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Content.IE5 which also get created anew. They are
void of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary files, with the exception that each contain
a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desktop.ini file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a test, I browsed multitude of webpages (including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those which might assist me) to see if I could get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Content.IE5 to create its customary large quantity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different sub-folders, but to no avail. 4 subfolders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were all which were created, despite the fact that
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of different types of websites /images/
graphics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> banners /etc should have easily caused Content.IE5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subfolders to mutiply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add that normally, the stored location of
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIF's/Content.IE5 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C:\Windows, but eventually I noticed (much later)
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysteriously, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location had somehow changed to C:\Windows\Local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Settings. That was where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was when I first noticed the 4 subfolder anomaly. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed it back to it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all-time normal location of C:\Windows. The problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persists despite all kinds of techniques to fix it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a new problem I've never before encountered.
Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pointers on how I might rectify this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for reading this and helping.

 

[Angel]

Hi PCR,
Today, I went into the Checks*.* file and found 376 SpyBot files and
deleted them. I thought that the when you uninstalled the SpyBot you deleted
all file concerning it. Any place else should I check?
I also checked the keys you mentioned and there were NO TEMP Files in
them.
Thanks,
Angel

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uz3xlQHBIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Angel wrote:
> | Hi PCR,
> | Replies in line:
> |
> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> | news:OkOECe6AIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |> Angel wrote:
> |> | Hi Bill,
> |> | I did the clean boot. It did it again and had deleted some
> |> | files of files that was not supposed to be deleted. They were in
> |> | the TEMP file. The TEMP file did not rebuild. It messed things up
> |> | badly. So I had to go back to the Backup late last night.
> |>
> |> You mean C:\Windows\TEMP...?.
> |
> | Yes, I meant C:\Windows\TEMP.
> | No, it did not rebuild after fresh boot, That was the problem!! I
> | already went back to the Backup in Disk Image.
>
> OK. If you've got it back, then probably we do not need to look inside
> Config.sys & Autoexec.bat.
>
> |>
> |> Under normal circumstances, C:\WINDOWS\TEMP can be cleared of
> |> files/folders after a fresh boot. You need the fresh boot, because
> |> something may be sitting there, waiting to "complete" an install. You
> |> will likely have seen a message about it, though. Anyway, you should
> |> know whether you've installed something since boot. Now, some files
> |> may return after the delete. "WebPoolFileFile" is one. That will
> |> come back next boot or when you run McAfee.
> |
> | I do not use McAfee at all. I have Avast!
>
> Avast! also seems to put a folder in there-- _avast4_
> And sometimes I believe I see other stuff as well.
>
> |> I have seen one poster who objected, saying one should browse through
> |> those files, looking for .log's. He said it might be interesting to
> |> see whether there is an error message or something inside. It was
> |> too late for me by then.
> |>
> |> Naturally, if you have actually installed something into TEMP, there
> |> might be a Registry connection to it. Those, you need to
> |> un/re-install elsewhere. Finally, I even saw a poster who had system
> |> files in there perhaps it was the Temporary Internet Files in
> |> there. That shouldn't be! Well, to be certain, is C:\Windows\TEMP
> |> mentioned in any of these Registry keys...?...
> |>
> |>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\She
> |> ll Folders
> |>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Use
> |> r Shell Folders
> |
> | It is too late to even mess with it. I am not messing with the
> | registry anyway. To look for these keys?? Why??
>
> TEMP should not be mentioned in those Registry keys. If it were, it
> would mean important system stuff might go into it. Then, it would be
> harder to pick/choose what to delete from in there!
>
> |> | Today, I got rid
> |> | of Spy Bot and Zone Alarm.
> |>
> |> SpyBot...?...
> |
> | SpyBot, Yes so I goofed on the spelling. I don't think this is DOS!!
> |>
> |> START button, Find, F/F, Checks*.* (That's asterisk-dot-asterisk)
> |> START button, Find, F/F, Fixes*.*
> |>
> |> ... If you have a ton of these, then delete them. Go to the Settings
> |> screen of SpyBot, & turn off both the Checks & Fixes logs.
> |
> | I REMOVED SpyBot and ZoneAlarm
>
> STILL-- check that those files were not left behind! Each time you ran
> SpyBot, more & more of them may have accumulated!
>
> |> | The only things, as far as protection goes
> |> | now, is my Avast! and AdAware. Right now, I can get the Web pages.
> |> | Some still do not load up good and the IE times-out. I think
> |> | something is still wrong.
> |>
> |> Can you name a WEB site that doesn't download well? I'll go see
> |> whether it is normal or not!
> |
> | ALL of them!! NEVER downloaded at all!! I could not even get into the
> | ATT web site, Would not find the website. In fact, the IE and/or
> | Mozilla would time out and it would say "page could not be displayed"
> | I thought I explained this before in this string. I thought that
> | Mozilla may work. A teacher friend of mine, brought down a copy on a
> | disk so I could install it, that did not work either. That went with
> | the downloading the backup.
>
> I don't see where you did mention this before in this thread. Maybe
> start a new thread on it, as this one really belongs to Eugenia, I
> think.
>
> If no URL at all will work, it must be something on your end doing it.
> Are you saying, after you restored a full system backup-- still no URL
> will work? Not even a simple one, like...?...
>
> http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm
> EICAR virus test site
>
> Sometimes, when I get a timeout, a simple click on the REFRESH button
> gets it to download. I the following could be worth a try...
>
> (1) "START, Run, MSInfo32, Tools menu, IE Repair Tool"
> It produces a rather large "Fix IE Log.txt" in C:\Windows. IE & E
> are basically one & the same. If this crashes, an over-install of IE is
> indicated.
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=194177
> Description of the Internet Explorer Repair Tool
>
> (2) Over-install IE. Try first without, but I believe it will request an
> internet connection. Perhaps it is best to let it connect, actually. If
> you don't care to get this fancy, just skip to step (c).
>
> (a) Turn off interfering programs. Use http://www.pcmag.com/ 's
> "StartupCop" or "EndItAll2". Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab".
> Note what is unchecked, if anything. Then, go to the General tab &
> disable the entire Startup Group, by clicking "Selective.." & unchecking
> "Load Startup...". Reboot.
>
> (b) Perhaps, if you haven't got EndItAll2, then "Ctrl-Alt-Del" & end
> task all but Explorer & Systray. If this goes badly, start again from
> top, & skip it next time.
>
> (c) "START, Find, F/F, IE6Setup.exe". Click it in the Find window.
> NOTE: If you are IE5, then it's "IE5Setup.exe". If there are more
> than one (I have two each), click the one in "C:\WINDOWS\Windows
> Update Setup Files" or "C:\Windows Update Setup Files", as applicable.
>
> (d) Re-enable the Startup Group. That will automatically check all
> items. Go to the Startup tab & uncheck any noted in step (a). Reboot.
>
> (e) Perhaps go to Windows Update, to see whether it now offers
> criticals.
>
> ...snip
>
>