Turmoil Continues in XP land

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.

Bill
Thu May 29 22:07:22 PDT 2008

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.

Gary
Thu May 29 23:19:45 PDT 2008

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.

MEB
Fri May 30 00:00:12 PDT 2008

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.

Bill
Fri May 30 00:13:47 PDT 2008

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.

PA
Fri May 30 01:48:38 PDT 2008

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...

Tanner-'op
Fri May 30 11:16:05 PDT 2008

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. :-)

Bill
Fri May 30 12:08:11 PDT 2008

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...

Lil'
Fri May 30 21:23:21 PDT 2008

"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

Bill
Sat May 31 00:05:06 PDT 2008

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).

Bill
Sat May 31 00:16:48 PDT 2008

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...

Gary
Sat May 31 09:39:01 PDT 2008

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...
>
>

Bill
Sat May 31 15:17:37 PDT 2008

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...

PA
Sat May 31 15:56:38 PDT 2008

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

Bill
Sat May 31 18:53:53 PDT 2008

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. :-)

Lil'
Sun Jun 01 13:49:32 PDT 2008

"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

Lil'
Sun Jun 01 13:54:01 PDT 2008

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...
>
>

Lil'
Sun Jun 01 14:02:16 PDT 2008

"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

Bill
Sun Jun 01 14:02:49 PDT 2008


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.

glee
Mon Jun 02 06:52:03 PDT 2008

"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

Bill
Mon Jun 02 19:17:43 PDT 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
Mon Jun 02 19:53:17 PDT 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!

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
Mon Jun 02 23:16:38 PDT 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
Tue Jun 03 01:06:50 PDT 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
Tue Jun 03 08:35:52 PDT 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
Tue Jun 03 09:19:17 PDT 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
>

smith
Tue Jun 03 13:14:20 PDT 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.

PA
Tue Jun 03 13:13:03 PDT 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

Bill
Tue Jun 03 13:46:27 PDT 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
Tue Jun 03 13:47:46 PDT 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 irre