Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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 http://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 >
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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
Guest smith Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land "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.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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 > http://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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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? :-)
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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 http://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.
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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! |> 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:partition. 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
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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:partition. 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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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. :-)
Guest Smith Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land "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.
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Bill in Co. wrote: | 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. :-) 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. :-) |> |> 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:partition. 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
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land 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.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Did you ever stop to think that Livingston Secrets has to have something to sell? That maybe they're a bit biased on the topic? Automatic Updates has YET to cause me or any of my clients' machines any problems at all. And if there ever ARE any problems, there's this great thing called System Restore. Ever heard of it? I will say that I set the systems to download in the background and only prompt for install, but that's for practical reasons -- I want to control the timing and prepare the system for a probable restart. No, I think very few people who attend this group are of the sort your quote describes, the sort who would have any actual *need* to do all that reading and research. They should take the patches and deal with any resulting issues as they come up. Then be prepared to be surprised by how well it works. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ecqrEsfxIHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "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.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land PCR wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> 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. :-) > > Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of the > ones before it. Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's easier to do then! >> 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! Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup. > At least my younger brother who quit remembers that. And me too. > Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs. That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can anyone afford it? > So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. AHA! > The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans. The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY. I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)! I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm losin it. :-) > 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! I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you) > But are you also set to have OE synchronize > its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most part. :-) > Would it suspend that > while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it doesn't! WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update. We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once automatically, until the next 100) >>>> 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:partition. 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 No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just partition copies. I think I got confused there. More on that below > 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! OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per se). Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:? Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of the destination drive is untouched).
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land I should revise that statement. There are certainly people who read this group who would fit the category "Advanced users (including companies with full-time IT staff)", but they certainly aren't here looking for a discussion of XP SP3 or anything related. They get that information elsewhere -- in more appropriate forums, for instance. Otherwise, in these 98 groups it's Luddites, hobbyists and Grandmas. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:uhpCKMgxIHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Did you ever stop to think that Livingston Secrets has to have something > to sell? That maybe they're a bit biased on the topic? > > Automatic Updates has YET to cause me or any of my clients' machines any > problems at all. And if there ever ARE any problems, there's this great > thing called System Restore. Ever heard of it? I will say that I set the > systems to download in the background and only prompt for install, but > that's for practical reasons -- I want to control the timing and prepare > the system for a probable restart. > > No, I think very few people who attend this group are of the sort your > quote describes, the sort who would have any actual *need* to do all that > reading and research. They should take the patches and deal with any > resulting issues as they come up. Then be prepared to be surprised by how > well it works. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://www.grystmill.com > > "Smith" <smith@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:ecqrEsfxIHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "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. >
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Bill in Co. wrote: | PCR wrote: |> Bill in Co. wrote: |>> 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: ....snip |>>>>>> 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. :-) |> |> Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of |> the ones before it. | | Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's | easier to do then! That is usually correct, uh-huh. |>> 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! | | Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup. I can't quite recall it, myself. But my memory never was good for that far back. |> At least my younger brother who quit remembers that. | | And me too. Good memory-- you must have 133's. |> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs. | | That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can | anyone afford it? They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with the newest state & city taxes! |> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. | | AHA! Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, damn, they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes! |> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans. | | The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY. | I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit | Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)! | I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm | losin it. :-) No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as a kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember much, though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada especially! ....snip |>>>> 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! | | I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you) Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it gets to the biggest one,... MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx ....I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it. |> But are you also set to have OE synchronize |> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? | | Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most | part. :-) Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if you are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good. |> Would it suspend that |> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it |> doesn't! | | WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, | anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update. Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused with the OS. | We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE | accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once | automatically, until the next 100) That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself in Win98! ....snip |>> 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 | | No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just | partition copies. I think I got confused there. More on that | below BING will do either, but I have only done copies with it. |> 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! | | OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy | *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). | In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per | se). | Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you | don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:? | | Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a | "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that | strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it | is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you | ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of | the destination drive is untouched). I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the partition you copy. You do get an option to copy only the used space, but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable. That's my D:partition! The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition kind of WinZip-ed into it. That's the one TBIView would be useful to view. And I think that's what your getting with True Image. -- 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
Guest PCR Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Bill in Co. wrote: | 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. :-) Alright, alright. :-). |>> 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. So, lucky you couldn't find the original version then. Well... who knows... maybe SP4 or SP5 will be good ones too! -- 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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land PCR wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> PCR wrote: >>> Bill in Co. wrote: >>>> 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: > > ...snip >>>>>>>> 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. :-) >>> >>> Correct. But I recently smoked my way through my last cold & all of >>> the ones before it. >> >> Well, you're supposed to try to STOP when you have the cold - it's >> easier to do then! > > That is usually correct, uh-huh. > >>>> 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! >> >> Me too. A quarter a pack. Yup. > > I can't quite recall it, myself. But my memory never was good for that > far back. > >>> At least my younger brother who quit remembers that. >> >> And me too. > > Good memory-- you must have 133's. You mean 33's, as in LPs? Or what are "133's"? I still recall 78's, but I didn't grow up with too many of them. :-) >>> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs. >> >> That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can >> anyone afford it? > > They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with the > newest state & city taxes! WOW! >>> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. >> >> AHA! > > Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, damn, > they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes! > >>> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans. >> >> The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY. >> I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit >> Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City (NYC)! >> I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. (unless I'm >> losin it. :-) > > No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as a > kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember much, > though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada especially! Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you care to share)? My ex was originally from Staten Island. :-) It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer weather can be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement - it's so hot and humid, oftentimes. > ...snip >>>>>> 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! >> >> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from you) > > Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it > gets to the biggest one,... > > MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx For me, it all takes about 5 seconds. > ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it. Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is 1.6 GHz. >>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize >>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? >> >> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most >> part. :-) > > Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you > remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if you > are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good. Yup. >>> Would it suspend that >>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it >>> doesn't! >> >> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, >> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update. > > Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused with > the OS. > >> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE >> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once >> automatically, until the next 100) > > That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself in > Win98! I didn't have to as it did it for me! > ...snip >>>> 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 >> >> No, my mistake, BING doesn't make image copies as I recall. Just >> partition copies. I think I got confused there. More on that >> below > > BING will do either, but I have only done copies with it. > >>> 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! >> >> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy >> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). >> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per se). >> Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you sure you >> don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:? >> >> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different than a >> "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that >> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it >> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you >> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of >> the destination drive is untouched). > > I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE > buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the > partition you copy. And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste in BING on the floppy. > You do get an option to copy only the used space, > but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable. > That's my D:partition! OK. > The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well > multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition kind > of WinZip-ed into it. OK, I never used that in BING. > That's the one TBIView would be useful to view. I see. > And I think that's what your getting with True Image. Something like that. (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip shortly).
Guest PCR Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Bill in Co. wrote: | PCR wrote: |> Bill in Co. wrote: ....snip |> Good memory-- you must have 133's. | | You mean 33's, as in LPs? Or what are "133's"? | I still recall 78's, but I didn't grow up with too many of them. :-) RAM chips! :-). |>>> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs. |>> |>> That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can |>> anyone afford it? |> |> They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with |> the newest state & city taxes! | | WOW! Yep. But with the ways around it, including Indian reservations, cans of loose tobacco & picking them up off the gutter-- I'm still smoking fairly well. |>>> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. |>> |>> AHA! |> |> Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, |> damn, they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes! |> |>>> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans. |>> |>> The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY. |>> I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit |>> Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City |>> (NYC)! I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. |>> (unless I'm |>> losin it. :-) |> |> No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as |> a kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember |> much, though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada |> especially! | | Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you | care to share)? | My ex was originally from Staten Island. :-) | It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer | weather can be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement | - it's so hot and humid, oftentimes. Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new stadium until the cranes are gone! |> ...snip |>>>>>> 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! |>> |>> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from |>> you) |> |> Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it |> gets to the biggest one,... |> |> MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx | | For me, it all takes about 5 seconds. | |> ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it. | | Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is | 1.6 GHz. That's a good possibility. I am 533 MHz. Maybe your IE7 is a tad more efficient too. |>>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize |>>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? |>> |>> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most |>> part. :-) |> |> Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you |> remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if |> you are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good. | | Yup. Yea. |>>> Would it suspend that |>>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it |>>> doesn't! |>> |>> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, |>> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update. |> |> Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused |> with the OS. |> |>> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE |>> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once |>> automatically, until the next 100) |> |> That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself |> in Win98! | | I didn't have to as it did it for me! Whatever-- it's between you & PA Bear & glee whether you did it right in Win98 & IE6! Anyhow, you are leaving town & it will be tough for them to find & claw you or drop a crane on your head. ....snip |>> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy |>> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). |>> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per |>> se). Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you |>> sure you don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:? |>> |>> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different |>> than a "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is |>> that |>> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it |>> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you |>> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of |>> the destination drive is untouched). |> |> I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE |> buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the |> partition you copy. | | And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste | in BING on the floppy. That's the best thing! |> You do get an option to copy only the used space, |> but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable. |> That's my D:partition! | | OK. | |> The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well |> multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition |> kind of WinZip-ed into it. | | OK, I never used that in BING. | |> That's the one TBIView would be useful to view. | | I see. | |> And I think that's what your getting with True Image. | | Something like that. OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do-- OK, then. Good. | (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip | shortly). Enjoy. I'll be here. -- 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
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land PCR wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> PCR wrote: >>> Bill in Co. wrote: > > ...snip >>> Good memory-- you must have 133's. >> >> You mean 33's, as in LPs? Or what are "133's"? >> I still recall 78's, but I didn't grow up with too many of them. :-) > > RAM chips! :-). OH. LOL! >>>>> Now, they are an incredible price here for regular packs. >>>> >>>> That's what I've heard! Like 2-3 dollars a pack, or so? How can >>>> anyone afford it? >>> >>> They were recently over $6.00 a pack here-- soon to go to $8.50 with >>> the newest state & city taxes! >> >> WOW! > > Yep. But with the ways around it, including Indian reservations, cans of > loose tobacco & picking them up off the gutter-- I'm still smoking > fairly well. > >>>>> So, I roll my own from Bugler/Top/Zig-Zag. >>>> >>>> AHA! >>> >>> Uh-hu. One can of those is $15.00 & can make over 20 packs-- but, >>> damn, they are HARSH even stuffed into filtered tubes! >>> >>>>> The mayor has missed putting his incredible tax on those cans. >>>> >>>> The Mayor? Did you say what state you were in? Maybe it was NY. >>>> I lived in NY state (Albany) when I was a kid (and love to visit >>>> Maine, but it's been awhile). And occasionally even The City >>>> (NYC)! I see you mention Bloomberg below, so it must be NY. >>>> (unless I'm losin it. :-) >>> >>> No, you are right, that's the city & state. I visited Albany once as >>> a kid on my way in a rare family vacation to Canada. Don't remember >>> much, though. It was fairly cold, is about all-- frigid in Canada >>> especially! >> >> Are you actually in Manhattan, or one of the other boroughs (if you >> care to share)? >> My ex was originally from Staten Island. :-) >> It's always fun and exciting visiting the city, but the summer >> weather can be a killer, especially downtown walking on the pavement >> - it's so hot and humid, oftentimes. > > Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say > where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new > stadium until the cranes are gone! LOL. I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit seedy. But still, the rides were fun! >>> ...snip >>>>>>>> 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! >>>> >>>> I just checked. I have 172 MB in there! (not too far off from >>>> you) >>> >>> Interesting. Mine takes surely at least 5 MINUTES to compact. When it >>> gets to the biggest one,... >>> >>> MYSENT~1 DBX 120,237,632 06-01-08 4:22p My Sent Items.dbx >> >> For me, it all takes about 5 seconds. >> >>> ...I know the Swap File gets to be used. Maybe that's it. >> >> Maybe. Or - maybe just the speed of your computer. This one is >> 1.6 GHz. > > That's a good possibility. I am 533 MHz. Maybe your IE7 is a tad more > efficient too. WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and maybe never :-) I'm still using IE6, thank you. :-) >>>>> But are you also set to have OE synchronize >>>>> its NGs & mail automatically every 5 minutes? >>>> >>>> Nope. And I have precious little set to automatic, for the most >>>> part. :-) >>> >>> Well, that may be what avoids the risk for you, then. Even though you >>> remain online, there can be no interference with the compacting-- if >>> you are not posting or synchronizing at the same time. Very good. >> >> Yup. > > Yea. > >>>>> Would it suspend that >>>>> while its doing the auto-compact? Better heed the warning if it >>>>> doesn't! >>>> >>>> WHAT auto-compact? It's essentially not there as an option, >>>> anymore. They took that out with the SP2 update. >>> >>> Oops. That's right. That was your complaint. I guess I got confused >>> with the OS. >>> >>>> We HAVE to manually run compact OE ourselves now (or wait for 100 OE >>>> accesses (or something like that), at which point it will run once >>>> automatically, until the next 100) >>> >>> That seems safe, then. But you should have been doing that yourself >>> in Win98! >> >> I didn't have to as it did it for me! > > Whatever-- it's between you & PA Bear & glee whether you did it right in > Win98 & IE6! Anyhow, you are leaving town & it will be tough for them to > find & claw you or drop a crane on your head. > > ...snip >>>> OH. I never used BING to make a CLONE, per se, but only to copy >>>> *partitions* (in the Maintenance Mode, or whatever it was called). >>>> In fact, I didn't even know BING could do that (make "a clone", per >>>> se). Hmmm. Are we confusing the terms here? I mean, are you >>>> sure you don't mean Partition Copy of C: to D:? >>>> >>>> Technically, a "partition copy" is (or rather can be) different >>>> than a "clone", as I understand it. I think the distinction is that >>>> strictly speaking, if you CLONE a drive, everything comes over as it >>>> is on the source drive, whereas if you JUST do a partition copy, you >>>> ONLY copy that partition to the destination drive (and the rest of >>>> the destination drive is untouched). >>> >>> I was trying to describe the difference between BING's COPY & IMAGE >>> buttons. With the COPY button you end up with a duplicate of the >>> partition you copy. >> >> And that's what I used when using BING. Partition Copy and Paste >> in BING on the floppy. > > That's the best thing! > >>> You do get an option to copy only the used space, >>> but you still end up with the same sized partition. It's bootable. >>> That's my D:partition! >> >> OK. >> >>> The IMAGE button (I never used it) gives you a single file (well >>> multiple, chained files) that contains all the files of a partition >>> kind of WinZip-ed into it. >> >> OK, I never used that in BING. >> >>> That's the one TBIView would be useful to view. >> >> I see. >> >>> And I think that's what your getting with True Image. >> >> Something like that. > > OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone around > too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do you already > have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do-- OK, then. Good. I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives inside of them); one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or replaceable, as needed) >> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip shortly). > > Enjoy. I'll be here. OK. :-) > -- > 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
Guest PCR Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land Bill in Co. wrote: | PCR wrote: |> Bill in Co. wrote: |>> PCR wrote: |>>> Bill in Co. wrote: ....snip |> Watch out for falling construction cranes in Manhattan! I won't say |> where I am-- but I root for the Yankees! But don't go near that new |> stadium until the cranes are gone! | | LOL. | I also remember some nice trips to Coney Island, and riding the good | ole Cyclone. However, I have to say, that area was a tad bit seedy. | But still, the rides were fun! I was there a few times. You are correct about all that, except that area & lots of others are being rebuilt or there are plans to rebuild them with those killer cranes. Stay away from there for a while too. ....snip | WHAT IE7??? I don't have IE7 on here! (at least not yet, and | maybe never :-) | I'm still using IE6, thank you. :-) I should have known! I guess I was figuring XP came with IE7! ....snip |> OK. But with all your 250 GB you should be able to have a clone |> around too. Wouldn't that be easier to access than an Image? Or do |> you already have it in an enclosure? That's right, I think you do-- |> OK, then. Good. | | I have two USB, external, HD enclosures (with IDE, PATA, hard drives | inside of them); one with a 80 GB hard drive inside, and the other | with a 40 GB drive hard drive inside (both removeable, or | replaceable, as needed) So, you have a BING copy of your system on one of those as well as a True Image image of it somewhere? That's ultra-safe! Very good. |>> (Well, good, I got this one off too before I take a short trip |>> shortly). |> |> Enjoy. I'll be here. | | OK. :-) :-). -- 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
Guest smith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Re: Turmoil Continues in XP land "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in news:OKx52SiwIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > 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. What you say is true if you have a SP2 system that has been updated. However, if in the context of this group, you are considering building a new system from the retail CD to upgrade from 98, SP3 adds a lot. If you install SP2 from scratch, you next have to update it and that means going through the patches and exposing yourself to the risks of that process. In the SP M$ is supposed to have gone through the patches, cleaned them up, and tested the result. That, theoretically, reduces the work of a new install and is of substantial value.
Recommended Posts