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

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?
37 answers Last reply
More about large number files copy delete
  1. 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?
    >
    >
  2. 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?
    |
    |
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
    > |
    > |
    >
    >
  5. 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.win98.gen_discussion/br
    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?
  6. 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?
    > |
    > |
    >
    >
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 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?
  10. 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:ODpm87fKFHA.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.win98.gen_discussion/br
    |
    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?
    |
    |
  11. 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:ODpm87fKFHA.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.win98.gen_discussion/br
    >>
    > 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?
  12. 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:ODpm87fKFHA.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.win98.gen_discussion/br
    | >>
    | >
    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?
    |
    |
  13. 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:ODpm87fKFHA.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.win98.gen_discussion/br
    >>>>
    >>>
    > 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?
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:OPTJI82KFHA.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
  23. 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
    |
    |
  24. 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
  25. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
    |
    |
  26. 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:ONe64vALFHA.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
    |
    |
  27. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  28. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
  29. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
    >
    >
  30. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
  31. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
  32. 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:OPTJI82KFHA.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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  33. 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
  34. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  35. 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
  36. 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
    >
    >
  37. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Internet Explorer Windows