Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IE6 SP1, and the "large number of files, copy and delete p..

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:47:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up the
system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or delete a
large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).

I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files are
swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if anyone is
using that now.

From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
"repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but other
than that, what's the verdict here?

So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse DLL
files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it working
out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:33:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you're going to replace two newer DLLs with older versions, why
bother to run IE6 at all? You've certainly negated at least some of
security benefits that IE6 has over IE 5.5.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
the
> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
delete a
> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>
> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
anyone is
> using that now.
>
> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
other
> than that, what's the verdict here?
>
> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
working
> out for you? Any problems?
>
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
"C:Windows\System\".

That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.

You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
Explorer only.

But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
the
| system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
delete a
| large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
| ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
|
| I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
| swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
anyone is
| using that now.
|
| From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
| "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
other
| than that, what's the verdict here?
|
| So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
| files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
working
| out for you? Any problems?
|
|
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

PCR wrote:
> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
> "C:Windows\System\".
>
> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.

Right - I remember that now.

> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will fail,

Well, those "losses" aren't too bad!!! (can always copy em back for the
IE Repair Tool)

> unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
> Explorer only.
>
> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.

Yeah, that's coming back now.

I'm wondering if anyone has been doing this for awhile now? I guess you
haven't swapped them out. I'm almost tempted to, though. I may do it.

> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up the
>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or delete
a
>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>
>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if anyone
is
>> using that now.
>>
>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
other
>> than that, what's the verdict here?
>>
>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
working
>> out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:44:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked fine.
Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files... does that make any difference?
Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this problem with IE 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other operating systems?


"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
> "C:Windows\System\".
>
> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
>
> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
> Explorer only.
>
> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> | Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
> the
> | system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
> delete a
> | large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
> | ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
> |
> | I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
> are
> | swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
> anyone is
> | using that now.
> |
> | From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
> | "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
> other
> | than that, what's the verdict here?
> |
> | So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
> DLL
> | files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
> working
> | out for you? Any problems?
> |
> |
>
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:44:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I believe the original thread in here that addressed these issues was this
one:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi...
owse_thread/thread/3b082d09e51e4dc3/3b593f09190d2ff3?q=(browseui)+group:micr
osoft.public.win98.gen_discussion#3b593f09190d2ff3

I would think it's best to keep the two IE 5.5 "browse" DLLs together as a
pair, in case they reference each other's versions, in some arcane function
calls (just as a guess)

I don't know whether or not the file copy problem can be solved by replacing
just one of them, but it may be a bad idea anyway, for the reason just
mentioned (who knows when it might raise its ugly head) But that's just
a guess on my part.

As far as a fix is concerned, I think the consensus here was: don't hold
your breath. I doubt it too. Besides, IE 7 will be out, if it isn't
already. (but that's no good for us Win98'ers, though)

Ivan Bútora wrote:
> How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program
Files\Internet
> Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
> Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked fine.
> Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files... does that
> make any difference?
> Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this problem with
IE
> 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other operating systems?
>
>
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
>> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
>> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
>> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
>> "C:Windows\System\".
>>
>> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
>>
>> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
>> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
>> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
>> Explorer only.
>>
>> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>> should things get worse after this,
>> PCR
>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
>> the
>>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
>> delete a
>>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
>>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>>
>>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
>> are
>>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
>> anyone is
>>> using that now.
>>>
>>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
>>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
>> other
>>> than that, what's the verdict here?
>>>
>>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
>> DLL
>>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
>> working
>>> out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:50:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

....and what about the IE 6 gold versions of the files - has anybody tried that?

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
> "C:Windows\System\".
>
> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
>
> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
> Explorer only.
>
> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> | Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
> the
> | system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
> delete a
> | large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
> | ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
> |
> | I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
> are
> | swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
> anyone is
> | using that now.
> |
> | From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
> | "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
> other
> | than that, what's the verdict here?
> |
> | So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
> DLL
> | files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
> working
> | out for you? Any problems?
> |
> |
>
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:29:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hi Bill,

As I had said earlier this year and the year before, that changing those
dll's did for the most part appear to solve that large quantity
file hang issue in some situations, however in the long run I discovered it
introduces other slight weird idiosyncrasies and so I think best not to swap
backwards those dll's anymore - which besides, you negate the newer security
changes made to those dll's which after the last cumulative which replaced
them once again - now this makes multiple security update changes one would
be missing besides the code disconnects it could present causing other
problems - so why bother..

I used the dll swap for a while and then went back to IE5.5SP2 because when
it came to that hang issue 5.5 was flawless, however that was a loosing
battle as far as staying security updated with 5.5 and so finally I just
decided to IE6SP1 my SE partition and trying to make peace or ignore this
current hang issue which certainly still is a problem. aamof just yesterday
it happened to me and I had to reboot to clear it but it doesn't happen
everyday because we don't do the things to precipitate it everyday, however
having said that it's also to note that besides the things you already
pointed out that causes the spaz, it can be activated even by deleting a few
files or renaming them off of a usb flash device, or deleting/renaming files
across partitions or network operations, and there are a few other ways that
it's gets activated as well ..certainly it's not perfect by no means, but in
perspective it's a small (but annoying) bug we'll have to live with; besides,
how long do you think we will hang around using W98SE anyway.. where more and
more each day I find myself working off of 2K or XP instead which will sooon
become the norm.. Although like most of you agree, W98SE will always be in
the class of the nostalgic best.

Rick


"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up the
> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or delete a
> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>
> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files are
> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if anyone is
> using that now.
>
> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but other
> than that, what's the verdict here?
>
> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse DLL
> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
> working out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:20:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> If you're going to replace two newer DLLs with older versions, why
> bother to run IE6 at all?

Because I *have* it installed now, and it would be a pain in the ass to try
to get back to IE 5.5 at this point. The only reason I'm here on IE 6 in
the first place is because of some of those damn WU updates messin with my
system! I'm thru with them now. Period.

Perhaps you recall that old chinese proverb? Let me modify it - for my
case:
" fool me once, shame on you! "
" fool me twice, shame on you! "
" fool me thrice, shame on ME! "

I'm done with WU. Fortunately I'm stuck with IE 6 SP1, which is pretty
secure in its own right. And I'm leaving it at that - period.

> You've certainly negated at least some of
> security benefits that IE6 has over IE 5.5.

If you want to be totally secure, I'd suggest you wait until we move into
the next world, as it ain't gonna happen down here. Or, if you prefer,
accept that "true security lies within"

End of sermon. :-)

> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up the
>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or delete
a
>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>
>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if anyone
is
>> using that now.
>>
>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
other
>> than that, what's the verdict here?
>>
>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
working
>> out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> As I had said earlier this year and the year before, that changing those
> dll's did for the most part appear to solve that large quantity
> file hang issue in some situations, however in the long run I discovered
it
> introduces other slight weird idiosyncrasies and so I think best not to
swap

LIKE WHAT??? For security updates? (if so, THAT is a non-issue for me,
since I'm done with them)

So far it's working out great for me, having swapped the files. MUCH
MUCH better in handling large numbers of files!

> backwards those dll's anymore - which besides, you negate the newer
security
> changes made to those dll's

(But that is irrelevant to me) (YMMV)

> which after the last cumulative which replaced
> them once again - now this makes multiple security update changes one
would
> be missing besides the code disconnects it could present causing other
> problems - so why bother..

Again, I'm done with WU, after all the experiences I've been thru.
Period, end of that story, finato.

> I used the dll swap for a while and then went back to IE5.5SP2 because
when
> it came to that hang issue 5.5 was flawless, however that was a loosing
> battle as far as staying security updated with 5.5 and so finally I just
> decided to IE6SP1 my SE partition and trying to make peace or ignore this
> current hang issue which certainly still is a problem. and of just
yesterday
> it happened to me and I had to reboot to clear it but it doesn't happen
> everyday because we don't do the things to precipitate it everyday,
however
> having said that it's also to note that besides the things you already
> pointed out that causes the spaz, it can be activated even by deleting a
few
> files or renaming them off of a usb flash device, or deleting/renaming
files
> across partitions or network operations, and there are a few other ways
that
> it's gets activated as well ..certainly it's not perfect by no means, but
in
> perspective it's a small (but annoying) bug we'll have to live with;
besides,
> how long do you think we will hang around using W98SE anyway.. where more
and
> more each day I find myself working off of 2K or XP instead which will
sooon
> become the norm.. Although like most of you agree, W98SE will always be
in
> the class of the nostalgic best.
>
> Rick
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up the
>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or delete
a
>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>
>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if anyone
is
>> using that now.
>>
>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
other
>> than that, what's the verdict here?
>>
>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
>> working out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 2:18:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bútora, Colorado, I think Chauvin has more experience with it than I,
BUT suddenly I do recall testing it briefly. There's no harm in the
testing; JUST DON'T wipe the newer .DLL's in the process, is all. My
memory is hazy on it. Really, you must try it yourself, as I see Chauvin
mentions several possible triggers of the flaw I never knew of. Yours
may be different from mine.

I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were loaded. I
can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (& put
the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...

At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you should
see the newer ones still...

browselc.dll 6.0.2800.1106 62 KB 8/29/02 12:00:00 AM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
Microsoft Corporation

browseui.dll 6.0.2800.1612 994 KB 12/7/04 05:41:16 PM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
Microsoft Corporation

...., & I guess that means you continue to have their protection in IE.

Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit Modules
Loaded" that I saw all four? Anyway, I DID lose "Explorer, View menu,
Lock the Toolbars" in Explorer; so I knew Explorer was using the older
IE5.5 .DLLs.

Best to test it for yourself. I don't DO a massive Copy of .5 GB worth
of folders full of folders & files in Explorer all that often to make it
worthwhile for me. (In fact, I've NEVER done it, except to test this
stupid bug.) Anyway, my last tries using the NEW .dll's weren't all that
bad. After the Copy, which goes quick (2 mins.), Explorer seemed to
freeze,-- BUT hitting F5 caused it to update it's display immediately, &
all was well. I guess it was stuck at the refresh. However, there was a
problem Deleting that bunch-- seemed to run out of Resources, IIRC,
though Resource Meter disagreed. It wasn't pleasant, but the Delete got
done, & I rebooted. Better do that reboot!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PER
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o Dpm87fKFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| I believe the original thread in here that addressed these issues was
this
| one:
|
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi...
|
owse_thread/thread/3b082d09e51e4dc3/3b593f09190d2ff3?q=(browseui)+group:
micr
| osoft.public.win98.gen_discussion#3b593f09190d2ff3
|
| I would think it's best to keep the two IE 5.5 "browse" DLLs together
as a
| pair, in case they reference each other's versions, in some arcane
function
| calls (just as a guess)
|
| I don't know whether or not the file copy problem can be solved by
replacing
| just one of them, but it may be a bad idea anyway, for the reason just
| mentioned (who knows when it might raise its ugly head) But
that's just
| a guess on my part.
|
| As far as a fix is concerned, I think the consensus here was: don't
hold
| your breath. I doubt it too. Besides, IE 7 will be out, if it
isn't
| already. (but that's no good for us Win98'ers, though)
|
| Ivan Bútora wrote:
| > How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program
| Files\Internet
| > Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
| > Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked fine.
| > Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files... does
that
| > make any difference?
| > Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this
problem with
| IE
| > 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other operating
systems?
| >
| >
| > "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
| >> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the
folder
| >> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program
Files\Internet
| >> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
| >> "C:Windows\System\".
| >>
| >> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
| >>
| >> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
| >> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you
do
| >> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
| >> Explorer only.
| >>
| >> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
| >>
| >>
| >> --
| >> Thanks or Good Luck,
| >> There may be humor in this post, and,
| >> Naturally, you will not sue,
| >> should things get worse after this,
| >> PCR
| >> pcrrcp@netzero.net
| >> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| >>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs
up
| >> the
| >>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
| >> delete a
| >>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
| >>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
| >>>
| >>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL
files
| >> are
| >>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
| >> anyone is
| >>> using that now.
| >>>
| >>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability
to
| >>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back,
but
| >> other
| >>> than that, what's the verdict here?
| >>>
| >>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two
browse
| >> DLL
| >>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is
it
| >> working
| >>> out for you? Any problems?
|
|
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 2:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

PCR wrote:
> Bútora, Colorado, I think Chauvin has more experience with it than I,
> BUT suddenly I do recall testing it briefly. There's no harm in the
> testing; JUST DON'T wipe the newer .DLL's in the process, is all. My
> memory is hazy on it. Really, you must try it yourself, as I see Chauvin
> mentions several possible triggers of the flaw I never knew of. Yours
> may be different from mine.

I tried it, and am still on it, and love it. I ain't going back unless I
have to! The difference in file copies and deletes is just staggering.
Now explorer acts like it used to - and like it's supposed to.

> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were loaded. I
> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (& put
> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...

I've done that already.

> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you should
> see the newer ones still...
>
> browselc.dll 6.0.2800.1106 62 KB 8/29/02 12:00:00 AM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> browseui.dll 6.0.2800.1612 994 KB 12/7/04 05:41:16 PM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> ..., & I guess that means you continue to have their protection in IE.
>
> Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit Modules
> Loaded" that I saw all four?

I see all four, two in the system folder, two in the internet explorer
folder, just as expected.

> Anyway, I DID lose "Explorer, View menu,
> Lock the Toolbars" in Explorer; so I knew Explorer was using the older
> IE5.5 .DLLs.

But who needs that in there, anyway. I don't lock em.

> Best to test it for yourself. I don't DO a massive Copy of .5 GB worth
> of folders full of folders & files in Explorer all that often to make it
> worthwhile for me. (In fact, I've NEVER done it, except to test this
> stupid bug.) Anyway, my last tries using the NEW .dll's weren't all that
> bad. After the Copy, which goes quick (2 mins.), Explorer seemed to
> freeze,-- BUT hitting F5 caused it to update it's display immediately, &
> all was well. I guess it was stuck at the refresh. However, there was a
> problem Deleting that bunch-- seemed to run out of Resources, IIRC,
> though Resource Meter disagreed. It wasn't pleasant, but the Delete got
> done, & I rebooted. Better do that reboot!

From my tests today, the difference is like night and day! Explorer is
*finally* working like it's supposed to! - like it used to, with no hangs,
so far, in my file copy and delete tests. Much better - and quite
noticeable. That previous hang in file copies and deletes was
unacceptable (for me).

> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PER
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o Dpm87fKFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> I believe the original thread in here that addressed these issues was
this
>> one:
>>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi...
>>
> owse_thread/thread/3b082d09e51e4dc3/3b593f09190d2ff3?q=(browseui)+group:
> micr
>> osoft.public.win98.gen_discussion#3b593f09190d2ff3
>>
>> I would think it's best to keep the two IE 5.5 "browse" DLLs together as
a
>> pair, in case they reference each other's versions, in some arcane
function
>> calls (just as a guess)
>>
>> I don't know whether or not the file copy problem can be solved by
replacing
>> just one of them, but it may be a bad idea anyway, for the reason just
>> mentioned (who knows when it might raise its ugly head) But that's
just
>> a guess on my part.
>>
>> As far as a fix is concerned, I think the consensus here was: don't hold
>> your breath. I doubt it too. Besides, IE 7 will be out, if it isn't
>> already. (but that's no good for us Win98'ers, though)
>>
>> Ivan Bútora wrote:
>>> How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program
>>> Files\Internet Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
>>> Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked fine.
>>> Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files... does
that
>>> make any difference?
>>> Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this problem
with
>>> IE 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other operating
systems?
>>>
>>>
>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
>>>> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
>>>> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
>>>> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
>>>> "C:Windows\System\".
>>>>
>>>> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
>>>>
>>>> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
>>>> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
>>>> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
>>>> Explorer only.
>>>>
>>>> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>>> should things get worse after this,
>>>> PCR
>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs up
the
>>>>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy or
delete a
>>>>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites folder
>>>>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL files
are
>>>>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering if
anyone
>>>>> is using that now.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability to
>>>>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back, but
>>>>> other than that, what's the verdict here?
>>>>>
>>>>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two browse
DLL
>>>>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how is it
>>>>> working out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:20:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > Bútora, Colorado, I think Chauvin has more experience with it than
I,
| > BUT suddenly I do recall testing it briefly. There's no harm in the
| > testing; JUST DON'T wipe the newer .DLL's in the process, is all. My
| > memory is hazy on it. Really, you must try it yourself, as I see
Chauvin
| > mentions several possible triggers of the flaw I never knew of.
Yours
| > may be different from mine.
|
| I tried it, and am still on it, and love it. I ain't going back
unless I
| have to! The difference in file copies and deletes is just
staggering.
| Now explorer acts like it used to - and like it's supposed to.

Glad you like it.

|
| > I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were
loaded. I
| > can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
| > "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (&
put
| > the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
|
| I've done that already.

That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too, you
know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone but
you.

|
| > At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
should
| > see the newer ones still...
| >
| > browselc.dll 6.0.2800.1106 62 KB 8/29/02 12:00:00 AM
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
| > Microsoft Corporation
| >
| > browseui.dll 6.0.2800.1612 994 KB 12/7/04 05:41:16 PM
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
| > Microsoft Corporation
| >
| > ..., & I guess that means you continue to have their protection in
IE.
| >
| > Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit
Modules
| > Loaded" that I saw all four?
|
| I see all four, two in the system folder, two in the internet explorer
| folder, just as expected.

At the "32-bit" window you see all four? What about at the "Internet
Explorer, File Versions" window?

|
| > Anyway, I DID lose "Explorer, View menu,
| > Lock the Toolbars" in Explorer; so I knew Explorer was using the
older
| > IE5.5 .DLLs.
|
| But who needs that in there, anyway. I don't lock em.

OK.

|
| > Best to test it for yourself. I don't DO a massive Copy of .5 GB
worth
| > of folders full of folders & files in Explorer all that often to
make it
| > worthwhile for me. (In fact, I've NEVER done it, except to test this
| > stupid bug.) Anyway, my last tries using the NEW .dll's weren't all
that
| > bad. After the Copy, which goes quick (2 mins.), Explorer seemed to
| > freeze,-- BUT hitting F5 caused it to update it's display
immediately, &
| > all was well. I guess it was stuck at the refresh. However, there
was a
| > problem Deleting that bunch-- seemed to run out of Resources, IIRC,
| > though Resource Meter disagreed. It wasn't pleasant, but the Delete
got
| > done, & I rebooted. Better do that reboot!
|
| From my tests today, the difference is like night and day! Explorer
is
| *finally* working like it's supposed to! - like it used to, with no
hangs,
| so far, in my file copy and delete tests. Much better - and quite
| noticeable. That previous hang in file copies and deletes was
| unacceptable (for me).

OK. Glad to hear it. I get no ill-effects from the stuff I normally do
with the NEW files. It's just when I go for that entire Program Files
folder the fireworks start. And it's the Delete of it, not the Copy,
really. I suppose I could have sat there forever waiting for Explorer's
display to update. All I had to do was hit F5, it turned out (that last
time, anyway).


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:o Dpm87fKFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| >> I believe the original thread in here that addressed these issues
was
| this
| >> one:
| >>
| >
|
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi...
| >>
| >
owse_thread/thread/3b082d09e51e4dc3/3b593f09190d2ff3?q=(browseui)+group:
| > micr
| >> osoft.public.win98.gen_discussion#3b593f09190d2ff3
| >>
| >> I would think it's best to keep the two IE 5.5 "browse" DLLs
together as
| a
| >> pair, in case they reference each other's versions, in some arcane
| function
| >> calls (just as a guess)
| >>
| >> I don't know whether or not the file copy problem can be solved by
| replacing
| >> just one of them, but it may be a bad idea anyway, for the reason
just
| >> mentioned (who knows when it might raise its ugly head) But
that's
| just
| >> a guess on my part.
| >>
| >> As far as a fix is concerned, I think the consensus here was: don't
hold
| >> your breath. I doubt it too. Besides, IE 7 will be out, if it
isn't
| >> already. (but that's no good for us Win98'ers, though)
| >>
| >> Ivan Bútora wrote:
| >>> How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program
| >>> Files\Internet Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
| >>> Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked
fine.
| >>> Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files...
does
| that
| >>> make any difference?
| >>> Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this
problem
| with
| >>> IE 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other
operating
| systems?
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >>>> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
| >>>> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the
folder
| >>>> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program
Files\Internet
| >>>> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
| >>>> "C:Windows\System\".
| >>>>
| >>>> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
| >>>>
| >>>> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
| >>>> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally,
you do
| >>>> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but
in
| >>>> Explorer only.
| >>>>
| >>>> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> --
| >>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
| >>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
| >>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
| >>>> should things get worse after this,
| >>>> PCR
| >>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
| >>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>>> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| >>>>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it
hangs up
| the
| >>>>> system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy
or
| delete a
| >>>>> large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites
folder
| >>>>> ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
| >>>>>
| >>>>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL
files
| are
| >>>>> swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering
if
| anyone
| >>>>> is using that now.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the
ability to
| >>>>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs
back, but
| >>>>> other than that, what's the verdict here?
| >>>>>
| >>>>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two
browse
| DLL
| >>>>> files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how
is it
| >>>>> working out for you? Any problems?
|
|
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:20:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

PCR wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bútora, Colorado, I think Chauvin has more experience with it than I,
>>> BUT suddenly I do recall testing it briefly. There's no harm in the
>>> testing; JUST DON'T wipe the newer .DLL's in the process, is all. My
>>> memory is hazy on it. Really, you must try it yourself, as I see Chauvin
>>> mentions several possible triggers of the flaw I never knew of. Yours
>>> may be different from mine.
>>
>> I tried it, and am still on it, and love it. I ain't going back unless
I
>> have to! The difference in file copies and deletes is just staggering.
>> Now explorer acts like it used to - and like it's supposed to.
>
> Glad you like it.

DEFINITELY!!

>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were loaded. I
>>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (& put
>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
>>
>> I've done that already.
>
> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too, you
> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone but
> you.
>>
>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you should
>>> see the newer ones still...

ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.

>>> browselc.dll 6.0.2800.1106 62 KB 8/29/02 12:00:00 AM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>>
>>> browseui.dll 6.0.2800.1612 994 KB 12/7/04 05:41:16 PM C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>>
>>> ..., & I guess that means you continue to have their protection in IE.
>>>
>>> Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit Modules
>>> Loaded" that I saw all four?
>>
>> I see all four, two in the system folder, two in the internet explorer
>> folder, just as expected.
>
> At the "32-bit" window you see all four? What about at the "Internet
> Explorer, File Versions" window?

Sorry. That's actually the window I was talking about (the last one)

In the "32 bit modules loaded" window (with IE and OE open), I only see the
IE 5.5 versions of browseui.dll and browselc.dll listed, interestingly
enough. Yet I am able to lock or unlock the toolbars in IE.

So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in the
\program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished, if
anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in the
"Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself mean much,
I guess.

>>> Anyway, I DID lose "Explorer, View menu,
>>> Lock the Toolbars" in Explorer; so I knew Explorer was using the older
>>> IE5.5 .DLLs.
>>
>> But who needs that in there, anyway. I don't lock em.
>
> OK.
>>
>>> Best to test it for yourself. I don't DO a massive Copy of .5 GB worth
>>> of folders full of folders & files in Explorer all that often to make it
>>> worthwhile for me. (In fact, I've NEVER done it, except to test this
>>> stupid bug.) Anyway, my last tries using the NEW .dll's weren't all that
>>> bad. After the Copy, which goes quick (2 mins.), Explorer seemed to
>>> freeze,-- BUT hitting F5 caused it to update it's display immediately, &
>>> all was well. I guess it was stuck at the refresh. However, there was a
>>> problem Deleting that bunch-- seemed to run out of Resources, IIRC,
>>> though Resource Meter disagreed. It wasn't pleasant, but the Delete got
>>> done, & I rebooted. Better do that reboot!
>>
>> From my tests today, the difference is like night and day! Explorer is
>> *finally* working like it's supposed to! - like it used to, with no
hangs,
>> so far, in my file copy and delete tests. Much better - and quite
>> noticeable. That previous hang in file copies and deletes was
>> unacceptable (for me).
>
> OK. Glad to hear it. I get no ill-effects from the stuff I normally do
> with the NEW files. It's just when I go for that entire Program Files
> folder the fireworks start. And it's the Delete of it, not the Copy,
> really. I suppose I could have sat there forever waiting for Explorer's
> display to update. All I had to do was hit F5, it turned out (that last
> time, anyway).
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o Dpm87fKFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> I believe the original thread in here that addressed these issues was
this
>>>> one:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi...
>>>>
>>>
> owse_thread/thread/3b082d09e51e4dc3/3b593f09190d2ff3?q=(browseui)+group:
>>> micr
>>>> osoft.public.win98.gen_discussion#3b593f09190d2ff3
>>>>
>>>> I would think it's best to keep the two IE 5.5 "browse" DLLs together
as a
>>>> pair, in case they reference each other's versions, in some arcane
function
>>>> calls (just as a guess)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know whether or not the file copy problem can be solved by
>>>> replacing just one of them, but it may be a bad idea anyway, for the
>>>> reason just mentioned (who knows when it might raise its ugly head)
>>>> But that's just a guess on my part.
>>>>
>>>> As far as a fix is concerned, I think the consensus here was: don't
hold
>>>> your breath. I doubt it too. Besides, IE 7 will be out, if it isn't
>>>> already. (but that's no good for us Win98'ers, though)
>>>>
>>>> Ivan Bútora wrote:
>>>>> How do you know that IE chooses to use the DLL's in C:\Program
>>>>> Files\Internet Explorer rather than in C:\Windows\System?
>>>>> Bill, I did try it one machine home in Slovakia, and it worked fine.
>>>>> Question for PCR: How about just swapping ONE of those files... does
that
>>>>> make any difference?
>>>>> Question for everyone: Does Microsoft ever intent to fix this problem
with
>>>>> IE 6 SP1? Does this affect only Windows 98, or also other operating
>>>>> systems?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u14AO%23eKFHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Better than swapping them out... Move the IE6 versions
>>>>>> of Browselc.dll & Browseui.dll from "C:Windows\System\" to the folder
>>>>>> that contains IE6 (IEXPLORE.EXE), which is "C:\Program Files\Internet
>>>>>> Explorer\". Then, move the IE5.5 versions of those DLL's into
>>>>>> "C:Windows\System\".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That way, only Explorer uses the older .DLL's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose "Lock Toolbars in Explorer. Also the IE Repair Tool will
>>>>>> fail, unless you switch the DLL's temporarily back. Naturally, you do
>>>>>> lose any MS critical patch that was applied to these DLL's, but in
>>>>>> Explorer only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I only know all of that from reading it, Colorado.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>>>>>> should things get worse after this,
>>>>>> PCR
>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uE4DTNeKFHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Well, I did try this out, and yes, indeed, lo and behold, it hangs
up
>>>>>>> the system (in windows explorer) a bit when you try to either copy
or
>>>>>>> delete a large number of files. (I tested it out on the Favorites
>>>>>>> folder ecently - copy, and later delete that copy).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen the fix proposed here, where those two IE 6 browse DLL
files
>>>>>>> are swapped out with the older ones from IE 5.5, and was wondering
if
>>>>>>> anyone is using that now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what I remember reading about this, you will lose the ability
to
>>>>>>> "repair" IE in Add/Remove, unless you put the original DLLs back,
but
>>>>>>> other than that, what's the verdict here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So - is anyone in here using IE 6 SP1 (and Win98E) with the two
browse
>>>>>>> DLL files swapped out to the older IE 5.5 versions, and if so, how
is it
>>>>>>> working out for you? Any problems?
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:40:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
....snip
| >>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were
loaded. I
| >>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones
into
| >>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (&
put
| >>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
| >>
| >> I've done that already.
| >
| > That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too,
you
| > know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone
but
| > you.
| >>
| >>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
should
| >>> see the newer ones still...
|
| ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.

Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of System\.
But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the Toolbars" in
IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I guess
the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we don't
want them).

I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer",
to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should prove it.

....snip
| >>>
| >>> Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit
Modules
| >>> Loaded" that I saw all four?
| >>
| >> I see all four, two in the system folder, two in the internet
explorer
| >> folder, just as expected.
| >
| > At the "32-bit" window you see all four? What about at the
"Internet
| > Explorer, File Versions" window?
|
| Sorry. That's actually the window I was talking about (the last one)

OK.

|
| In the "32 bit modules loaded" window (with IE and OE open), I only
see the
| IE 5.5 versions of browseui.dll and browselc.dll listed,
interestingly
| enough. Yet I am able to lock or unlock the toolbars in IE.

I think that means IE is still using the NEW .dll's, if it still has
that. After you rename them in IE's folder, what difference do you see
in IE?

|
| So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in
the
| \program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished, if
| anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in
the
| "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself mean
much,
| I guess.

No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.

....snip

--
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
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:40:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

PCR wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> PCR wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> ...snip
>>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were loaded.
I
>>>>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
>>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (& put
>>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
>>>>
>>>> I've done that already.
>>>
>>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too, you
>>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone but
>>> you.
>>>>
>>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
should
>>>>> see the newer ones still...
>>
>> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
>
> Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of System\.

Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are four listed,
and not two.

> But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the Toolbars" in
> IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I guess

Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not Windows
Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need it in IE,
for that matter).

> the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we don't
> want them).
>
> I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer",
> to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should prove it.

In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.

> ...snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Can it be, it was at "...MSInfo32, Software Environment, 32-bit
Modules
>>>>> Loaded" that I saw all four?
>>>>
>>>> I see all four, two in the system folder, two in the internet explorer
>>>> folder, just as expected.
>>>
>>> At the "32-bit" window you see all four? What about at the "Internet
>>> Explorer, File Versions" window?
>>
>> Sorry. That's actually the window I was talking about (the last one)
>
> OK.
>
>>
>> In the "32 bit modules loaded" window (with IE and OE open), I only see
the
>> IE 5.5 versions of browseui.dll and browselc.dll listed, interestingly
>> enough. Yet I am able to lock or unlock the toolbars in IE.
>
> I think that means IE is still using the NEW .dll's, if it still has
> that. After you rename them in IE's folder, what difference do you see
> in IE?

See below...

>> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in the
>> \program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished, if
>> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in the
>> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself mean
much,
>> I guess.
>
> No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.

If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried renaming
them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it sounds like
they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars option is
present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open. It would
seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still got IE 6 SP1
installed (for the most part, anyways)

> ...snip
>
> --
> 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
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:35:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23LYg5jpKFHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl

[..snips here n there for brevity..]

> So far it's working out great for me, having swapped the files. MUCH
> MUCH better in handling large numbers of files!

Yes I know, and although I was once a full supporter of swapping the dll's
but not necessarly now, I still support you doing it if you want to. You may
be missing my point though, but I do understand where you are comming from
and that's fine - your computer is yours to do with what makes you happy.

> Again, I'm done with WU, after all the experiences I've been thru.
> Period, end of that story, finato.

Okay I can understand that for the trouble you've had.
Sometimes in a few instances each year it does seem like what comes out
of WU is a beta, or should be; and it's understandable for the many that put
their belief in that what comes out of the WU, or any software install, is
going to be perfect or a final - is in for a big surprise. ..but for me the
final outcome of 'any type of software install just depends who's in control
of your own computer - you or them? !!

For those in to it and having Total Control over their own computer being
indestructible via partition imaging backups accessing/swapping whatever
files/partition images 'to and fro' in a minute, makes them impervious from
any rouge updates or Anything Whatsoever. Software testing is my thing to do
though and practice makes perfect to maneuver into or out of any and all
situations quite quickly. I wish I had that kind of perfect control over
health issues though so we could push a button to swap out anything there.

Anyway back to the dll swap thing - hey I never ever use/used the lock
toolbar thingy or the Repair Internet Explorer function anyway.

Happy trails,
Rick
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 2:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23LYg5jpKFHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>
> [..snips here n there for brevity..]
>
>> So far it's working out great for me, having swapped the files. MUCH
>> MUCH better in handling large numbers of files!
>
> Yes I know, and although I was once a full supporter of swapping the dll's
> but not necessarly now, I still support you doing it if you want to. You
may
> be missing my point though, but I do understand where you are comming from

Missing what point (from my perspective)???? I'm not sure what point I'm
missing. (if that is in regards to security updates, or making them
impervious to such as you said below, that's a non issue for me) Maybe
that's what you mean here.

> and that's fine - your computer is yours to do with what makes you happy.
>
>> Again, I'm done with WU, after all the experiences I've been thru.
>> Period, end of that story, finato.
>
> Okay I can understand that for the trouble you've had.
> Sometimes in a few instances each year it does seem like what comes out
> of WU is a beta, or should be; and it's understandable for the many that
put
> their belief in that what comes out of the WU, or any software install, is
> going to be perfect or a final - is in for a big surprise. ..but for me
the
> final outcome of 'any type of software install just depends who's in
control
> of your own computer - you or them? !!
>
> For those in to it and having Total Control over their own computer being
> indestructible via partition imaging backups accessing/swapping whatever
> files/partition images 'to and fro' in a minute, makes them impervious
from
> any rouge updates or Anything Whatsoever. Software testing is my thing to
do
> though and practice makes perfect to maneuver into or out of any and all
> situations quite quickly. I wish I had that kind of perfect control over
> health issues though so we could push a button to swap out anything there.
>
> Anyway back to the dll swap thing - hey I never ever use/used the lock
> toolbar thingy or the Repair Internet Explorer function anyway.
>
> Happy trails,
> Rick
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 8:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There's no point then and so you get the picture I'm sure, you've been around
for a while so you know the score ;)  ..and you can do what pleases you.

I had to smirk today, or I should say cringe because it did it to me again.
At once point though I had deleted a dozen 2GB backup partition image files
in total as I went along deleting some here and there in different folders I
was clearing out, and holding Shift as I deleted to keep them out of the
Recycle bin - but not once during that time did anything blink and they
deleted instantly, but then later that day after reboots, I was doing more
cleaning and deleted just a dozen little files in other places with a normal
delete... and I'd be darned if it did its annoying hang when I did it ..a
royal p.i.t.a ..had to reboot to clear the spaz or it would linger.

I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually, but most of all, the
point is I'm not going to do it anymore because it would be much better
served all around to fix it finally!

I think I said minor inconvenience the other day, well I've changed my mind,
at the moment I feel it's a ridiculous flaw :) 

Rick
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ea%23NjfsKFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > ...snip
| >>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were loaded.
| I
| >>>>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
| >>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (& put
| >>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
| >>>>
| >>>> I've done that already.
| >>>
| >>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too, you
| >>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone but
| >>> you.
| >>>>
| >>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
| should
| >>>>> see the newer ones still...
| >>
| >> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
| >
| > Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of System\.
|
| Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are four listed,
| and not two.

Yes. But which ones does IE use? Better if it is using the NEW ones, for whatever additional FUNCTIONALITY that provides, as you are not impressed with security reasons. It could be a lot more than "Lock the Toolbars". But, who knows? I guess it could as well be all of that is in the many other IE .dll's, that we aren't involving. But, what if some day those others .dll's want to talk to these NEW .dll's?

|
| > But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the Toolbars" in
| > IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I guess
|
| Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not Windows
| Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need it in IE,
| for that matter).

Fine, but see above.

|
| > the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we don't
| > want them).
| >
| > I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer",
| > to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should prove it.
|
| In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.

That isn't definitive, really (for me). It could be IE (but not E) already had "Lock the Toolbars" in IE5.5. Do you remember? If it didn't already have it, THEN the job is done: It is proven.

|
| > ...snip
....snip
|
| >> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in the
| >> \program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished, if
| >> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in the
| >> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself mean
| much,
| >> I guess.
| >
| > No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.
|
| If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried renaming
| them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it sounds like
| they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars option is
| present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open. It would
| seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still got IE 6 SP1
| installed (for the most part, anyways)

Still, I would like to know what happens after you rename those NEW ..dll's in DOS. Is there a dramatic difference in IE? Do even just "Lock the Toolbars" disappear?

|
| > ...snip

--
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
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It's your turn to jump in and give it a try. Why do I have to do all the
work?

PCR wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ea%23NjfsKFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> PCR wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> ...snip
>>>>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were
loaded.
>> I
>>>>>>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones into
>>>>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (&
put
>>>>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done that already.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too, you
>>>>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone but
>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
>> should
>>>>>>> see the newer ones still...
>>>>
>>>> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of System\.
>>
>> Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are four
listed,
>> and not two.
>
> Yes. But which ones does IE use? Better if it is using the NEW ones, for
> whatever additional FUNCTIONALITY that provides, as you are not impressed
> with security reasons. It could be a lot more than "Lock the Toolbars".
But,
> who knows? I guess it could as well be all of that is in the many other IE
> .dll's, that we aren't involving. But, what if some day those others
..dll's
> want to talk to these NEW .dll's?
>
>>
>>> But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the Toolbars" in
>>> IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I guess
>>
>> Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not Windows
>> Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need it in
IE,
>> for that matter).
>
> Fine, but see above.
>
>>
>>> the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we don't
>>> want them).
>>>
>>> I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer",
>>> to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should prove it.
>>
>> In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.
>
> That isn't definitive, really (for me). It could be IE (but not E) already
> had "Lock the Toolbars" in IE5.5. Do you remember? If it didn't already
have
> it, THEN the job is done: It is proven.
>
>>
>>> ...snip
> ...snip
>>
>>>> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in
the
>>>> \program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished, if
>>>> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in
the
>>>> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself mean
>> much,
>>>> I guess.
>>>
>>> No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.
>>
>> If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried renaming
>> them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it sounds like
>> they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars option is
>> present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open. It
would
>> seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still got IE 6
SP1
>> installed (for the most part, anyways)
>
> Still, I would like to know what happens after you rename those NEW .dll's
in
> DOS. Is there a dramatic difference in IE? Do even just "Lock the
Toolbars"
> disappear?

It's your turn! Report back to us.

>>
>>> ...snip
>
> --
> 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
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:00:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> There's no point then and so you get the picture I'm sure, you've been
around
> for a while so you know the score ;)  ..and you can do what pleases you.

I usually do, when I have the chance. :-)

> I had to smirk today, or I should say cringe because it did it to me
again.
> At once point though I had deleted a dozen 2GB backup partition image
files
> in total as I went along deleting some here and there in different folders
I
> was clearing out, and holding Shift as I deleted to keep them out of the
> Recycle bin - but not once during that time did anything blink and they
> deleted instantly, but then later that day after reboots, I was doing more
> cleaning and deleted just a dozen little files in other places with a
normal
> delete... and I'd be darned if it did its annoying hang when I did it ..a
> royal p.i.t.a ..had to reboot to clear the spaz or it would linger.
>
> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,

You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what specific
way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already noted)??

> but most of all, the
> point is I'm not going to do it anymore because it would be much better
> served all around to fix it finally!

Ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see. You'll be waiting for an
eternity.

> I think I said minor inconvenience the other day, well I've changed my
mind,
> at the moment I feel it's a ridiculous flaw :) 
>
> Rick
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> Rick Chauvin wrote:

[...]

>> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
>> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,

Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.

> You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what specific
> way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already noted)??

For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and so I
hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did (besides
the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not just to be coy,
but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way then and especially now
after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an issue or I would not of
mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the procedure.

IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different way
and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm not
going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was not
quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and resolve.

I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift key
down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from triggering
this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold positive
intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.

Rick
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:56:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

You like DOS, don't you? I did it a while ago. I was satisfied IE was
still using the NEW .dll's (& E, the OLD), but just can't recall how.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23LutN62KFHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It's your turn to jump in and give it a try. Why do I have to do all
the
| work?
|
| PCR wrote:
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:ea%23NjfsKFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>>>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >>> ...snip
| >>>>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were
| loaded.
| >> I
| >>>>>>> can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones
into
| >>>>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe
lives, (&
| put
| >>>>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> I've done that already.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer,
too, you
| >>>>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were
anyone but
| >>>>> you.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions",
you
| >> should
| >>>>>>> see the newer ones still...
| >>>>
| >>>> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
| >>>
| >>> Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of
System\.
| >>
| >> Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are four
| listed,
| >> and not two.
| >
| > Yes. But which ones does IE use? Better if it is using the NEW ones,
for
| > whatever additional FUNCTIONALITY that provides, as you are not
impressed
| > with security reasons. It could be a lot more than "Lock the
Toolbars".
| But,
| > who knows? I guess it could as well be all of that is in the many
other IE
| > .dll's, that we aren't involving. But, what if some day those others
| .dll's
| > want to talk to these NEW .dll's?
| >
| >>
| >>> But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the
Toolbars" in
| >>> IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I
guess
| >>
| >> Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not
Windows
| >> Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need
it in
| IE,
| >> for that matter).
| >
| > Fine, but see above.
| >
| >>
| >>> the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we
don't
| >>> want them).
| >>>
| >>> I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet
Explorer",
| >>> to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should
prove it.
| >>
| >> In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.
| >
| > That isn't definitive, really (for me). It could be IE (but not E)
already
| > had "Lock the Toolbars" in IE5.5. Do you remember? If it didn't
already
| have
| > it, THEN the job is done: It is proven.
| >
| >>
| >>> ...snip
| > ...snip
| >>
| >>>> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files
in
| the
| >>>> \program files\internet explorer directory has really
accomplished, if
| >>>> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show
up in
| the
| >>>> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself
mean
| >> much,
| >>>> I guess.
| >>>
| >>> No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.
| >>
| >> If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried
renaming
| >> them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it
sounds like
| >> they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars
option is
| >> present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open.
It
| would
| >> seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still got
IE 6
| SP1
| >> installed (for the most part, anyways)
| >
| > Still, I would like to know what happens after you rename those NEW
..dll's
| in
| > DOS. Is there a dramatic difference in IE? Do even just "Lock the
| Toolbars"
| > disappear?
|
| It's your turn! Report back to us.
|
| >>
| >>> ...snip
| >
| > --
| > 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
|
|
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:56:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I'm satisfied too.

Next?

PCR wrote:
> You like DOS, don't you? I did it a while ago. I was satisfied IE was
> still using the NEW .dll's (& E, the OLD), but just can't recall how.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23LutN62KFHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> It's your turn to jump in and give it a try. Why do I have to do all the
>> work?
>>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ea%23NjfsKFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>> ...snip
>>>>>>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs were
loaded.
>>>>>>>>> I can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer ones
into
>>>>>>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe lives, (&
put
>>>>>>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've done that already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer, too,
you
>>>>>>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were anyone
but
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions", you
>>>>>>>>> should see the newer ones still...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of System\.
>>>>
>>>> Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are four
listed,
>>>> and not two.
>>>
>>> Yes. But which ones does IE use? Better if it is using the NEW ones, for
>>> whatever additional FUNCTIONALITY that provides, as you are not
impressed
>>> with security reasons. It could be a lot more than "Lock the Toolbars".
But,
>>> who knows? I guess it could as well be all of that is in the many other
IE
>>> .dll's, that we aren't involving. But, what if some day those others
..dll's
>>> want to talk to these NEW .dll's?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the Toolbars"
in
>>>>> IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so I
guess
>>>>
>>>> Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not Windows
>>>> Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need it in
IE,
>>>> for that matter).
>>>
>>> Fine, but see above.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where we
don't
>>>>> want them).
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet
Explorer",
>>>>> to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should prove
it.
>>>>
>>>> In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.
>>>
>>> That isn't definitive, really (for me). It could be IE (but not E)
already
>>> had "Lock the Toolbars" in IE5.5. Do you remember? If it didn't already
have
>>> it, THEN the job is done: It is proven.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...snip
>>> ...snip
>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two files in
the
>>>>>> \program files\internet explorer directory has really accomplished,
if
>>>>>> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show up in
the
>>>>>> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of itself
mean
>>>>>> much, I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.
>>>>
>>>> If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried
renaming
>>>> them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it sounds
like
>>>> they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars option
is
>>>> present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open. It
would
>>>> seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still got IE 6
SP1
>>>> installed (for the most part, anyways)
>>>
>>> Still, I would like to know what happens after you rename those NEW
..dll's
>>> in DOS. Is there a dramatic difference in IE? Do even just "Lock the
>>> Toolbars" disappear?
>>
>> It's your turn! Report back to us.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...snip
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:02:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Colorado, it's your turn to discover the idiosyncrasies. Keep the NG
informed.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Rick Chauvin wrote:
| > There's no point then and so you get the picture I'm sure, you've
been
| around
| > for a while so you know the score ;)  ..and you can do what pleases
you.
|
| I usually do, when I have the chance. :-)
|
| > I had to smirk today, or I should say cringe because it did it to me
| again.
| > At once point though I had deleted a dozen 2GB backup partition
image
| files
| > in total as I went along deleting some here and there in different
folders
| I
| > was clearing out, and holding Shift as I deleted to keep them out of
the
| > Recycle bin - but not once during that time did anything blink and
they
| > deleted instantly, but then later that day after reboots, I was
doing more
| > cleaning and deleted just a dozen little files in other places with
a
| normal
| > delete... and I'd be darned if it did its annoying hang when I did
it ..a
| > royal p.i.t.a ..had to reboot to clear the spaz or it would linger.
| >
| > I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons,
and
| > because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
|
| You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
specific
| way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already
noted)??
|
| > but most of all, the
| > point is I'm not going to do it anymore because it would be much
better
| > served all around to fix it finally!
|
| Ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see. You'll be waiting for an
| eternity.
|
| > I think I said minor inconvenience the other day, well I've changed
my
| mind,
| > at the moment I feel it's a ridiculous flaw :) 
| >
| > Rick
|
|
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I suppose we just need 39,999,998 Frenchman to agree with us, then. Are
you willing to wait that long?

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o Ne64vALFHA.656@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| I'm satisfied too.
|
| Next?
|
| PCR wrote:
| > You like DOS, don't you? I did it a while ago. I was satisfied IE
was
| > still using the NEW .dll's (& E, the OLD), but just can't recall
how.
| >
| > --
| > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:%23LutN62KFHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| >> It's your turn to jump in and give it a try. Why do I have to do
all the
| >> work?
| >>
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:ea%23NjfsKFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>>>> news:%23N5tw4rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >>>>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| >>>>>>> news:eFWO0CrKFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >>>>> ...snip
| >>>>>>>>> I vaguely recall looking somewhere to see ALL FOUR .DLLs
were
| loaded.
| >>>>>>>>> I can't recall where, but, if you do it by moving the newer
ones
| into
| >>>>>>>>> "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer", where IExplore.exe
lives, (&
| put
| >>>>>>>>> the older ones into "C\Windows\System)... THEN...
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> I've done that already.
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> That's the better way, so IE retains the new ones. Explorer,
too,
| you
| >>>>>>> know, can access the NET. I wouldn't try it, now, if I were
anyone
| but
| >>>>>>> you.
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>> At "START, Run, MSInfo32, Internet Explorer, File Versions",
you
| >>>>>>>>> should see the newer ones still...
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> ALL four files are listed there (both versions) in that window.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Hmmm. There? Well... it must have fished the old ones out of
System\.
| >>>>
| >>>> Yes - it shows them in both directories, that's why there are
four
| listed,
| >>>> and not two.
| >>>
| >>> Yes. But which ones does IE use? Better if it is using the NEW
ones, for
| >>> whatever additional FUNCTIONALITY that provides, as you are not
| impressed
| >>> with security reasons. It could be a lot more than "Lock the
Toolbars".
| But,
| >>> who knows? I guess it could as well be all of that is in the many
other
| IE
| >>> .dll's, that we aren't involving. But, what if some day those
others
| .dll's
| >>> want to talk to these NEW .dll's?
| >>>
| >>>>
| >>>>> But, you say (& I can't recall) that you do have "Lock the
Toolbars"
| in
| >>>>> IE. That has disappeared for you in Explorer (it did for me), so
I
| guess
| >>>>
| >>>> Yes - the "Lock the Toolbars" option is ONLY seen in IE, not
Windows
| >>>> Explorer, (which is inconsequential to me). (I don't even need
it in
| IE,
| >>>> for that matter).
| >>>
| >>> Fine, but see above.
| >>>
| >>>>
| >>>>> the NEW .dll's are being used in IE-- & not in Explorer (where
we
| don't
| >>>>> want them).
| >>>>>
| >>>>> I guess, just rename the one's in "C:\Program Files\Internet
| Explorer",
| >>>>> to see whether you lose "Lock the toolbars" in IE. That should
prove
| it.
| >>>>
| >>>> In IE, Lock the Toolbars is present, and works fine.
| >>>
| >>> That isn't definitive, really (for me). It could be IE (but not E)
| already
| >>> had "Lock the Toolbars" in IE5.5. Do you remember? If it didn't
already
| have
| >>> it, THEN the job is done: It is proven.
| >>>
| >>>>
| >>>>> ...snip
| >>> ...snip
| >>>>
| >>>>>> So I'm not sure what putting the IE 6 versions of those two
files in
| the
| >>>>>> \program files\internet explorer directory has really
accomplished,
| if
| >>>>>> anything (except for saving them) Just because all four show
up in
| the
| >>>>>> "Internet Explorer File Versions" window doesn't in and of
itself
| mean
| >>>>>> much, I guess.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> No. We want IE to continue to use it's newer .dll's.
| >>>>
| >>>> If IE is indeed using the new dlls. Just for kicks, I tried
| renaming
| >>>> them while IE was open, and got "access is denied". So it
sounds
| like
| >>>> they are being used. Plus the fact that the Lock the Toolbars
option
| is
| >>>> present seems to suggest the new DLLs are active when IE is open.
It
| would
| >>>> seem, anyway. But does it really matter? Nah. I've still
got IE 6
| SP1
| >>>> installed (for the most part, anyways)
| >>>
| >>> Still, I would like to know what happens after you rename those
NEW
| .dll's
| >>> in DOS. Is there a dramatic difference in IE? Do even just "Lock
the
| >>> Toolbars" disappear?
| >>
| >> It's your turn! Report back to us.
| >>
| >>>>
| >>>>> ...snip
| >>>
| >>> --
| >>> 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
|
|
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:32:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine I tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably they were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files" problem itself.

Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is another one of those things where I really can't understand what the problem is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft software programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix it? Internet Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would think that two and a half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue which affects one of the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.

BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a different file manager such as FAR (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total Commander (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)



"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> > Rick Chauvin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
> >> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
>
> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
>
> > You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what specific
> > way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already noted)??
>
> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and so I
> hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did (besides
> the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not just to be coy,
> but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way then and especially now
> after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an issue or I would not of
> mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the procedure.
>
> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different way
> and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm not
> going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was not
> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and resolve.
>
> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift key
> down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from triggering
> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold positive
> intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I figure they are either not aware, or they don't care (and have limited
resources). Probably the latter is true, since IE 7 will be coming out
soon, right? So they might just figure why bother?

And maybe this problem is only true with Win98SE (and not XP). If that's
the case, then you have the answer already.

Ivan Bútora wrote:
> I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine I
> tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably they
> were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files" problem
> itself.
>
> Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is
> another one of those things where I really can't understand what the
problem
> is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft software
> programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix it?
Internet
> Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would think that two and
a
> half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue which affects one
of
> the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.
>
> BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a
different
> file manager such as FAR (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total
> Commander (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)
>
>
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
>>>> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
>>
>> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
>> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
>>
>>> You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
specific
>>> way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already
noted)??
>>
>> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and
so I
>> hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did
(besides
>> the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not just to be
coy,
>> but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way then and especially
now
>> after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an issue or I would not of
>> mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the procedure.
>>
>> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different
way
>> and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
>> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
>> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm
not
>> going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
>> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was
not
>> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
>> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
>> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
>> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and
resolve.
>>
>> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift
key
>> down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from
triggering
>> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold
>> positive intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 8:31:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I think the problem definitely doesn't occur on Windows XP or 2000. Does anyone know if it's the same thing on Windows Me or 98 original?
(Either way, of course, it does not give MS an excuse not to fix it...)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ufcnfhFLFHA.3592@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I figure they are either not aware, or they don't care (and have limited
> resources). Probably the latter is true, since IE 7 will be coming out
> soon, right? So they might just figure why bother?
>
> And maybe this problem is only true with Win98SE (and not XP). If that's
> the case, then you have the answer already.
>
> Ivan Bútora wrote:
> > I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine I
> > tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably they
> > were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files" problem
> > itself.
> >
> > Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is
> > another one of those things where I really can't understand what the
> problem
> > is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft software
> > programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix it?
> Internet
> > Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would think that two and
> a
> > half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue which affects one
> of
> > the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.
> >
> > BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a
> different
> > file manager such as FAR (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total
> > Commander (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> >>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
> >>>> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
> >>
> >> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
> >> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
> >>
> >>> You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
> specific
> >>> way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have already
> noted)??
> >>
> >> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and
> so I
> >> hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did
> (besides
> >> the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not just to be
> coy,
> >> but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way then and especially
> now
> >> after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an issue or I would not of
> >> mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the procedure.
> >>
> >> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different
> way
> >> and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
> >> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
> >> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm
> not
> >> going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
> >> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was
> not
> >> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
> >> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
> >> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
> >> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and
> resolve.
> >>
> >> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift
> key
> >> down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from
> triggering
> >> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold
> >> positive intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
> >>
> >> Rick
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:15:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:%23s68YXFLFHA.1308@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
> I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine I
> tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably they
> were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files" problem
> itself.

Yes in once sense the new problems 'appeared on the surface' to be less
significant than the hassle of the other and it's reboot to clear, but
nonetheless it was nOt working right on a few levels. At the time I even had
worked long and hard on the issue myself after it was discovered, and even
offered downloads of the files off my own server having also made quick swap
bat's making the dll swap forward & backwards easy automated, etc, ...but in
the long run I 'first hand' realized the dll swap hack and whatelse that
potentially wAs malfunctioning was just unacceptable to me, and for my own
quality piece of mind decided to scrap the hack and was better served to
move up to all the latest in IE6 and focus on that finally being fixed for
9x - if it isn't, well that's not my fault. I love using W200pro and I love
using WXPro and so I'm moving on; but admit still also love to use 98SE :) 

Yes I agree it should be fixed. nough said.

Rick
....ps, No the problem does not exist on W2K or WXP


> Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is
> another one of those things where I really can't understand what the
> problem is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft
> software programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix
> it? Internet Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would think
> that two and a half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue
> which affects one of the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.
> BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a
> different file manager such as FAR
> (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total Commander
> (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)
>
>
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
>> > Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
>> >> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
>>
>> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
>> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
>>
>> > You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
>> > specific way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have
>> > already noted)??
>>
>> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and
>> so I hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did
>> (besides the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not
>> just to be coy, but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way
>> then and especially now after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an
>> issue or I would not of mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the
>> procedure.
>>
>> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different
>> way and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
>> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
>> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm
>> not going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
>> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was not
>> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
>> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
>> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
>> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and resolve.
>>
>> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift
>> key down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from
>> triggering
>> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold
>> positive intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, if either of you ever happen to remember ANY of these idiosyncrasies,
I'd like to hear them, when and if you recall them. Just for my own
infomation.

At this point, I feel I'm pretty much stuck with this arrangement, I think.
I'd almost consider going back to IE 5.5 SP2 but 1) it would be a *real*
pain in the ass to try and do it, and get it right again, and 2) IE 6 SP1
has (in itself) better security and is (apparently) required by some web
secure sites (at least someone said that in here)

(And now since I've updated to MDAC 2.5 sp3, even an attempt to roll back to
IE 5.5 SP2 (if I wanted to) would probably be even more hassle than its
worth - nothing like adding more to the mix, LOL) But I'm pretty content
with IE 6 SP1 with those two browse DLLs files swapped out. At least so
far, knock on wood. And that horrible (and really, unacceptable) file copy
and delete problem appears to be rectified, at least!

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:%23s68YXFLFHA.1308@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
>> I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine
I
>> tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably
they
>> were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files"
problem
>> itself.
>
> Yes in once sense the new problems 'appeared on the surface' to be less
> significant than the hassle of the other and it's reboot to clear, but
> nonetheless it was nOt working right on a few levels. At the time I even
had
> worked long and hard on the issue myself after it was discovered, and even
> offered downloads of the files off my own server having also made quick
swap
> bat's making the dll swap forward & backwards easy automated, etc, ...but
in
> the long run I 'first hand' realized the dll swap hack and whatelse that
> potentially wAs malfunctioning was just unacceptable to me, and for my own
> quality piece of mind decided to scrap the hack and was better served to
> move up to all the latest in IE6 and focus on that finally being fixed for
> 9x - if it isn't, well that's not my fault. I love using W200pro and I
love
> using WXPro and so I'm moving on; but admit still also love to use 98SE
:) 
>
> Yes I agree it should be fixed. nough said.
>
> Rick
> ...ps, No the problem does not exist on W2K or WXP
>
>
>> Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is
>> another one of those things where I really can't understand what the
>> problem is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft
>> software programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix
>> it? Internet Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would
think
>> that two and a half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue
>> which affects one of the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.
>> BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a
>> different file manager such as FAR
>> (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total Commander
>> (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
>>>>> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
>>>
>>> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
>>> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
>>>
>>>> You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
>>>> specific way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have
>>>> already noted)??
>>>
>>> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and
>>> so I hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did
>>> (besides the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not
>>> just to be coy, but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way
>>> then and especially now after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs
an
>>> issue or I would not of mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the
>>> procedure.
>>>
>>> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different
>>> way and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed
themselves
>>> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
>>> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm
>>> not going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was
a
>>> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was
not
>>> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers
setups,
>>> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
>>> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
>>> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and
resolve.
>>>
>>> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the
Shift
>>> key down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from
>>> triggering
>>> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold
>>> positive intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
>>>
>>> Rick
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:50:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rick,

can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or Windows 98 & 98SE? Or also Me?

Thanks,

Ivan


"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:%238iPt5ILFHA.2252@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:%23s68YXFLFHA.1308@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
> > I do remember there were indeed some small idiosyncrasies on the machine I
> > tried it on, but I also can't recall what exactly they were. Probably they
> > were less significant than the "move/delete large number of files" problem
> > itself.
>
> Yes in once sense the new problems 'appeared on the surface' to be less
> significant than the hassle of the other and it's reboot to clear, but
> nonetheless it was nOt working right on a few levels. At the time I even had
> worked long and hard on the issue myself after it was discovered, and even
> offered downloads of the files off my own server having also made quick swap
> bat's making the dll swap forward & backwards easy automated, etc, ...but in
> the long run I 'first hand' realized the dll swap hack and whatelse that
> potentially wAs malfunctioning was just unacceptable to me, and for my own
> quality piece of mind decided to scrap the hack and was better served to
> move up to all the latest in IE6 and focus on that finally being fixed for
> 9x - if it isn't, well that's not my fault. I love using W200pro and I love
> using WXPro and so I'm moving on; but admit still also love to use 98SE :) 
>
> Yes I agree it should be fixed. nough said.
>
> Rick
> ...ps, No the problem does not exist on W2K or WXP
>
>
> > Frankly, the fact that Microsoft would knowingly not fix this problem is
> > another one of those things where I really can't understand what the
> > problem is. Do you think that it's really so hard for the Microsoft
> > software programmers to figure out why the problem occurs and how to fix
> > it? Internet Explorer 6 SP 1 was released in September 2002! I would think
> > that two and a half years would be enough for Microsoft to fix an issue
> > which affects one of the basic functionalities of the core of Windows.
> > BTW, an alternative workaround is also not to use Explorer, but a
> > different file manager such as FAR
> > (http://www.rarlab.com/far_manager.htm), Total Commander
> > (http://www.ghisler.com/) or WinNC (http://winnc.net/)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23Zh5df8KFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:o PTJI82KFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> >> > Rick Chauvin wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> I'm just not gonna swap dll's though anymore for various reasons, and
> >> >> because it's not perfect as you will notice eventually,
> >>
> >> Having fully tested it, I just think it's more appropriate to go back to
> >> IE5.5SP2 with all its latest updates rather than swapping v5 to v6 dlls.
> >>
> >> > You keep saying this, but you never really define it. In what
> >> > specific way is it not perfect (EXCEPT for the little bits we have
> >> > already noted)??
> >>
> >> For one thing it's been a year since I was really into testing this and
> >> so I hadn't defined what using the older dlls in a newer environment did
> >> (besides the obvious) was because what I called idiosyncrasies was not
> >> just to be coy, but was hard to define in any kind of intelligent way
> >> then and especially now after a year has gone by, but it certainly wAs an
> >> issue or I would not of mentioned it nor would I of abandoned the
> >> procedure.
> >>
> >> IIRC it was as if the problem still triggered but in a totally different
> >> way and iirc oddly the icons would linger a bit as they assumed themselves
> >> as I went along and there was an odd way the browser was carrying itself
> >> at all times ...geez... it's just hard to explain intelligently and I'm
> >> not going to even try here because it's been a year - but one thing was a
> >> certainty is that after using it for months I could tell something was not
> >> quite right with it and tested on a number of different computers setups,
> >> and so 'for me anyway' it was obvious swapping the dlls backwards
> >> between 5/6 was a hack I was not comfortable with anymore, and going
> >> forward my time & focus was better spent supporting discovery and resolve.
> >>
> >> I hinted the possibility in my last post that if having to hold the Shift
> >> key down on large size or quantify file deletes, etc, keeps me from
> >> triggering
> >> this problem, then I will just have do that for now anyway.. ..and hold
> >> positive intention toward supporting that it will somehow be fixed.
> >>
> >> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:euZa2zLLFHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> Rick,
>
> can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or Windows 98
> & 98SE? Or also Me?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan

IIRC it's all of them, but since I'm on SE at the moment which we know that's
100%, but in order for my memory to go from 95% sure about FE & ME I'd have
to re-image my backup partitions of them which would only take a few minutes,
but then install IE6 onto them and then test - I really have no immediate
plans to do that just to prove a 100% accuracy - unless it's a requirement
and MS told me they would fix it, including the MyDoc's anomaly if I did. <vbg>

Rick
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:38:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dreamer!

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:%23wS6exMLFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:euZa2zLLFHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> > Rick,
> >
> > can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or
Windows 98
> > & 98SE? Or also Me?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ivan
>
> IIRC it's all of them, but since I'm on SE at the moment which we know
that's
> 100%, but in order for my memory to go from 95% sure about FE & ME I'd
have
> to re-image my backup partitions of them which would only take a few
minutes,
> but then install IE6 onto them and then test - I really have no
immediate
> plans to do that just to prove a 100% accuracy - unless it's a
requirement
> and MS told me they would fix it, including the MyDoc's anomaly if I
did. <vbg>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, it *really* is a serious enough problem that they (MS) should revisit
the browseui.dll file and fix the damn thing.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Dreamer!
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:%23wS6exMLFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:euZa2zLLFHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
>>> Rick,
>>>
>>> can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or Windows
98
>>> & 98SE? Or also Me?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>
>> IIRC it's all of them, but since I'm on SE at the moment which we know
that's
>> 100%, but in order for my memory to go from 95% sure about FE & ME I'd
have
>> to re-image my backup partitions of them which would only take a few
minutes,
>> but then install IE6 onto them and then test - I really have no immediate
>> plans to do that just to prove a 100% accuracy - unless it's a
requirement
>> and MS told me they would fix it, including the MyDoc's anomaly if I did.
>> <vbg>
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:39:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Might break something else(?) Anyway, MS has a Wishlist, Wishbox...
something like that. You could always ask.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23LyjFCNLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Well, it *really* is a serious enough problem that they (MS) should
revisit
> the browseui.dll file and fix the damn thing.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > Dreamer!
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23wS6exMLFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> news:euZa2zLLFHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> >>> Rick,
> >>>
> >>> can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or
Windows
> 98
> >>> & 98SE? Or also Me?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ivan
> >>
> >> IIRC it's all of them, but since I'm on SE at the moment which we
know
> that's
> >> 100%, but in order for my memory to go from 95% sure about FE & ME
I'd
> have
> >> to re-image my backup partitions of them which would only take a
few
> minutes,
> >> but then install IE6 onto them and then test - I really have no
immediate
> >> plans to do that just to prove a 100% accuracy - unless it's a
> requirement
> >> and MS told me they would fix it, including the MyDoc's anomaly if
I did.
> >> <vbg>
> >>
> >> Rick
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 8:44:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

OK, one of my friends has a Windows Me computer, I might test it there at some point.

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:%23wS6exMLFHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:euZa2zLLFHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> > Rick,
> >
> > can you confirm that this is a problem only on Windows 98SE? Or Windows 98
> > & 98SE? Or also Me?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ivan
>
> IIRC it's all of them, but since I'm on SE at the moment which we know that's
> 100%, but in order for my memory to go from 95% sure about FE & ME I'd have
> to re-image my backup partitions of them which would only take a few minutes,
> but then install IE6 onto them and then test - I really have no immediate
> plans to do that just to prove a 100% accuracy - unless it's a requirement
> and MS told me they would fix it, including the MyDoc's anomaly if I did. <vbg>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
!