Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill in Co. · Jun 2, 2008

glee wrote:
> "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!. -)

LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many others, I'm
not smoking, while refueling my car!

PCR · Jun 2, 2008

|>
|> 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!. -)
|
| LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
| others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!

I don't do that, myself, anymore, either-- not since the price of gas
has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP crash
yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting? What is your
plan of action to recover from it?

--
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. · Jun 3, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> glee wrote:
>>> "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!. -)
>>
>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
>> others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
>
> I don't do that, myself, anymore, either--

But I also quit smoking some time ago too, which helps (but even when I did,
I didn't do that, at least as I recall now).

> not since the price of gas
> has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP crash
> yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting?

I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like "housekeeping"). I
also routinely like to run the Defragger, just like I did in Win98SE.
(It's kinda fun watching the squares move around on the screen, like a dumb
version of PacMan.

> What is your plan of action to recover from it?

Well, I quite often do a system backup to my external USB HD enclosure, so
if something went wrong, I could always fall back on that. By quite
often, I'm talking about weekly, on average.

Actually, believe it or not, using the latest version of True Image, I can
copy some of the files from the image backup back to the source drive in
Windows Explorer, if needbe. It's a nice feature to have - to be able to
see and access files within the backup image (and by access, I mean you can
look at their properties, and make a copy of them, but not write back TO
them on the imaged drive, of course).

OR

I would try one of handful of OE dbx "recovery" shareware utility programs
that are available. But those are a bit limited in what they can do, and in
their success rate, I'm sure. But I do have one or two such programs saved
somewhere on the disk from the past.

> --
> 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

smith · Jun 3, 2008

smith <smith@nospam.com> wrote in
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.

New screw up discovered.

Windows XP SP3 includes vulnerable Flash Player
Microsoft's newest update bundles older version that's currently
being exploited

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticl
eBasic&articleId=9092218&intsrc=news_ts_head

PA Bear [MS MVP] · Jun 3, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
> glee wrote:
>> "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!. -)
>
> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many others,
> I'm
> not smoking, while refueling my car!

No, but you're suggesting that others do so! <eg>

Gary S. Terhune · Jun 3, 2008

BFD. Most Windows users are running much older versions of Flash, anyway.
After all, there's no Automatic Update for Flash. If you are any kind of
knowledgeable user, you'd check your version of Flash every month, anyway,
(or more often) because it is so prone to vulnerabilities. Or uninstall it
completely. Likewise, whenever you make major changes to the Windows system,
the responsible user checks WU to make sure nothing is broken, likewise
Flash and Java and a few other intimately integrated components of IE I
don't recall right now, probably because I don't let them in..

Quote
"That version of Flash Player, however, was superseded by Version 9.0.124.0
on April 8, nearly two weeks before Microsoft decided SP3 was done by giving
it a release to manufacturing (RTM) label and sending it out for
distribution. "

Two weeks! Such the HEIGHT of irresponsibility.

Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about Windows XP?

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

"smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O%23R%23HDVxIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> smith <smith@nospam.com> wrote in
> 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.
>
>
> New screw up discovered.
>
> Windows XP SP3 includes vulnerable Flash Player
> Microsoft's newest update bundles older version that's currently
> being exploited
>
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticl
> eBasic&articleId=9092218&intsrc=news_ts_head
>

PA Bear [MS MVP] · Jun 3, 2008

Running WinXP SP2 here with Flash Player v9.0.124 installed. Flash.ocx
v6.0.79 is present on the machine but only in C:\I386. Flash9f.ocx is the
only ActiveX Control listed or enabled in IE Tools | Manage add-ons.

When MS06-069 was released, I was running a higher version of Flash Player
than v8.0.24.0
(cf.http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb06-11.html) and
MS06-069 was never offered.

Conclusion: If you're running a version of Flash Player higher than
v8.0.24.0,
install WinXP SP3, and Flash.ocx v6.0.79 is not enabled, the machine will
not
be vulnerable to the exploit patched by MS06-069 and MS06-069 should not be
offered.

That being said, it won't hurt to cover your bases and install MS06-069
manually.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> BFD. Most Windows users are running much older versions of Flash, anyway.
> After all, there's no Automatic Update for Flash. If you are any kind of
> knowledgeable user, you'd check your version of Flash every month, anyway,
> (or more often) because it is so prone to vulnerabilities. Or uninstall it
> completely. Likewise, whenever you make major changes to the Windows
> system,
> the responsible user checks WU to make sure nothing is broken, likewise
> Flash and Java and a few other intimately integrated components of IE I
> don't recall right now, probably because I don't let them in..
>
> Quote
> "That version of Flash Player, however, was superseded by Version
> 9.0.124.0
> on April 8, nearly two weeks before Microsoft decided SP3 was done by
> giving
> it a release to manufacturing (RTM) label and sending it out for
> distribution. "
>
> Two weeks! Such the HEIGHT of irresponsibility.
>
> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about Windows XP?
>
>
> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23R%23HDVxIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> smith <smith@nospam.com> wrote in
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> New screw up discovered.
>>
>> Windows XP SP3 includes vulnerable Flash Player
>> Microsoft's newest update bundles older version that's currently
>> being exploited
>>
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticl
>> eBasic&articleId=9092218&intsrc=news_ts_head

smith · Jun 3, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
> Windows XP?
>

Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
time maintenance and switch to XP.

Increasingly it looks like SP3 is not that and is just more of
the same, and for those people 98SE will remain the system of
choice.

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

smith wrote:
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
> news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
>> Windows XP?
>>
>
> Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
> they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
> time maintenance and switch to XP.

Ummm, no, not quite. You can get XP without SP3,and be just fine.

> Increasingly it looks like SP3 is not that and is just more of
> the same,

SP3 *may be* that, but not XP. (You don't need to throw out the baby
with the bathwater).

> and for those people 98SE will remain the system of choice.

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> BFD. Most Windows users are running much older versions of Flash, anyway.
> After all, there's no Automatic Update for Flash. If you are any kind of
> knowledgeable user, you'd check your version of Flash every month, anyway,
> (or more often) because it is so prone to vulnerabilities. Or uninstall it
> completely. Likewise, whenever you make major changes to the Windows
> system,
> the responsible user checks WU to make sure nothing is broken, likewise
> Flash and Java and a few other intimately integrated components of IE I
> don't recall right now, probably because I don't let them in..
>
> Quote
> "That version of Flash Player, however, was superseded by Version
> 9.0.124.0
> on April 8, nearly two weeks before Microsoft decided SP3 was done by
> giving
> it a release to manufacturing (RTM) label and sending it out for
> distribution. "
>
> Two weeks! Such the HEIGHT of irresponsibility.
>
> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about Windows XP?

Well, see, it's like this. The thread drifted. And that's ok, I can
handle it. And I'm older than you, so what's your excuse?

> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23R%23HDVxIHA.4564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> smith <smith@nospam.com> wrote in
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> New screw up discovered.
>>
>> Windows XP SP3 includes vulnerable Flash Player
>> Microsoft's newest update bundles older version that's currently
>> being exploited
>>
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticl
>> eBasic&articleId=9092218&intsrc=news_ts_head

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> glee wrote:
>>> "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!. -)
>>
>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many others,
>> I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
>
> No, but you're suggesting that others do so! <eg>

I do?

Gary S. Terhune · Jun 3, 2008

Pretty ignorant bunch of 98 users if they thought anything of the kind. XP
is XP, and while SP2 achieved some major changes for the better, SP3 isn't
that kind of SP and anyone who even read the least detail about it would
know that.

Pretty ignorant if they think XP requires full-time maintenance, too. That's
downright hilarious coming from a 98 user!

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

"smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uwvVpZbxIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
> news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
>> Windows XP?
>>
>
> Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
> they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
> time maintenance and switch to XP.
>
> Increasingly it looks like SP3 is not that and is just more of
> the same, and for those people 98SE will remain the system of
> choice.

PCR · Jun 3, 2008

|>>>
|>>> 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!. -)
|>>
|>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
|>> others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
|>
|> I don't do that, myself, anymore, either--
|
| But I also quit smoking some time ago too, which helps (but even when
| I did, I didn't do that, at least as I recall now).

Very good, Bill! The last two times I quit-- I was picking them up off
the street!

|> not since the price of gas
|> has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP
|> crash yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting?
|
| I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like "housekeeping").

OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- & not
let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP to
have solved that!

| I also routinely like to run the Defragger, just like I did in
| Win98SE. (It's kinda fun watching the squares move around on the
| screen, like a dumb version of PacMan.

Yea.

|> What is your plan of action to recover from it?
|
| Well, I quite often do a system backup to my external USB HD
| enclosure, so if something went wrong, I could always fall back on
| that. By quite often, I'm talking about weekly, on average.

Right. So you'd lose a week's posts at least.

| Actually, believe it or not, using the latest version of True Image,
| I can copy some of the files from the image backup back to the source
| drive in Windows Explorer, if needbe. It's a nice feature to have
| - to be able to see and access files within the backup image (and by
| access, I mean you can look at their properties, and make a copy of
| them, but not write back TO them on the imaged drive, of course).

BING has TBIView to do the same, if you've made an Image. But I have
made a clone of C: to D:. Both are fully visible to me at each boot & I
can copy back/forth. However, I've moved my OE Store to G

artition. So,
it isn't in my clone. But I just use Explorer to copy it now/then to yet
another usable partition! It is 217,061,864 bytes & hasn't triggered
that copy/paste problem yet!

|
| OR
|
| I would try one of handful of OE dbx "recovery" shareware utility
| programs that are available. But those are a bit limited in what
| they can do, and in their success rate, I'm sure. But I do have one
| or two such programs saved somewhere on the disk from the past.

Yea. Best to heed Bear's 'n glee's warning & just do your compacting
offline!

|> --
|> 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 · Jun 3, 2008

smith wrote:
| "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
| news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
|
|> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
|> Windows XP?
|>
|
| Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
| they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
| time maintenance and switch to XP.

I never heard of SP3 until it was mentioned here. However, I more/less
profess to agree fully with you! And there was a time even Colorado
would profess it!

| Increasingly it looks like SP3 is not that and is just more of
| the same, and for those people 98SE will remain the system of
| choice.

--
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. · Jun 3, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> glee wrote:
>>>>> "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!. -)
>>>>
>>>> LOL. But see, the key difference here is, that unlike so many
>>>> others, I'm not smoking, while refueling my car!
>>>
>>> I don't do that, myself, anymore, either--
>>
>> But I also quit smoking some time ago too, which helps (but even when
>> I did, I didn't do that, at least as I recall now).
>
> Very good, Bill! The last two times I quit-- I was picking them up off
> the street!

You should quit. Yeah, I know it's hard. Do it when you get a cold,
and it might be a bit easier.

I quit many, many years ago. I think the last time I smoked was when
cigarettes were - what - 50 cents a pack? (I can't recall). It was in
the late 1980's.

>>> not since the price of gas
>>> has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP
>>> crash yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting?
>>
>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like "housekeeping").
>
> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- & not
> let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
> reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP to
> have solved that!

I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing it!), and
it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on this computer.

>> I also routinely like to run the Defragger, just like I did in
>> Win98SE. (It's kinda fun watching the squares move around on the
>> screen, like a dumb version of PacMan.

>
> Yea.
>
>>> What is your plan of action to recover from it?
>>
>> Well, I quite often do a system backup to my external USB HD
>> enclosure, so if something went wrong, I could always fall back on
>> that. By quite often, I'm talking about weekly, on average.
>
> Right. So you'd lose a week's posts at least.

Yup.

>> Actually, believe it or not, using the latest version of True Image,
>> I can copy some of the files from the image backup back to the source
>> drive in Windows Explorer, if needbe. It's a nice feature to have
>> - to be able to see and access files within the backup image (and by
>> access, I mean you can look at their properties, and make a copy of
>> them, but not write back TO them on the imaged drive, of course).
>
> BING has TBIView to do the same, if you've made an Image. But I have
> made a clone of C: to D:. Both are fully visible to me at each boot & I
> can copy back/forth. However, I've moved my OE Store to G

artition. So,
> it isn't in my clone. But I just use Explorer to copy it now/then to yet
> another usable partition! It is 217,061,864 bytes & hasn't triggered
> that copy/paste problem yet!

I should have added, I also ave access to those files IN WINDOWS, using
Windows Explorer, so I can see and retain their long file names, etc, which
is also helpful if I want to copy some of them (some specific file(s) back
to the source drive. So, all of THAT is quite different from what you can
do in TBIView right?

>>
>> OR
>>
>> I would try one of handful of OE dbx "recovery" shareware utility
>> programs that are available. But those are a bit limited in what
>> they can do, and in their success rate, I'm sure. But I do have one
>> or two such programs saved somewhere on the disk from the past.
>
> Yea. Best to heed Bear's 'n glee's warning & just do your compacting
> offline!
>
>>> --
>>> 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

Bill in Co. · Jun 3, 2008

PCR wrote:
> smith wrote:
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
>> news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
>>> Windows XP?
>>
>> Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
>> they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
>> time maintenance and switch to XP.
>
> I never heard of SP3 until it was mentioned here. However, I more/less
> profess to agree fully with you! And there was a time even Colorado
> would profess it!

NO! There NEVER was such a time! I have NO interest in getting SP3,
(and yes, I've looked at the list and read about many of the "fixes"
(security updates, that is) it makes - as in, big deal, I don't really need
it, thanks, but no thanks)

But SP2 was different - VERY different (it actually offered something of
*real benefit* to the user).

And I didn't even have a choice on that SP2, as it came preinstalled.

Smith · Jun 3, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
news:eJ5qjXdxIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>
> Pretty ignorant if they think XP requires full-time
> maintenance, too. That's downright hilarious coming from a
> 98 user!
>

See "To auto-update or not to auto-update" http://window
ssecrets.com/2006/05/25/01-To-auto-update-or-not-to-auto-update

Brian Livingston there states:

• Advanced users (including companies with full-time IT staff)
should never use Automatic Updates. Professionals should first
test Microsoft patches — and every other company's patches — on
isolated machines. Read the free and paid versions of the Windows
Secrets Newsletter that are published 2 days after Patch Tuesday
with warnings of problems. Then use patch-management techniques
to carefully install the needed upgrades to end users.

Reading and paying for all of Livingston's newsletters and
testing all of M$'s patches on isolated machines sounds like full
time work to me.

Livingston goes on:

• Novice users, who can't or won't read up on reported patch
problems before updating their machines, should leave Automatic
Updates turned on. Beginners have a greater risk of catching a
virus than they do of encountering a serious patch i
incompatibility.

He continues:

Supporting Grandma's PC means auto-update

Surely you would not suggest anyone following this group operate
in that category.

PCR · Jun 3, 2008

Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of the
ones before it.

| I quit many, many years ago. I think the last time I smoked was
| when cigarettes were - what - 50 cents a pack? (I can't recall).
| It was in the late 1980's.

I believe they even were 25¢ a pack when I started in the early 60's! At
least my younger brother who quit remembers that. Now, they are an
incredible price here for regular packs. So, I roll my own from
Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on
those cans. Unfortunately, these make me cough, though-- they always
did! These are harsh-- just as they were when I used them back in the
80's! An alternative is to get cheap packs from Indian reservations made
of white-man's scalp-- but Bloomberg is monitoring the mails!

|>>> not since the price of gas
|>>> has quadrupled! But aren't you afraid your perfect record of no XP
|>>> crash yet is at risk-- if you refuse to do manual compacting?
|>>
|>> I *routinely* compact as a matter of habit now (like
|>> "housekeeping").
|>
|> OK. But I meant (as Bear said) to do it manually while offline-- &
|> not let your IE7 do it in the background while online & actually
|> reading/posting at the same time. Apparently, one cannot trust XP to
|> have solved that!
|
| I end up doing it online (w/o doing anything else when I am doing
| it!), and it only takes perhaps 5 seconds. It is quite FAST on
| this computer.

That's a lot, lot quicker than it takes for me, sheesh-- but I do have
217,127,400 bytes of .dbx! But are you also set to have OE synchronize
its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? Would it suspend that
while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it doesn't!

|>> I also routinely like to run the Defragger, just like I did in
|>> Win98SE. (It's kinda fun watching the squares move around on the
|>> screen, like a dumb version of PacMan.

artition. So, it isn't in my clone. But I just use Explorer to
|> copy it now/then to yet another usable partition! It is 217,061,864
|> bytes & hasn't triggered that copy/paste problem yet!
|
| I should have added, I also ave access to those files IN WINDOWS,
| using Windows Explorer, so I can see and retain their long file
| names, etc, which is also helpful if I want to copy some of them
| (some specific file(s) back to the source drive. So, all of THAT is
| quite different from what you can do in TBIView right?

I don't have a BING Image of C:-- a single file something like a WinZip
file, but with a whole partition in it. That is what TBIView would open
(takes a while, last I've read) to view in Explorer & then allow the
uncompressed files to be copied out of the image (but not into it) on an
individual basis. It would be done in Windows. Yea, I'm sure you'd see
LFNs.

What I have is a BING Clone-- a copy of C: on D:. That's a lot quicker &
easier to deal with!

|>>
|>> OR
|>>
|>> I would try one of handful of OE dbx "recovery" shareware utility
|>> programs that are available. But those are a bit limited in what
|>> they can do, and in their success rate, I'm sure. But I do have
|>> one or two such programs saved somewhere on the disk from the past.
|>
|> Yea. Best to heed Bear's 'n glee's warning & just do your compacting
|> offline!
|>
|>>> --
|>>> 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

--
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 · Jun 3, 2008

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> smith wrote:
|>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
|>> news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
|>>
|>>> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
|>>> Windows XP?
|>>
|>> Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
|>> they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
|>> time maintenance and switch to XP.
|>
|> I never heard of SP3 until it was mentioned here. However, I
|> more/less profess to agree fully with you! And there was a time even
|> Colorado would profess it!
|
| NO! There NEVER was such a time! I have NO interest in getting
| SP3, (and yes, I've looked at the list and read about many of the
| "fixes" (security updates, that is) it makes - as in, big deal, I
| don't really need it, thanks, but no thanks)

Yea. You always were picky with critical updates-- I know! But I meant
there was a time you agreed with the gist of smith's post-- that Win98
would always be your OS of choice! In fact, I'm sure we long ago signed
a pact in liquid silicon we NEVER would switch-- you & I!

| But SP2 was different - VERY different (it actually offered something
| of *real benefit* to the user).
|
| And I didn't even have a choice on that SP2, as it came preinstalled.

Hmm-- that makes even more sense, then, that you would have it.

|

.

--
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. · Jun 4, 2008

PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> smith wrote:
>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
>>>> news:OqBdeWZxIHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, this is a Windows 98 group. Why all this BS about
>>>>> Windows XP?
>>>>
>>>> Because there are some win 98 users who thought maybe with SP3
>>>> they could finally get a stable OS that would not require full
>>>> time maintenance and switch to XP.
>>>
>>> I never heard of SP3 until it was mentioned here. However, I
>>> more/less profess to agree fully with you! And there was a time even
>>> Colorado would profess it!
>>
>> NO! There NEVER was such a time! I have NO interest in getting
>> SP3, (and yes, I've looked at the list and read about many of the
>> "fixes" (security updates, that is) it makes - as in, big deal, I
>> don't really need it, thanks, but no thanks)
>
> Yea. You always were picky with critical updates-- I know! But I meant
> there was a time you agreed with the gist of smith's post-- that Win98
> would always be your OS of choice! In fact, I'm sure we long ago signed
> a pact in liquid silicon we NEVER would switch-- you & I!

Well, I still have Win98SE right here, right next to my left arm! And I
use it occasionally, but, not so often anymore. It is noticeably slower.

>> But SP2 was different - VERY different (it actually offered something
>> of *real benefit* to the user).
>>
>> And I didn't even have a choice on that SP2, as it came preinstalled.
>
> Hmm-- that makes even more sense, then, that you would have it.
>
>>

LOL. (Incidentally, there was once a point in time that I went searching
online (at amazon.com) to see if I could purchase the original Win XP Home
edition (non-SP version), and they were very hard to find. But that's ok.
There are some good things (I mean, USEFUL) that were added in SP2 (or was
it SP1?), like support for LARGE HD capacities, and a built in Firewall (not
using), and Popup blocker.

Turmoil Continues in XP land

Bill in Co.

PCR

Bill in Co.

smith

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Gary S. Terhune

PA Bear [MS MVP]

smith

Bill in Co.

Bill in Co.

Bill in Co.

Gary S. Terhune

PCR

PCR

Bill in Co.

Bill in Co.

Smith

PCR

PCR

Bill in Co.

Similar threads