Tony
Sun Dec 04 07:50:31 CST 2005
Yes, the 'fix' worked here for something like five wonderful days, too, then
became inconsistent again - but John, some other post you made about
warnings/errors reported in event viewer - regarding DCOM, if I recall, made
me rummage about in there and I had a warning that the system couldn't send
an administrative alert because of something connected with my page-file -
so I turned off the 'Send Administrative Alert'option in 'Startup and
Recovery' tab in the 'System' Control Panel applet. Now, I did something
else too that I can't remember, but I can try and back-trace my actions if
it seems worthwhile.
For some days now, the machine is turning off, with at least decreased
inconsistency. I wasn't looking for this happening so I cannot estimate for
the efficiency percentage. If your setup doesn't rely on the admin alert,
you might check it out. Perhaps we are cirkling in on that 'mother'?
Tony. . .
"John Barnes" <jbfoofy@email.net> wrote in message
news:uImr8%23H%23FHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The fix apparently work for some and not others. Great find for those it
> works for. In my case the problem persists, unless I stop it before I
> shut down.
>
>
> "J. Eric Durbin" <zyzygy@plenipotentiary.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kuj4p153hdhqgi487c7gk0cu71tojd61ia@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:39:04 -0800, "John Barnes" <jbfoofy@email.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Why not use Avast - free and works. Just causes a shutdown problem on a
>>>few
>>>machines.
>>
>> [Sorry: I know top posting is the accepted standard in this newsgroup
>> but it just goes against everything I believe is right, proper, and
>> good, ;=>]
>>
>> I recall that "Don" posted back in October a possible fix for the
>> Avast shutdown problem, which involved swiching to classic view.
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general/msg/130c23480baaf59d?dmode=source&hl=en
>>
>>
>>>"Rob Wilkens" <RobW@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:e0dmSGH%23FHA.1536@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>> That wasn't in my options below :-) Well, not the compatible eTrust
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I mention my options are limitted, you see, because I'm on what most
>>>> people would refer to as a "fixed income" (welfare-like-state) and I
>>>> have
>>>> literally $200 in my bank account to last until the 21st, and I know
>>>> between now and then I have a car insurance payment coming up ($100 or
>>>> so), plus it is christmas.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OgSaZbG%23FHA.2812@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>> eTrust.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andre
>>>>> Extended64 |
http://www.extended64.com
>>>>> Blog |
http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>>>>>
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>>>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
>>>>>
http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rob Wilkens" <RobW@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eTFZ0PF%23FHA.2176@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> You're right, it's not a bug it's poor design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It worked right in Win32 versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, it's working in Win64 version too now. Here's the deal --
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> I shut down the computers the day I posted the message, there were
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> end task windows for a program called "shouldn't see me" or something
>>>>>> like that :-). Boy I hope that's not a virus, but I suspect that
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be par for the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK:
>>>>>> My options for antivirus software:
>>>>>> -Installed: eTrust EZ Antivirus
>>>>>> -Available through MSN: McAfee Antivirus
>>>>>> -Through AOL: Security and Safety Center powered by McAfee
>>>>>> (and that reminds me, never installed that AOL crap on this
>>>>>> machine, I'm afraid)
>>>>>> -Otherwise - some free alternative
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is or might be a virus, which do i try?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:O4lnGjy9FHA.3088@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Not everything that you don't like, in software is a bug. This is
>>>>>>> normal, and sometimes aggravating, behaviour - events in the active
>>>>>>> folder do not auto-update, if you have the filemanager 'Microsoft
>>>>>>> Explorer' open when you download and keep the folder high-lighted to
>>>>>>> which you download you should see the stuff appearing in the file
>>>>>>> window, if not press <F5>.
>>>>>>> IE too knows about this trick, but FF might not!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, keeping more than a handfull of Icons on your desktop, eats
>>>>>>> resources and slows down your system - I too recommend, a dedicated
>>>>>>> download directory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony. . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Rob Wilkens" <RobW@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u$xa1qt9FHA.4076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Tonight I started using Mozilla Firefox to download some files
>>>>>>>> -Print Server Administrator (for a network print server I have) and
>>>>>>>> firmware
>>>>>>>> -Real Alternative
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wellllllllllllllll....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For some reason the files are not showing up on the desktop after I
>>>>>>>> download them. They're there, but you can't see them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do I know they're there you ask? Because when I click on the
>>>>>>>> desktop FOLDER (right from firefox even) you can see the files
>>>>>>>> alongside the rest of the icons that are already on the desktop.
>>>>>>>> AND
>>>>>>>> if I try to move the files from the desktop folder to the desktop,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> get an "already there" error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, here it is -- If i right click on the desktop and select
>>>>>>>> REFRESH
>>>>>>>> they show up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why do I have to click Refresh, is this what we call a bug in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> operating system or shell?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>