KB890923 and the new version of KB891711 work.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

In order to avoid the huge amount of crossposting in the thread started
by PA Bear, I'm posting this message instead.

I just installed the two updates and tried clicking on links in both
Mozilla (with proxies) and IE, and not black screens of death! Process
Explorer (a freeware Ctrl-Alt-Del on steroids):

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml

shows KB891711 running in the background, but Ctrl-Alt-Del doesn't. The
update now has a startup entry in the regitry at
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices.

Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
did on this update and thanks to them also.

--
Regards from John Corliss

 

[Shane]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
> did on this update and thanks to them also.

Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected them
to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works on
all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta test
it on the public.

Shane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:

>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>
>
> Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected them
> to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works on
> all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta test
> it on the public.

Shane,
Well, I'm sure they didn't make the original version of the patch
defective on purpose. And the alternative of course, would have been for
them to say, "Too bad it doesn't work for W9X users, guess you'd better
upgrade to XP." 80)>

--
Regards from John Corliss

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
> > did on this update and thanks to them also.
>
> Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected them
> to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works on
> all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta test
> it on the public.

Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was. We'd
just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so I
replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like "Huh?"
and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."

I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to deal
with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
"certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a zillion
configurations) was their objective.

- Bill

 

[Shane]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:ugtnPuDQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Shane wrote:
>
>>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
>>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>
>>
>> Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>> them to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it
>> works on all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on,
>> not beta test it on the public.
>
> Shane,
> Well, I'm sure they didn't make the original version of the patch
> defective on purpose. And the alternative of course, would have been for
> them to say, "Too bad it doesn't work for W9X users, guess you'd better
> upgrade to XP." 80)>
>

You sure are forgiving, John! The patch caused problems on my NVidia-carded
machine - if MS had let me know they needed to borrow one to see how it
performed, I'd have lent 'em mine! <vbg>

Shane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> Shane wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that Microsoft
>>>> did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>>
>>> Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>>> them to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it
>>> works on all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on,
>>> not beta test it on the public.
>>
>> Shane,
>> Well, I'm sure they didn't make the original version of the patch
>> defective on purpose. And the alternative of course, would have been for
>> them to say, "Too bad it doesn't work for W9X users, guess you'd better
>> upgrade to XP." 80)>
>
> You sure are forgiving, John! The patch caused problems on my NVidia-carded
> machine - if MS had let me know they needed to borrow one to see how it
> performed, I'd have lent 'em mine! <vbg>

Yep, mine has an NVidia card too:

Video Adapter WinFast(R) A280 LE MyVIVO Display Adapter
3D Accelerator nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X

I wonder how many other people with nVIDIA cards had the same problem.
Although updating to a new driver version might have solved the problem,
I'm loath to do so because it might have caused bigger problems. In
particular, I notice that when drivers get updated, sometimes various
features get left along the roadside.

--
Regards from John Corliss

 

[Shane]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:x-ednW8dTrchNMDfRVn-rg@giganews.com...
> "Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that
>> > Microsoft
>> > did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>
>> Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>> them
>> to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works
>> on
>> all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta
>> test
>> it on the public.
>
> Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was.
> We'd
> just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so
> I
> replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like
> "Huh?"
> and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."
>
> I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to
> deal
> with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
> "certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a zillion
> configurations) was their objective.
>

Often it seems to me they only tested one.

But hey, what are *we* doing *here*? Providing Microsoft's technical support
for (mostly) free? Both yourself and John may sympathise with MS, but,
frankly, I admire them!


Shane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:
> "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:x-ednW8dTrchNMDfRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>
>>"Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that
>>>>Microsoft
>>>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>>
>>>Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>>>them
>>>to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works
>>>on
>>>all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta
>>>test
>>>it on the public.
>>
>>Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was.
>>We'd
>>just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so
>>I
>>replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like
>>"Huh?"
>>and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."
>>
>>I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to
>>deal
>>with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
>>"certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a zillion
>>configurations) was their objective.
>>
>
>
> Often it seems to me they only tested one.
>
> But hey, what are *we* doing *here*? Providing Microsoft's technical support
> for (mostly) free? Both yourself and John may sympathise with MS, but,
> frankly, I admire them!

For what, their marketing department or their lawyers?

>
>
> Shane
>
>

 

[Shane]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Rick T" <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uO0JKdLQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Shane wrote:
>> "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:x-ednW8dTrchNMDfRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>>
>>>"Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that
>>>>>Microsoft
>>>>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>>>
>>>>Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>>>>them
>>>>to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works
>>>>on
>>>>all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta
>>>>test
>>>>it on the public.
>>>
>>>Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was.
>>>We'd
>>>just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so
>>>I
>>>replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like
>>>"Huh?"
>>>and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."
>>>
>>>I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to
>>>deal
>>>with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
>>>"certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a
>>>zillion
>>>configurations) was their objective.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Often it seems to me they only tested one.
>>
>> But hey, what are *we* doing *here*? Providing Microsoft's technical
>> support for (mostly) free? Both yourself and John may sympathise with MS,
>> but, frankly, I admire them!
>
> For what, their marketing department or their lawyers?
>

Their audacity.


Shane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:

> "Rick T" <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uO0JKdLQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>Shane wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>news:x-ednW8dTrchNMDfRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that
>>>>>>Microsoft
>>>>>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>>>>>them
>>>>>to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works
>>>>>on
>>>>>all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta
>>>>>test
>>>>>it on the public.
>>>>
>>>>Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was.
>>>>We'd
>>>>just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so
>>>>I
>>>>replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like
>>>>"Huh?"
>>>>and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."
>>>>
>>>>I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to
>>>>deal
>>>>with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
>>>>"certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a
>>>>zillion
>>>>configurations) was their objective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Often it seems to me they only tested one.
>>>
>>>But hey, what are *we* doing *here*? Providing Microsoft's technical
>>>support for (mostly) free? Both yourself and John may sympathise with MS,
>>>but, frankly, I admire them!
>>
>>For what, their marketing department or their lawyers?
>>
>
>
> Their audacity.
>
>
> Shane

LOL

--
Regards from John Corliss

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:
> "Rick T" <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uO0JKdLQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>Shane wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>news:x-ednW8dTrchNMDfRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Shane" <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23FoYwWDQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks to PA Bear for announcing the excellent repair job that
>>>>>>Microsoft
>>>>>>did on this update and thanks to them also.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems a funny thing to thank MS for, John. Personally I wish I expected
>>>>>them
>>>>>to get it right first time, every time, ie not release it until it works
>>>>>on
>>>>>all machines common sense would suggest it'll be installed on, not beta
>>>>>test
>>>>>it on the public.
>>>>
>>>>Years ago my new boss asked how large our Quality Assurance group was.
>>>>We'd
>>>>just had ANOTHER "problem" in the field, actually a bit like this one, so
>>>>I
>>>>replied with a sarcastic tone, "Hundreds." He said something witty like
>>>>"Huh?"
>>>>and I said, "Sorry, you'd probably call them customers."
>>>>
>>>>I have a certain degree of sympathy for Microsoft on this. They have to
>>>>deal
>>>>with a zillion configurations and can't possibly test them all. But that
>>>>"certain degree" is limited by remembering that this (running on a
>>>>zillion
>>>>configurations) was their objective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Often it seems to me they only tested one.
>>>
>>>But hey, what are *we* doing *here*? Providing Microsoft's technical
>>>support for (mostly) free? Both yourself and John may sympathise with MS,
>>>but, frankly, I admire them!
>>
>>For what, their marketing department or their lawyers?
>>
>
>
> Their audacity.

Audacity is only an admirable trait in smaller entities. In large (or
bloody huge in this case) multinationals it's arrogance.

>
>
> Shane
>
>