Re: MS05-002 on 9x and ME

From: Bill in Co. (someone_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/29/05

  • Next message: Herb Martin: "Re: block a user from deleting their temp internet files" 
    Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:06:59 -0700

    Why are you even waiting? Just switch the DLLs, and join us here in the
    21st Century, with a *working* Explorer.

    PCR wrote:
    > I can wait that long; Colorado, too. I'm hoping, really, cquirke might
    > get an MSFT person involved.
    >
    >
    > --
    > 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
    > "Rick T" <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23gH$Uv9MFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >> PCR wrote:
    >>> Bútora, Rick T-- Let me know what happens after you call; for instance,
    >>> any spittle in your ears? I will make my final decision afterwards. For
    >>> now, Colorado has hypnotized me against it!
    >>
    >> Won't be anytime soon... I like the 2 file replace fix if/when I go back
    >> to WinME though ChrisQ brings up a good point that some security fixes
    >> may be lost.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick T
    >>
    >>
    >> from a couple of my posts on the issue in 2004....
    >> ********************************
    >>
    >> I came at it from the other side; I installed litepc after (because) I
    >> installed IE6. Two behaviours I remember:
    >>
    >> - system was slow in that app A would wait for app B's diskwrite to
    >> finish before I could even move the mouse :(
    >>
    >> - Windows Explorer multiple file deletes slowed far past a crawl;
    >> anything over 10-15 (normal sized) files just stopped Explorer cold for
    >> literally minutes, if not crashing Explorer completely.
    >>
    >> If you run without the ie-html engine, your Explorer will be light-years
    >> faster than with it(as I'm sure you know), as I found when I subbed in
    >> the W95 browser thru the litepc - 'don't blink' sort of thing. With the
    >> 98/ME browser but ie-html engine removed, a little slower, with the
    >> 98/ME browser and ie-html engine but no IE, a little slower than that...
    >>
    >> Changing the HD to 'always on' fixed the multitasking problem (but I do
    >> *not* recall having that problem previous to IE6 install), but the only
    >> thing to fix the WE hanging/crashing was to uninstall IE6 (I tried it,
    >> it worked then I reinstalled the OS).
    >>
    >> I don't recall it being any more slower than usual loading programs
    >> (which isn't saying much).
    >>
    >> Barring further research, etc. I'm just taking the tack that IE6 was
    >> written for NTx and shoehorned rather poorly into 9X.
    >>
    >> Rick
    >> p3-667, 512MB
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> and another...
    >> *********************************
    >>
    >> >>Sorta like (personal gripe) the IE6 explorer files, which from what I
    >> >>can tell on my system is optimized for multithreading and just plain
    old
    >> >>crappy without it.
    >>
    >> > Don't know about that particular instance, but I've had a suspicion
    ever
    >> > since the release of XP that such is/was the general trend.
    >>
    >> The OS started acting like it had never heard of "multitasking" much
    >> less "multithreading"; formerly you could count on the hd-cache acting
    >> independently with write-behind enabled, but after the upgrade: mouse
    >> freezes while waiting for disk access on another window, WExplorer
    >> taking forever to delete > 20ish files... thought it was my own
    >> configuration bunging things up, but I saw a few others on these
    >> newsgroups/googling. Will try it again when/if the CD gets here, but
    >> I've been warning people off IE6 upgrade when relevant.
    >>
    >> Just seemed like the industry standard push to upgrade by "accidentally"
    >> screwing over older products.

  • Next message: Herb Martin: "Re: block a user from deleting their temp internet files"