Turmoil Continues in XP land

S

smith

Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:

We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
(such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
special report.

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529


Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
monitor developments.
 
B

Bill in Co.

But this is really a no-brainer. You just stay away from SP3 -
permanently. And who really needs it? (rhetorical).

smith wrote:
> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>
> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
> special report.
>
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>
>
> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
> monitor developments.
 
G

Gary S. Terhune

Everybody knows that RTM brings on major bug reports. Big deal. Happens
every time, and every time, it all gets patched up as best as it can be, and
fairly quickly, too.

Besides, only a small portion of the blame can be laid at Microsoft's feet,
if any.

From the article:
"The problems with XP SP3 include AMD-based Hewlett-Packard desktop
computers constantly rebooting and Symantec antivirus products developing
strange behaviors. It makes me wonder which executives at HP and Symantec
were supposed to test these companies' products during the months-long beta
releases of SP3."

Now THAT is sensible writing. And more indicative of the "problem" with XP
SP3 than anything I've read yet. Here's more of the same...
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529#patch0

Now, why does it not surprise me that Symantec is involved in one of the two
major complaints?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>
> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
> special report.
>
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>
>
> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
> monitor developments.
 
M

MEB

Ah, ZDNET has been writing more *descriptive* articles, might want to look
there.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
|
| We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
| (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
| for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
| special report.
|
| http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
|
|
| Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
| monitor developments.
 
B

Bill in Co.

The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system (e.g: larger HD
support, a pop-up blocker, a Firewall, etc, etc - unlike SP2. There is a
HUGE difference between the two. And as you yourself have noted, true
security comes from the user practices (not from all these so-called
"security updates", which often bring their own problems with them (and I've
been around the block once too often, on that).

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Everybody knows that RTM brings on major bug reports. Big deal. Happens
> every time, and every time, it all gets patched up as best as it can be,
> and
> fairly quickly, too.
>
> Besides, only a small portion of the blame can be laid at Microsoft's
> feet,
> if any.
>
> From the article:
> "The problems with XP SP3 include AMD-based Hewlett-Packard desktop
> computers constantly rebooting and Symantec antivirus products developing
> strange behaviors. It makes me wonder which executives at HP and Symantec
> were supposed to test these companies' products during the months-long
> beta
> releases of SP3."
>
> Now THAT is sensible writing. And more indicative of the "problem" with XP
> SP3 than anything I've read yet. Here's more of the same...
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529#patch0
>
> Now, why does it not surprise me that Symantec is involved in one of the
> two
> major complaints?
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
>
> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>>
>> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
>> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
>> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
>> special report.
>>
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>>
>>
>> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
>> monitor developments.
 
T

Tanner-'op

smith wrote:
> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>
> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
> special report.
>
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>
>
> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
> monitor developments.

I have an AMD processor running Norton IS and downloaded SP3 - all with no
problem. So it is not all doom and gloom. :)
 
B

Bill in Co.

Last time I looked at that list, I didn't see anything earth-shaking. If
my memory is wrong, please show me something really earthshaking in the list
(in the same league as what I mentioned earlier).


PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Fixes aren't useful?
>
> List of fixes that are included in WinXP SP3
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480
> --
> ~PAÞ
>
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system...
 
L

Lil' Dave

"smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>
> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
> special report.
>
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>
>
> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
> monitor developments.

Consider myself conservative regarding use of any update. Whether it be the
OS, IE, or 3rd party software. I was lured by SE for 98, and it was good
thing. There were snags in many fixes of many versions of IE. Remember
there was a 5.5 version?

Been lurking at the XP general newsgroup for a few years. There was plenty
of PCs broke by SP2 for one reason or the other per posts. I waited 6
months for anything spectacular like a re-release of a revised SP2. I bit
the bullet, and installed SP2 from the MS provided CD. Smooth as silk, but
lengthy. Am playing the same waiting game on SP3. Guessing the results
will be the same again. MS has not released the CD for XP SP3 update to
date either.

For those who have been around a long time, perhaps the worst I've seen is
the Millenium Edition upgrade on a 98 system. Saw more complaints posted on
this at the MS newsgroup site than anything before or after.

Myself, don't recommend upgrades of any MS OS to another sequential OS.
Clean install.

Service packs for XP were designed to avert security issues. They may
modify some serious system files as part of the upgrade. Always have a
backup prior to applying a service pack in XP. Similar with IE and 3rd
party software. The inconvenience is small compared to rebuilding the
entire OS, etc.
--
Dave
 
B

Bill in Co.

Lil' Dave wrote:
> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>>
>> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
>> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
>> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
>> special report.
>>
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>>
>>
>> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
>> monitor developments.
>
> Consider myself conservative regarding use of any update.

Same here. And for good reason (been around the block too many times - so
thanks, but no thanks) for almost all of these so-called "updates".

> Whether it be the
> OS, IE, or 3rd party software. I was lured by SE for 98, and it was good
> thing. There were snags in many fixes of many versions of IE. Remember
> there was a 5.5 version?

Indeed, two of the IE 5.5 DLL's were basically required to fix that stupid
"copying or deleting a large number of files in explorer" problem that came
with IE6 for Win98SE.

> Been lurking at the XP general newsgroup for a few years. There was
> plenty
> of PCs broke by SP2 for one reason or the other per posts. I waited 6
> months for anything spectacular like a re-release of a revised SP2. I
> bit
> the bullet, and installed SP2 from the MS provided CD. Smooth as silk,
> but
> lengthy. Am playing the same waiting game on SP3.

Well, we differ here, as I'm not waiting. I'm simply not going to install
it, ever, end of story. (And if you check the release notes on SP3 for XP,
you'll see that SP3 offers essentially NOTHING of real value and substance -
or of REAL significance).
 
B

Bill in Co.

Still waiting to hear about all these alleged "earth-shaking" changes (i.e.,
that are in the same league, as, say, SP2).

> Last time I looked at that list, I didn't see anything earth-shaking.
> If
> my memory is wrong, please show me something really earthshaking in the
> list
> (in the same league as what I mentioned earlier).
>
>
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> Fixes aren't useful?
>>
>> List of fixes that are included in WinXP SP3
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480
>> --
>> ~PAÞ
>>
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system...
 
G

Gary S. Terhune

Why would you be expecting such? Some people would say that SP2 is much MORE
than just a Service Pack.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23nmfM5uwIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Still waiting to hear about all these alleged "earth-shaking" changes
> (i.e., that are in the same league, as, say, SP2).
>
>> Last time I looked at that list, I didn't see anything earth-shaking. If
>> my memory is wrong, please show me something really earthshaking in the
>> list
>> (in the same league as what I mentioned earlier).
>>
>>
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>> Fixes aren't useful?
>>>
>>> List of fixes that are included in WinXP SP3
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480
>>> --
>>> ~PAÞ
>>>
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system...
>
>
 
B

Bill in Co.

Well, all I can tell you is that it was called SP2, and it really brought
some needed things (especially. in regards to the really needed, large disk
access. The built in popup killer and Firewall doesn't hurt, either
(although I'm not using them, but am instead using my own).

One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of the
routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")

And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have to
do this now.

Before, pre-SP2, ALL of this was done automatically.
(and yes, I know the "reason" for this (to protect the "masses"). :).
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Why would you be expecting such? Some people would say that SP2 is much
> MORE than just a Service Pack.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23nmfM5uwIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Still waiting to hear about all these alleged "earth-shaking" changes
>> (i.e., that are in the same league, as, say, SP2).
>>
>>> Last time I looked at that list, I didn't see anything earth-shaking. If
>>> my memory is wrong, please show me something really earthshaking in the
>>> list
>>> (in the same league as what I mentioned earlier).
>>>
>>>
>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>> Fixes aren't useful?
>>>>
>>>> List of fixes that are included in WinXP SP3
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480
>>>> --
>>>> ~PAÞ
>>>>
>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system...
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Bill in Co. wrote:
> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of the
> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")
>
> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
> Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have
> to
> do this now.

Poor, poor Bill!

There's always a price to pay when it comes to OE. What's a bigger PIA,
having to remember to compact all OE folders manually and deleting older BAK
files from the Recycle Bin or losing all of your entire message store due to
corruption and not having any backups in place?
--
~PAÞ
 
B

Bill in Co.

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of
>> the
>> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")
>>
>> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
>> Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have
>> to do this now.
>
> Poor, poor Bill!
>
> There's always a price to pay when it comes to OE. What's a bigger PIA,
> having to remember to compact all OE folders manually and deleting older
> BAK
> files from the Recycle Bin or losing all of your entire message store due
> to
> corruption and not having any backups in place?

Funny how (in all the years) I never had a problem with that. Damn, I must
just be plain lucky, and should count my lucky stars! (Just like I
haven't needed all of those so called SECURITY UPDATES, that we just can't
live safely without (snort)!.

Or wait! Could it be that I was a bit more careful, and, (for example),
didn't try to multitask when using OE, and thus have OE crash in the middle
of doing something else, like running Office, or playing WOW, or whatever?
Nah, can't be. :)
 
L

Lil' Dave

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ubXrpyuwIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Lil' Dave wrote:
>> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>>>
>>> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
>>> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
>>> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
>>> special report.
>>>
>>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>>>
>>>
>>> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
>>> monitor developments.
>>
>> Consider myself conservative regarding use of any update.
>
> Same here. And for good reason (been around the block too many times -
> so thanks, but no thanks) for almost all of these so-called "updates".
>
>> Whether it be the
>> OS, IE, or 3rd party software. I was lured by SE for 98, and it was good
>> thing. There were snags in many fixes of many versions of IE. Remember
>> there was a 5.5 version?
>
> Indeed, two of the IE 5.5 DLL's were basically required to fix that stupid
> "copying or deleting a large number of files in explorer" problem that
> came with IE6 for Win98SE.
>
>> Been lurking at the XP general newsgroup for a few years. There was
>> plenty
>> of PCs broke by SP2 for one reason or the other per posts. I waited 6
>> months for anything spectacular like a re-release of a revised SP2. I
>> bit
>> the bullet, and installed SP2 from the MS provided CD. Smooth as silk,
>> but
>> lengthy. Am playing the same waiting game on SP3.
>
> Well, we differ here, as I'm not waiting. I'm simply not going to
> install it, ever, end of story. (And if you check the release notes on
> SP3 for XP, you'll see that SP3 offers essentially NOTHING of real value
> and substance - or of REAL significance).
>

Now that's different. Uncle Bill is paying his nomes to make service packs
that don't do anything regarding security risks (SP3).

Living out in the boonies. No cable, no DSL. Satellite just too expensive.
Phone modem is what I use, 24 hours or more to download the ISO. So, I wait
for Uncle Bill's CD SP3 availability.
--
Dave
 
L

Lil' Dave

Whoa, trigger. SP1 provided the over 137GB hard disk thingie. IE7, not
SP2, has the popup killer-bobber. The firewall has always been there.

--
Dave
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:euC4jw2wIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Well, all I can tell you is that it was called SP2, and it really brought
> some needed things (especially. in regards to the really needed, large
> disk access. The built in popup killer and Firewall doesn't hurt,
> either (although I'm not using them, but am instead using my own).
>
> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of the
> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")
>
> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
> Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have
> to do this now.
>
> Before, pre-SP2, ALL of this was done automatically.
> (and yes, I know the "reason" for this (to protect the "masses"). :).
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Why would you be expecting such? Some people would say that SP2 is much
>> MORE than just a Service Pack.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23nmfM5uwIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Still waiting to hear about all these alleged "earth-shaking" changes
>>> (i.e., that are in the same league, as, say, SP2).
>>>
>>>> Last time I looked at that list, I didn't see anything earth-shaking.
>>>> If
>>>> my memory is wrong, please show me something really earthshaking in the
>>>> list
>>>> (in the same league as what I mentioned earlier).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>> Fixes aren't useful?
>>>>>
>>>>> List of fixes that are included in WinXP SP3
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480
>>>>> --
>>>>> ~PAÞ
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> The point is, SP3 doesn't add anything USEFUL to the system...
>
>
 
L

Lil' Dave

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%230J9cp4wIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of
>>> the
>>> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")
>>>
>>> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
>>> Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have
>>> to do this now.
>>
>> Poor, poor Bill!
>>
>> There's always a price to pay when it comes to OE. What's a bigger PIA,
>> having to remember to compact all OE folders manually and deleting older
>> BAK
>> files from the Recycle Bin or losing all of your entire message store due
>> to
>> corruption and not having any backups in place?
>
> Funny how (in all the years) I never had a problem with that. Damn, I
> must just be plain lucky, and should count my lucky stars! (Just like
> I haven't needed all of those so called SECURITY UPDATES, that we just
> can't live safely without (snort)!.
>
> Or wait! Could it be that I was a bit more careful, and, (for example),
> didn't try to multitask when using OE, and thus have OE crash in the
> middle of doing something else, like running Office, or playing WOW, or
> whatever? Nah, can't be. :)
>

Do all the multi-tasking etc. with OE open in newsgroups arena, off and on,
not always.

I do have to, like in previous versions of OE, remove all headers etc., and
start over from time to time. About a year or so seems to be the
re-occurence. No big deal.

Once in a great while, OE will prompt me for compacting the posts.

I generally run "Office", rather, Outlook, to get my email. Word and other
"Office" apps, I don't often use while using OE.
--
Dave
 
B

Bill in Co.

Lil' Dave wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ubXrpyuwIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Lil' Dave wrote:
>>> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eAiOzDhwIHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Brian Livingston at Windows Secrets wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We usually skip publication on any 5th Thursdays that come around
>>>> (such as May 29), but serious problems involving Service Pack 3
>>>> for Windows XP have made us work overtime to bring you today's
>>>> special report.
>>>>
>>>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080529
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Win 98 users thinking of finally converting with SP3 should
>>>> monitor developments.
>>>
>>> Consider myself conservative regarding use of any update.
>>
>> Same here. And for good reason (been around the block too many times -
>> so thanks, but no thanks) for almost all of these so-called "updates".
>>
>>> Whether it be the
>>> OS, IE, or 3rd party software. I was lured by SE for 98, and it was
>>> good
>>> thing. There were snags in many fixes of many versions of IE. Remember
>>> there was a 5.5 version?
>>
>> Indeed, two of the IE 5.5 DLL's were basically required to fix that
>> stupid
>> "copying or deleting a large number of files in explorer" problem that
>> came with IE6 for Win98SE.
>>
>>> Been lurking at the XP general newsgroup for a few years. There was
>>> plenty
>>> of PCs broke by SP2 for one reason or the other per posts. I waited 6
>>> months for anything spectacular like a re-release of a revised SP2. I
>>> bit
>>> the bullet, and installed SP2 from the MS provided CD. Smooth as silk,
>>> but lengthy. Am playing the same waiting game on SP3.
>>
>> Well, we differ here, as I'm not waiting. I'm simply not going to
>> install it, ever, end of story. (And if you check the release notes on
>> SP3 for XP, you'll see that SP3 offers essentially NOTHING of real value
>> and substance - or of REAL significance).
>>
>
> Now that's different. Uncle Bill is paying his nomes to make service
> packs
> that don't do anything regarding security risks (SP3).

True security (only) lies within, grasshopper. No matter how much you
try, you can't protect people from their own stupidity. It's their own
PRACTICES that are the real PROBLEM here. The rest of this stuff is a
Band Aid.
 
G

glee

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%230J9cp4wIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>> One thing "added" by SP2 which I did NOT appreciate was the removal of the
>>> routine, automatic compacting of OE folders. (and yes, I know "why")
>>>
>>> And that now after compacting. the old uncompacted dbx files go to the
>>> Recycle Bin, which I then have to delete on a routine basis. *I* have
>>> to do this now.
>>
>> Poor, poor Bill!
>>
>> There's always a price to pay when it comes to OE. What's a bigger PIA,
>> having to remember to compact all OE folders manually and deleting older BAK
>> files from the Recycle Bin or losing all of your entire message store due to
>> corruption and not having any backups in place?
>
> Funny how (in all the years) I never had a problem with that. Damn, I must just
> be plain lucky, and should count my lucky stars! (Just like I haven't needed
> all of those so called SECURITY UPDATES, that we just can't live safely without
> (snort)!.
>
> Or wait! Could it be that I was a bit more careful, and, (for example), didn't
> try to multitask when using OE, and thus have OE crash in the middle of doing
> something else, like running Office, or playing WOW, or whatever? Nah, can't be.
> :)

Bill, I'm sorry to say the only thing you got right in your reply was the last
line..."Nah, can't be".
Multi-tasking and crashing are and were not an issue. The fact is background
compacting created problems with corrupted message stores for many users, as did A-V
email scanning. That doesn't mean EVERYONE had the problem. Because you did not
does not mean it doesn't exist, any more than the remark I posted recently about
smoking while fueling a car.....just because you haven't caused an explosion yet
doesn't mean it's safe!. -)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Creating the Windows 8 user experience
Replies
0
Views
637
Steven Sinofsky
S
S
rian Livingston/Scott Dunn of Windows Secrets Newsletter Upset Win 98 Users
Replies
8
Views
436
PCR
P
G
RE: Run Vista legally for at least one year/ Vista Activation doesn't
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
news.microsoft.com
N
AWS
"Unemployed in summertime"
Replies
0
Views
702
AWS
AWS
N
"Unemployed in summertime"
Replies
0
Views
1K
NewsBot
N
Back
Top Bottom