Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Defrag Defunct

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:02:39 AM

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

Forum Folk;

I had mouse problems the other day, which I fixed. For some reason the
scheduled defrag now returns the message that follows.
I am running W98, OEM version, and I don't have a disc. Any advice on
how to fix this would be appreciated.

rooster
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Microsoft® HTML Help Control used an uninitialized variable, attempted to
access memory or a DLL that has been freed, or encountered some other
nonspecific error.

Module Name: HHCTRL.OCX
Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Control
Version: 5.2.3790.233 (srv03_gdr.040918-1Microsoft® HTML Help Control
Product: HTML Help
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

Application Name: Hh.exe
Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Executable
Version: 5.2.3644.0
Product: HTML Help
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

--------------------
Windows KB891711 component has altered Windows system files.

Module Name: KB891711.EXE
Description: Windows KB891711 component
Version: 4.10.2222
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

More about : defrag defunct

March 31, 2005 12:37:09 PM

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:o dvI8FeNFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Forum Folk;
>
> I had mouse problems the other day, which I fixed. For some reason the
> scheduled defrag now returns the message that follows.
> I am running W98, OEM version, and I don't have a disc. Any advice on
> how to fix this would be appreciated.
>
> rooster
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Microsoft® HTML Help Control used an uninitialized variable, attempted to
> access memory or a DLL that has been freed, or encountered some other
> nonspecific error.
>
> Module Name: HHCTRL.OCX
> Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Control
> Version: 5.2.3790.233 (srv03_gdr.040918-1Microsoft® HTML Help Control
> Product: HTML Help
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
>
> Application Name: Hh.exe
> Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Executable
> Version: 5.2.3644.0
> Product: HTML Help
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
>
> --------------------
> Windows KB891711 component has altered Windows system files.
>
> Module Name: KB891711.EXE
> Description: Windows KB891711 component
> Version: 4.10.2222
> Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>

The latest from MS:

"Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on Windows
98,
Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. At this point, we have been able to
confirm these reports and are currently working on a resolution.

"Please note that by uninstalling the current update, the machine will
return to a vulnerable state. At this point, we are currently not aware
of customer's being exploited by way of the vulnerability fixed in
MS05-002 on Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. If you need
additional assistance regarding this update, please contact +1 (866)
PCSAFETY."


uninstall for now
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:31:50 PM

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

Hi Haggis;

Thanks for your suggestion.

It didn't seem to help. Neither Windows Help nor the defrag utilty are
accessible. They return the Error Message: "
hh.exe.windows.chm::/IDH_Disk_Logical.htm" with the same text as in my
original post. Even worse, when I exit, the Program closes and I lose my
Desktop.

My poor little 16 MB unit is really staritng to clog.

Regards,
rooster
Related resources
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:55:35 AM

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

I see Kb891711 wasn't the cause, good thought as that was. You seem to
have the right versions of HHCTRL.OCX & Hh.exe. I can't think how Defrag
would involve those files in such a way as to cause this error. Were you
trying to click HELP during the Defrag? It is a good idea to remove both
Scandisk & Defrag from Scheduled Tasks, & run them on your own. Don't
let them constantly restart...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q287914
Articles about Scandisk
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q286263
Articles about Defrag

I must warn that Scandisk may not do a great job when there is a
great one to do...
http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/scandisk.htm
Therefore, perhaps UNcheck "Automatically fix errors" on it's front
screen. It will then ask whether you want each error fixed. If it sounds
truly horrible, say "No!", and post the log. The log will be
"C:\Scandisk.log". Do not let it constantly restart, either.
(When running Scandisk in DOS, there won't be such a box to uncheck. You
must do it in "C:\Windows\Command\Scandisk.ini", per cquirke's advice.)
REALLY, in light of all THAT, the BEST thing to do is to have a full
system backup to run to! Would you like my list of backup apps?

1. Turn off screen saver (R-Clk Desktop, Properties, Screen Saver--
None)
2. Turn off power management (Control Panel, Power Management-- Always
On,Never,Never,Never)
3. Disable any permanent internet cable connection, perhaps.
4. Suspend Task Scheduler
5. Turn off interfering programs. Use "StartupCop" or "EndItAll2" from
PCMag (below). Or "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab". Note what is
unchecked. Then, go to the General tab & disable the entire Startup
Group, by clicking "Selective.." & unchecking "Load Startup...". Reboot.
Don't forget to re-enable before the next boot.
6. Use "HDValet" from PCMag, or
(a) "Control Panel, Internet Options, Delete Files button, bolt Delete
all offline content, OK, OK"
(b) "START, Run, %TEMP%", & delete all files that will let you. This
will likely be "C:\Windows\Temp". This is best done after a fresh boot,
unless you have not seen the message "Reboot to complete this install".
7. Run Scandisk (Thorough, usually w/o write testing. Check all three
items under "Scandisk, Advanced button, 'Check files for' box". If you
want to be informed as it does a fix, UNcheck "Automatically fix errors"
on the front screen, or look inside "C:\Scandisk.log" afterwards.)
8. "START, Run, Defrag /p /details". Apparently, "/p" Defrags the
unmovables.

The purpose of steps 1-5 is only to prevent constant restarts of
Scandisk & Defrag, if you get them; but DEFINITELY turn off the Virus
Scanner. Scandisk should be done perhaps once a month, and certainly
after every serious crash. Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when
this says so:
http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking & Bob Flanders.
Also, take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly writing to the
HDD, which causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop too.

"DiskAction" reports the last 12 processes that access any partition. It
discovered the MS Critical Update Notification Tool was accessing my
HDD every five minutes. It can be uninstalled in "Control Panel,
Add/Remove Programs". Then, occasionally, "START, Windows Update" on
your own.

"BHOCop" found a Browser Helper Object called Wavehelper Class, created
by "Wavetop", that was building a monstrosity of an error log called
"Logit.txt" in here. "START, Find, F/F, Logit.txt"-- see one?

Now, my hard drive is quieter than my mouse. (Of course, I now also have
384 MB RAM, up from an initial 64, eliminating Swap File activity.)


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:o dvI8FeNFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Forum Folk;
|
| I had mouse problems the other day, which I fixed. For some
reason the
| scheduled defrag now returns the message that follows.
| I am running W98, OEM version, and I don't have a disc. Any
advice on
| how to fix this would be appreciated.
|
| rooster
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Microsoft® HTML Help Control used an uninitialized variable, attempted
to
| access memory or a DLL that has been freed, or encountered some other
| nonspecific error.
|
| Module Name: HHCTRL.OCX
| Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Control
| Version: 5.2.3790.233 (srv03_gdr.040918-1Microsoft® HTML Help Control
| Product: HTML Help
| Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
|
| Application Name: Hh.exe
| Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Executable
| Version: 5.2.3644.0
| Product: HTML Help
| Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
|
| --------------------
| Windows KB891711 component has altered Windows system files.
|
| Module Name: KB891711.EXE
| Description: Windows KB891711 component
| Version: 4.10.2222
| Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
| Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
|
|
|
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 10:31:57 AM

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

Hi PCR;

* I was running defrag from the menu , not as a scheduled task, when
the problem first appeared.

* When the error problem appeared, it said to click help. Dr. Watson
came up and when I closed it, the error message was still there. That is
when I got the "shutting down program" message.

I ran thru your Rx and got the following from the Scandisc Log after
Restart @ 7:

Microsoft ScanDisk

Log file generated at 04:05AM on Friday, April 01, 2005.

ScanDisk checked drive C for problems, with the following results:

Directory structure

ScanDisk did not find any problems.

File allocation table

ScanDisk did not find any problems.

File system

ScanDisk did not find any problems.

Surface scan

Data could not be read from cluster 98,848.
The \SYSTEM\ file is currently using cluster 98,848.
ScanDisk patched the cluster successfully.

Data could not be read from cluster 98,851.
The \SYSTEM\ file is currently using cluster 98,851.
ScanDisk patched the cluster successfully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was able to run defrag successfully, but, the Help file is still
unaccessible.

Microsoft® HTML Help Control used an uninitialized variable, attempted to
access memory or a DLL that has been freed, or encountered some other
nonspecific error.

Module Name: HHCTRL.OCX
Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Control
Version: 5.2.3790.233 (srv03_gdr.040918-1Microsoft® HTML Help Control
Product: HTML Help
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

Application Name: Hh.exe
Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Executable
Version: 5.2.3644.0
Product: HTML Help
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

rooster
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 7:42:58 PM

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

Hmm. One should always do a Scandisk (Thorough, usually w/o write
testing)before a Defrag. Seems you've proven the HELP problem is
unrelated to the other, unless somehow those two "patched" clusters held
something HELP needs. Anyway, perhaps one of these will restore it...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;252612&Product=w98
Windows Help Does Not Open from the Start Menu
(252612) - When you click Help on the Start Menu in Windows, the Help
program may not start. You may not receive an error message.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312456&Product=w98
"Cannot Open the File: Mk:@MSITStore:C:\Windows\Help\Windows.chm" Error
Message Appears When Opening Help
(312456) - When you click Start and then click Help, you may receive the
following error message: Cannot Open the File:
mk:@MSITStore:C:\Windows\Help\Windows.chm NOTE: You may receive an error
message when you attempt to open any Help file that has a .chm file...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;259449&Product=w98
Error Message: Cannot Open the File: %system root%\Help\Windows.chm
(259449) - When you click Start, and then click Help, you may receive
the following error message: Cannot Open the File: %system
root%\Help\Windows.chm.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;275539&Product=w98
Error Message "HH Caused an Invalid Page Fault in ITSS" When Clicking
the Index Tab in Windows Help
(275539) - When you attempt to open Windows Help or to click the Index
tab in Windows Help, you may receive the following error message: HH
caused an Invalid Page Fault in ITSS.DLL When you close this dialog box,
you may receive the following error message: HH...


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:urkKtdsNFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Hi PCR;
|
| * I was running defrag from the menu , not as a scheduled task,
when
| the problem first appeared.
|
| * When the error problem appeared, it said to click help. Dr.
Watson
| came up and when I closed it, the error message was still there. That
is
| when I got the "shutting down program" message.
|
| I ran thru your Rx and got the following from the Scandisc Log
after
| Restart @ 7:
|
| Microsoft ScanDisk
|
| Log file generated at 04:05AM on Friday, April 01, 2005.
|
| ScanDisk checked drive C for problems, with the following results:
|
| Directory structure
|
| ScanDisk did not find any problems.
|
| File allocation table
|
| ScanDisk did not find any problems.
|
| File system
|
| ScanDisk did not find any problems.
|
| Surface scan
|
| Data could not be read from cluster 98,848.
| The \SYSTEM\ file is currently using cluster 98,848.
| ScanDisk patched the cluster successfully.
|
| Data could not be read from cluster 98,851.
| The \SYSTEM\ file is currently using cluster 98,851.
| ScanDisk patched the cluster successfully.
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| I was able to run defrag successfully, but, the Help file is
still
| unaccessible.
|
| Microsoft® HTML Help Control used an uninitialized variable, attempted
to
| access memory or a DLL that has been freed, or encountered some other
| nonspecific error.
|
| Module Name: HHCTRL.OCX
| Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Control
| Version: 5.2.3790.233 (srv03_gdr.040918-1Microsoft® HTML Help Control
| Product: HTML Help
| Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
|
| Application Name: Hh.exe
| Description: Microsoft® HTML Help Executable
| Version: 5.2.3644.0
| Product: HTML Help
| Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:13:25 PM

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

PCR;

Whoop; I knew this would happen sooner or later. I do get the message:
"Cannot Open the File: %system root%\Help\Windows.chm", but the Resolution
requires:

3. Click Extract one file from installation disk.

...... and I do not have one for this OEM version installed on this Touch
Systems of Canada unit.

......... so does that leave me where I think it leaves me?.... (without the
benefit that usually goes along with having that done to you)

rooster
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:58:31 PM

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

You don't have a pile of CAB files in C:\Windows\Options\CABS? If you do
(several dozen of them) then point SFC file extractor to that folder.

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:o sY6hixNFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> PCR;
>
> Whoop; I knew this would happen sooner or later. I do get the
message:
> "Cannot Open the File: %system root%\Help\Windows.chm", but the
Resolution
> requires:
>
> 3. Click Extract one file from installation disk.
>
> ..... and I do not have one for this OEM version installed on this
Touch
> Systems of Canada unit.
>
> ........ so does that leave me where I think it leaves me?....
(without the
> benefit that usually goes along with having that done to you)
>
> rooster
>
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:29:55 AM

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

I'm sure I don't understand your question entirely. However, as Terhune
suggests...

"START button, Find, F/F, Win98*.cab" (That's *-dot-cab.)

If 55 of them show up, the folder that contains them is a copy of the
Windows Installation CD. Point SFC to that folder.


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:o sY6hixNFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| PCR;
|
| Whoop; I knew this would happen sooner or later. I do get the
message:
| "Cannot Open the File: %system root%\Help\Windows.chm", but the
Resolution
| requires:
|
| 3. Click Extract one file from installation disk.
|
| ..... and I do not have one for this OEM version installed on this
Touch
| Systems of Canada unit.
|
| ........ so does that leave me where I think it leaves me?....
(without the
| benefit that usually goes along with having that done to you)
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 7:32:02 AM

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

Hi Gary;

Its good to hear from you again, too.

SFC doesn't offer the option to "point" to my .cab files; instead it
allows a choice between:
"Scan for altered files....... if corrupt you will be prompted to
restore.the original file",

and: "Extract one file from installation disk" (which file may be
specified).

I do seem to have the pertinent .cabs:
Hh
Hhctrl.ocx
Hhctrlui.dll
Hhsetup.dll

I had been trying things such as:
"for%%Cin(*cab)doextract/y%%C%", hoping to get to wextract.exe or
expand.exe, but I am out of my depth (shallows) here.

rooster
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:54:23 PM

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

Rooster,

SFC most certainly ofers the ability to Browse for the folder from which
you wish to extract files, whether you're scanning for changed/corrupted
files or using "Extract a single file..." Note that you do not browse to
the specific CAB file, you browse to the folder containing the CAB
files, which is how mistakes happen if the CABs in the folder include
the same file more than once--SFC will grab the file from inside the
first CAB file it scans.

There are two KB articles that address this error message.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;259449
This one suggests that the Windows Help file, "Windows.CHM" is corrupt
or missing. You would use SFC to extract a new copy from your Setup
files.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312456
This article suggest that the HHCTRL.OCX ActiveX module is the wrong
version for your system. If this is the case (and if it is, *no* file
with the CHM extension will open properly) then the first step is to
determine which version of Internet Explorer you have installed. Then
locate HHCTRL.OCX in the CAB files that were used to install that
version of IE. If your current version of IE was installed from
downloaded files, these CAB files are saved in "C:\Windows Update Setup
Files" by default, though you may have stored them somewhere else or you
may have deleted them after installing this version of IE. Or, if you
installed this version of IE from a CD, that's what you need, or if you
have never upgraded IE, the files you want are in the original Windows
Setup files.

Once you have determined where the appropriate CAB files are stored,
then you point SFC to that stash of files, or you use the command-line
method EXTRACT. (Remember, to find the CAB file that has your desired
file inside, you use Find>Files & Folder, look for *.CAB files,
"Containing text..." {filename}

Another way to deal with this problemmight be to simply install the most
recent version of HTML Help.
This page may have what you need.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...

But wait a minute!: Looking through the paragraph at the bottom of that
page, there's a link to *this* page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/W...
"This update is a companion update to 810847: Security Update for
Internet Explorer. Q810847 is required to address a security
vulnerability in Help. However, Q810847 affects the normal behavior of
Help. This update restores normal Help functionality after installing
Q810847."

So maybe your problem is that you updated IE with 810847and failed to
install this companion Update 811630?

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eWBs1d3NFHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gary;
>
> Its good to hear from you again, too.
>
> SFC doesn't offer the option to "point" to my .cab files; instead
it
> allows a choice between:
> "Scan for altered files....... if corrupt you will be prompted to
> restore.the original file",
>
> and: "Extract one file from installation disk" (which file may be
> specified).
>
> I do seem to have the pertinent .cabs:
> Hh
> Hhctrl.ocx
> Hhctrlui.dll
> Hhsetup.dll
>
> I had been trying things such as:
> "for%%Cin(*cab)doextract/y%%C%", hoping to get to wextract.exe or
> expand.exe, but I am out of my depth (shallows) here.
>
> rooster
>
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 5:39:58 PM

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

| I do seem to have the pertinent .cabs:
| HH.exe >> C:\Windows
| Hhctrl.ocx >> C:\Windows\System

Those aren't .cab's, rooster; those are files to be found inside the
..cab's. A .cab is a collection of (usually) compressed files. Did
you...?...

"START button, Find, F/F, Win98*.cab" (That's *-dot-cab.)
Did 55 of them show up?
What folder were they in?

The folder that contains them is a copy of the Windows Installation CD.
Point SFC to that folder, in step (6b) below...

(1) "START, Run, SFC"
(2) Bolt "Extract one file from installation disk"
(3) Enter "Hhctrl.ocx" in the "Specify..." box.
(4) Click "Start".
(5) It should offer to "Save file in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM".
If not, make it so.
NOTE: HH.exe should go to "C:\Windows".
(6) In "Restore from", if not already pre-filled, browse to
(a) Installation CD (likely the Win98 folder) or
(b) The folder that has your cabs on the hard drive, likely
"C:\WINDOWS\options\cabs\".
(7) Click "OK"

If it discovers the file already exists, it will offer to back it up.
May as well do so. If it discovers the file is "in use", it will request
that you reboot to complete the install.


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eWBs1d3NFHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Hi Gary;
|
| Its good to hear from you again, too.
|
| SFC doesn't offer the option to "point" to my .cab files; instead
it
| allows a choice between:
| "Scan for altered files....... if corrupt you will be prompted to
| restore.the original file",
|
| and: "Extract one file from installation disk" (which file may be
| specified).
|
| I do seem to have the pertinent .cabs:
| Hh
| Hhctrl.ocx
| Hhctrlui.dll
| Hhsetup.dll
|
| I had been trying things such as:
| "for%%Cin(*cab)doextract/y%%C%", hoping to get to wextract.exe or
| expand.exe, but I am out of my depth (shallows) here.
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:41:20 AM

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

It's getting weird;

Somewhere in the defrag fix... and thank y'all very much... the
clock/calendar set itself to September and the replies to this thread
disappeared. My posts were kept, just that all the replies from Haggis, PCR
and the Birthday Boy were lost.

rooster

p.s. This is a second attempt at posting this. The first was returned as
undeliverable by my ISP
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:00:24 AM

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

Uhuh. But is it back to normal now? If not, do you know how to reset the
NG?

Could be the "undeliverable" was also due to the bad date, I imagine.
Better keep an eye on that date!


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:uQrKuplOFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| It's getting weird;
|
| Somewhere in the defrag fix... and thank y'all very much... the
| clock/calendar set itself to September and the replies to this thread
| disappeared. My posts were kept, just that all the replies from
Haggis, PCR
| and the Birthday Boy were lost.
|
| rooster
|
| p.s. This is a second attempt at posting this. The first was returned
as
| undeliverable by my ISP
|
|
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:56:12 AM

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

PCR;

"But is it back to normal now?"

Yes; I reset both as soon as I noticed the error.

KB891711
Am I correct assuming my system is still patched even though I deleted
the contents of the file in Add/Remove?
......Is MS working on a fix for this?
......Do I need to do anything in Registry?
......Would Loop Quantum Gravity theory be helpful in recalibrating my
computer clock to advance in Planck Time increments?

rooster
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:31:47 PM

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:%23YtxPg1OFHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> KB891711
> Am I correct assuming my system is still patched even though I
deleted
> the contents of the file in Add/Remove?

No. You removed the patch and it is no longer in place. You may or may
not be offered the patch by Windows Updates.

> .....Is MS working on a fix for this?

Yes.

> .....Do I need to do anything in Registry?

No. But you *should* be extra careful about AV real-time protection and
the health of your AV, and use "Plain Text Only" settings in email
clients. This vulnerability is a serious one and HTML SPAM is a major
method of dispersal.

> .....Would Loop Quantum Gravity theory be helpful in recalibrating my
> computer clock to advance in Planck Time increments?

I have no idea.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:46:46 PM

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

You are not protected, if you uninstalled it. NOW, I've read it may be tough to rid yourself entirely of KB891711. It leaves stuff behind maybe, unless you've uninstalled it in Safe Mode, they say. Then, Windows Update may never offer it again, EVEN after MS has fixed it. So...

Can you figure what you must do from the following...?...

NOTE: If you unchecked it in MSConfig, then the first Registry key mentioned below will not have it, but it will be in the minus key...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices-

news:eaKRLVwJFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
.........Quote...............
The install is really really a simple one though, and just for notation
here is exactly what the simple install does, and from this it's easy to
make sure the uninstall is complete if ever need be:

(for files - only 3 were added and no other file changes were made)

C:\WINDOWS\INF\QFE\W98\
891711UN.INF

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\KB891711\
KB891711exe
Q891711.dll

(and for the registry the install only Added a few entires - it made no
other changes)

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed
Components\{2cd1b477-8d46-4b86-b7dc-13fb65fb5914}]
@="Windows 98 KB891711 Update"
"IsInstalled"=dword:00000001
"Locale"="EN"
"Version"="4.10.0.2222"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices]
"KB891711"="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\KB891711\\KB891711.EXE"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\Updates\W98\UPD891711]
@="Windows 98 KB891711 Update"
"C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\KB891711\\KB891711.EXE"=""
"C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\KB891711\\Q891711.DLL"=""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\891711]
@=""
"DisplayName"="Windows 98 KB891711 Update"
"UninstallString"="RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection
C:\\WINDOWS\\INF\\QFE\\W98\\891711UN.INF"
.........EOQ.................


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message news:%23YtxPg1OFHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| PCR;
|
| "But is it back to normal now?"
|
| Yes; I reset both as soon as I noticed the error.
|
| KB891711
| Am I correct assuming my system is still patched even though I deleted
| the contents of the file in Add/Remove?
| .....Is MS working on a fix for this?
| .....Do I need to do anything in Registry?
| .....Would Loop Quantum Gravity theory be helpful in recalibrating my
| computer clock to advance in Planck Time increments?
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:04:52 AM

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

PCR;

"You are not protected, if you uninstalled it."

Your word, as always, pretty much settles the matter, for me. What had
given me pause was something I saw when Googling to another site; W98
Annoyances ... or something like. The advisor (Trey, I think) wrote:
<snip>
"Whether it's in your
>startups or not, the system is still patched. The idea of it being in
startup is related to any future updates, that may come out." <snip>

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/t1111618336
Posted by Robin (3 messages posted)
<snip>
"I called Microsoft and they said there is a problem with that update and
Win98 and they are working on a new one. Currently, their resolution is to
just delete it from the registry and wait for the new update." <snip>
~~~~~~~~~~
Can you figure what you must do from the following...?...
"...but it will be in the minus key..."

That was what threw me; I only saw a Default file in there. It didn't
occur to me to hit the minus key.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gary;

Having done the unistall @msconfig, and now that everything seems to
be back to normal, is there any reason to bother with Registry? Is Robin
(above) concerned that those lingering files might impair the reinstall of
the 'fix' when it is ready?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Viruses, Worms, Hacking, Spoofs, Vampires, Bombs etc., are a major
concern to me due to the nature of the internet activity for which I use
this computer. I get 4-5 serious attacks every day. So far, so good, but its
only a matter of time until "they" succeed. That is why I still use this old
clunker for all my email and site correspondence instead of my new one,
which is on a seperate ISP feed and which uses a different O/S and server.
So, I am anxious to get the protection of KB891711 ASAP. I know my
"Nemesis" is going to get me eventually; but, I am having enormous fun
playing internet Battleships with him and his org. So far, I am way ahead
and I am enjoying a season of pleasant and undeserved vainglory which is
really nothing more than "beginners' dumb luck".

rooster
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:00:35 PM

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

Well, we were graced with a hit & run visit by one Jerry Bryant
[MSFT] who had every opportunity to tell us KB891711 could work without
being in the Startup Group. He never said that, while appearing to be a
trustworthy sort. Also, a close examination of the files/Registry
entries it made uncovers nothing that could be doing it's work but
KB891711.exe. Nothing else was modified that could call Q891711.DLL.

So, better make sure all of it was uninstalled,-- the
files/folders/Registry entries,-- OR the fixed one may not come in, some
have said! I suppose once the bad is again offered to you at Windows
Update, then the fixed would also be offered. (But don't keep taking the
bad one back in. Uh, I guess the fixed one will have a different look to
it, but Bryant was too busy to say.)


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eEiESDAPFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| PCR;
|
| "You are not protected, if you uninstalled it."
|
| Your word, as always, pretty much settles the matter, for me.
What had
| given me pause was something I saw when Googling to another site; W98
| Annoyances ... or something like. The advisor (Trey, I think) wrote:
| <snip>
| "Whether it's in your
| >startups or not, the system is still patched. The idea of it being in
| startup is related to any future updates, that may come out." <snip>
|
| http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/t1111618336
| Posted by Robin (3 messages posted)
| <snip>
| "I called Microsoft and they said there is a problem with that update
and
| Win98 and they are working on a new one. Currently, their resolution
is to
| just delete it from the registry and wait for the new update." <snip>
| ~~~~~~~~~~
| Can you figure what you must do from the following...?...
| "...but it will be in the minus key..."
|
| That was what threw me; I only saw a Default file in there. It
didn't
| occur to me to hit the minus key.
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| Gary;
|
| Having done the unistall @msconfig, and now that everything
seems to
| be back to normal, is there any reason to bother with Registry? Is
Robin
| (above) concerned that those lingering files might impair the
reinstall of
| the 'fix' when it is ready?
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| Viruses, Worms, Hacking, Spoofs, Vampires, Bombs etc., are a
major
| concern to me due to the nature of the internet activity for which I
use
| this computer. I get 4-5 serious attacks every day. So far, so good,
but its
| only a matter of time until "they" succeed. That is why I still use
this old
| clunker for all my email and site correspondence instead of my new
one,
| which is on a seperate ISP feed and which uses a different O/S and
server.
| So, I am anxious to get the protection of KB891711 ASAP. I know
my
| "Nemesis" is going to get me eventually; but, I am having enormous fun
| playing internet Battleships with him and his org. So far, I am way
ahead
| and I am enjoying a season of pleasant and undeserved vainglory which
is
| really nothing more than "beginners' dumb luck".
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:38:02 PM

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

Hi PCR;

*All* of the Reg entries you catalogued seem to have been excized by
the Add/Delete utility, minus key notwithstanding. I also checked: ....
/Run- just to make sure.

With the possible exeption of y'all, there seems to be a lot of
confusion about this "Critical Update". I wish I had referenced it, but
someone posted that they had been convinced by an MS tech supporter that W98
users didn't need the update; already. Apparently, we do; at least that is
the way the W bumph reads on my screen.


W98 Forever

rooster
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:44:43 PM

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

Quite a few people were "convinced by an MS tech supporter that W98
users didn't need the update."

That was before we made a stink. I'm assured by the top brass that the
front-line PSS staff are now onboard and no longer making that mistake.

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:u0$ENrSPFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi PCR;
>
> *All* of the Reg entries you catalogued seem to have been excized
by
> the Add/Delete utility, minus key notwithstanding. I also checked:
.....
> /Run- just to make sure.
>
> With the possible exeption of y'all, there seems to be a lot of
> confusion about this "Critical Update". I wish I had referenced it,
but
> someone posted that they had been convinced by an MS tech supporter
that W98
> users didn't need the update; already. Apparently, we do; at least
that is
> the way the W bumph reads on my screen.
>
>
> W98 Forever
>
> rooster
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:57:35 PM

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

Sorry, I missed the additional copy in your previous.

I'm assuming that MS had a very good reason for including KB891711.exe
as a background app. I'm assuming that whatever protection it offers is
seriously compromised by not running it thusly. IOW, I don't see that
Robin is correct. I think the background app *is* the fix where Win9x
systems are concerned. I think that if PSS thought that simply disabling
KB891711, or running and then exiting KB891711, was a decent
alternative, they'd have said so by now.

So, simply disabling the app in MSCONFIG is not a "glass-half-full"
measure. And as a mater of terminology, disabling it in MSCONFIG is not
an "uninstall" at all.

If the machine can't run with KB891711 installed and active, I suggest
you uninstall it in Add/Remove Programs. That way you'll avoid the
possibility of accidentally re-enabling it. MSCONFIG is intended as a
trouble-shooting tool, and shouldn't be used for long-term
configuration. But remember to reenable the item in MSCONFIG (without
restarting) before properly uninstalling it. Otherwise, that command
will remain in the Run- key.

After uninstalling KB891711, do *not* perform a search & destroy on all
things "KB891711", since getting rid of those things will prompt Windows
Updates to re-offer the patch (if it's still on the site, which I assume
it is, since the majority of persons running Win9x don't have problems
with the patch and *need* it.)

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eEiESDAPFHA.1932@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Gary;
>
> Having done the unistall @msconfig, and now that everything
seems to
> be back to normal, is there any reason to bother with Registry? Is
Robin
> (above) concerned that those lingering files might impair the
reinstall of
> the 'fix' when it is ready?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Viruses, Worms, Hacking, Spoofs, Vampires, Bombs etc., are a
major
> concern to me due to the nature of the internet activity for which I
use
> this computer. I get 4-5 serious attacks every day. So far, so good,
but its
> only a matter of time until "they" succeed. That is why I still use
this old
> clunker for all my email and site correspondence instead of my new
one,
> which is on a seperate ISP feed and which uses a different O/S and
server.
> So, I am anxious to get the protection of KB891711 ASAP. I know
my
> "Nemesis" is going to get me eventually; but, I am having enormous fun
> playing internet Battleships with him and his org. So far, I am way
ahead
> and I am enjoying a season of pleasant and undeserved vainglory which
is
> really nothing more than "beginners' dumb luck".
>
> rooster
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 8:13:53 PM

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

I'm not free of confusion over Kb891711. Being an .exe, Kb891711.exe
could have done anything after running once, but Bryant never said so &
is working on a fix. Otherwise, nothing in the install seems to have
affected other files. So, whatever the fix was supposed to do, it is
unlikely it can do it w/o Kb891711.exe actually running.

I suppose, as you are rid of it entirely, Windows Update does offer it
to you again. Don't take it yet.


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:u0$ENrSPFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Hi PCR;
|
| *All* of the Reg entries you catalogued seem to have been excized
by
| the Add/Delete utility, minus key notwithstanding. I also checked:
.....
| /Run- just to make sure.
|
| With the possible exeption of y'all, there seems to be a lot of
| confusion about this "Critical Update". I wish I had referenced it,
but
| someone posted that they had been convinced by an MS tech supporter
that W98
| users didn't need the update; already. Apparently, we do; at least
that is
| the way the W bumph reads on my screen.
|
|
| W98 Forever
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:03:10 AM

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

Gary;

I've been over this so many times I think I've gotten some of the
signposts out of order.

* On Hagis' counsel:
"Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on Windows
98..."
"uninstall for now"

I chose to unistall it @ Add/Delete, *not* @ msconfig.

* When this didn't resolve my defrag problem or my Help access problem, I
followed PCR's Rx and ran Scandisc again after a "Clean Boot". This
allowed defrag to run successfully.

* I then followed PCR's Rx to retrieve " Hhctrl.ocx", (Eureka !!). I didn't
manage to place it where it belongs; instead, it is lurking in a New File on
my Desktop. The Help Menu is accessible again, so the primary objective got
met. BTW, my computer opens the Help file in half the time it used to take.

* Reading internet bumph on KB891711, I came across several posters who had
tried to remove the UD, but succeeded only partially, citing remnants in
Startup (hence my misleading reference to msconfig) or in Registry,
depending. Issues of vulnerability also recurred... so I thought I should
review what I had done. There wasn't anything in Startup but when I checked
Registry, I got a bit confused and was unsure if I had looked in the right
place(s). As it stood, the whole UD was as gone as a driveway paving
contractor after the first frost of Fall.

* I am not convinced KB891711 was a problem for me in the first place. It
seems to me that I caused a "scratch" on my HD when I waxed wroth over a
naughty mouse and undid the Serial Bus before shutting down by way of
teaching it just who was boss. Once the divoted file (Hhctrl.ocx) had got
resodded on my desktop, scandisc=> defrag could run, access and present the
Help file, having 'sus'd' the operator was going to be needing it to deal
with the defective HD . I don't know if such a protocol actually exist, but
if it occurs to an idiot, then it almost certainly occured to a programmer.

* "...the majority of persons running Win9x don't have problems" ...
maybe if I do reinstall it and the problem returns, that would settle the
matter. At least now I know how to remedy the problem(s) associated with it.
I would like to feel confident and protected, especially on those 'heavy
days' when a certain apoplectic Russian is sicking his programmers on me.

* Critical Update does keep asking me to install it.

Much obliged,

rooster
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:48:53 PM

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

As of today, MS has released a repaired version of KB891711. See PA
Bear's post "891711/MS05-002 Updated (fixed) for Win9x", 04/12/05,
12:03PM, PDT.

The short version is, uninstall KB891711, use Find to locate all things
containing "KB891711", delete them, then go to Windows Updates. You will
be offered the new version. (I don't know that it is necessary to
uninstall the previous version first, but that's what *I* would do.)

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

"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:uyzeuUcPFHA.2356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Gary;
>
> I've been over this so many times I think I've gotten some of the
> signposts out of order.
>
> * On Hagis' counsel:
> "Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on
Windows
> 98..."
> "uninstall for now"
>
> I chose to unistall it @ Add/Delete, *not* @ msconfig.
>
> * When this didn't resolve my defrag problem or my Help access
problem, I
> followed PCR's Rx and ran Scandisc again after a "Clean Boot". This
> allowed defrag to run successfully.
>
> * I then followed PCR's Rx to retrieve " Hhctrl.ocx", (Eureka !!). I
didn't
> manage to place it where it belongs; instead, it is lurking in a New
File on
> my Desktop. The Help Menu is accessible again, so the primary
objective got
> met. BTW, my computer opens the Help file in half the time it used to
take.
>
> * Reading internet bumph on KB891711, I came across several posters
who had
> tried to remove the UD, but succeeded only partially, citing remnants
in
> Startup (hence my misleading reference to msconfig) or in Registry,
> depending. Issues of vulnerability also recurred... so I thought I
should
> review what I had done. There wasn't anything in Startup but when I
checked
> Registry, I got a bit confused and was unsure if I had looked in the
right
> place(s). As it stood, the whole UD was as gone as a driveway paving
> contractor after the first frost of Fall.
>
> * I am not convinced KB891711 was a problem for me in the first
place. It
> seems to me that I caused a "scratch" on my HD when I waxed wroth over
a
> naughty mouse and undid the Serial Bus before shutting down by way of
> teaching it just who was boss. Once the divoted file (Hhctrl.ocx) had
got
> resodded on my desktop, scandisc=> defrag could run, access and
present the
> Help file, having 'sus'd' the operator was going to be needing it to
deal
> with the defective HD . I don't know if such a protocol actually
exist, but
> if it occurs to an idiot, then it almost certainly occured to a
programmer.
>
> * "...the majority of persons running Win9x don't have problems"
....
> maybe if I do reinstall it and the problem returns, that would settle
the
> matter. At least now I know how to remedy the problem(s) associated
with it.
> I would like to feel confident and protected, especially on those
'heavy
> days' when a certain apoplectic Russian is sicking his programmers on
me.
>
> * Critical Update does keep asking me to install it.
>
> Much obliged,
>
> rooster
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 3:41:17 PM

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

Hi folks;

No need for preamble:

I reinstalled KB891711 this morning.

No apparent problems.

rooster
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 7:04:08 PM

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

Glad to hear it. Apparently, MS did a good job with their fix of
KB891711, as it no longer is the horrid bug-a-boo we had grown to hate.

HOWEVER, it would be nice if one day they would create a site for
testing the various fixes & fixes to fixes we so diligently take from
Windows Update. Are they protecting us? Once & for all we would know for
sure who the true fool is-- us or Colorado! (who never takes these
criticals except through trickery).


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eBrC0hdRFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Hi folks;
|
| No need for preamble:
|
| I reinstalled KB891711 this morning.
|
| No apparent problems.
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 8:33:30 AM

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

Hi PCR;

KB891711
In fairness to MS, the Defrag and Help Menu problems I cited should
logically be attributed to my having unplugged my rogue mouse without
shutting down. I still think according to the customs and conventions in the
analogue world (the 'Old Country') and I didn't realize this was a
misdemeanor in the Kingdom of Zeros and Ones.

rooster
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 7:09:43 PM

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

I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711 ultimately, & it
never was the cause of your problem. And Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is
ruthless.

STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!


--
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
"rooster" <rodstill@dcc(fish)net.com> wrote in message
news:eUUlyXmRFHA.252@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Hi PCR;
|
| KB891711
| In fairness to MS, the Defrag and Help Menu problems I cited should
| logically be attributed to my having unplugged my rogue mouse without
| shutting down. I still think according to the customs and conventions
in the
| analogue world (the 'Old Country') and I didn't realize this was a
| misdemeanor in the Kingdom of Zeros and Ones.
|
| rooster
|
|
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:33:03 AM

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

PCR wrote:
> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711 ultimately, &
> it never was the cause of your problem. And Kingdom of Zeros and Ones
> is ruthless.
>
> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
>

I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the preteen summer
interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft Windows 98 patch
department so I can hear their take not only on 891711, but also the 98
Troubleshooter patch debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that
permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98 users, etc.,
etc. Note that two out these three items were not fixed at all, and the
third got fixed only after the howls from the chorus became more than even
Microsoft could stand. I'm not sure how much more of this "support" I can
handle.

While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not fully
convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released there have been at
least four complaints (including mine) on these boards by folks whose
machines go into reboot when when shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has always
been an issue in Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this period
might be about normal. These however have been identical and very specific,
the only difference being that some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed
from MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had not.

By the way, I can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:06:57 AM

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

You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if they
ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think Jerry
Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it actually is
working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running Tasks. I applaud him for
that! We all should!

Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about KB891711.
"Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be got back by
uninstalling the patch.


--
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
"Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
news:o Ch2$vuRFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711 ultimately,
&
| > it never was the cause of your problem. And Kingdom of Zeros and
Ones
| > is ruthless.
| >
| > STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
| >
|
| I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the preteen
summer
| interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft Windows 98
patch
| department so I can hear their take not only on 891711, but also the
98
| Troubleshooter patch debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade
debacle that
| permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98 users,
etc.,
| etc. Note that two out these three items were not fixed at all, and
the
| third got fixed only after the howls from the chorus became more than
even
| Microsoft could stand. I'm not sure how much more of this "support" I
can
| handle.
|
| While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
fully
| convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released there have
been at
| least four complaints (including mine) on these boards by folks whose
| machines go into reboot when when shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has
always
| been an issue in Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this
period
| might be about normal. These however have been identical and very
specific,
| the only difference being that some had had "disable fast shutdown"
removed
| from MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had
not.
|
| By the way, I can't prove a thing.
|
|
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:25:21 AM

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

"Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to make the
point that among people who brought up this problem, some had previously
installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm not ready yet to do a
Google search for an on-line MVP application, but, on the assumption that if
you had the patch installed and things were OK but now they're not,
reinstalling the patch over itself is a saner first step than the
procedurally correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis that
generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition. Worked fer
me at least.

PCR wrote:
> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if
> they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think
> Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
> actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running Tasks. I
> applaud him for that! We all should!
>
> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about KB891711.
> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be got back by
> uninstalling the patch.
>
>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711 ultimately,
>>> & it never was the cause of your problem. And Kingdom of Zeros and
>>> Ones is ruthless.
>>>
>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
>>>
>>
>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the preteen
>> summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft
>> Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take not only on
>> 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch debacle, the
>> Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that permanently destroyed 4th
>> and 5th button functionality for 98 users, etc., etc. Note that two
>> out these three items were not fixed at all, and the third got fixed
>> only after the howls from the chorus became more than even Microsoft
>> could stand. I'm not sure how much more of this "support" I can
>> handle.
>>
>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
>> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released there
>> have been at least four complaints (including mine) on these boards
>> by folks whose machines go into reboot when when shutdown is
>> pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in Windows 98 so four
>> GENERAL complaints over this period might be about normal. These
>> however have been identical and very specific, the only difference
>> being that some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from
>> MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had
>> not.
>>
>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:25:30 PM

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

It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last change
made. You're right about that. But, if things were working a while with
the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause. I do believe
KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does nothing after it has
been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't positively know that, as an
..exe can do anything after it is run just once.)

Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective items
using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to it, likely.


--
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
"Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
news:ec7fONvRFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to make
the
| point that among people who brought up this problem, some had
previously
| installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm not ready yet to do
a
| Google search for an on-line MVP application, but, on the assumption
that if
| you had the patch installed and things were OK but now they're not,
| reinstalling the patch over itself is a saner first step than the
| procedurally correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis
that
| generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition. Worked
fer
| me at least.
|
| PCR wrote:
| > You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if
| > they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think
| > Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
| > actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running Tasks. I
| > applaud him for that! We all should!
| >
| > Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
KB891711.
| > "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be got back by
| > uninstalling the patch.
| >
| >
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711 ultimately
,
| >>> & it never was the cause of your problem. And Kingdom of Zeros and
| >>> Ones is ruthless.
| >>>
| >>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
| >>>
| >>
| >> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the preteen
| >> summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft
| >> Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take not only on
| >> 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch debacle, the
| >> Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that permanently destroyed
4th
| >> and 5th button functionality for 98 users, etc., etc. Note that two
| >> out these three items were not fixed at all, and the third got
fixed
| >> only after the howls from the chorus became more than even
Microsoft
| >> could stand. I'm not sure how much more of this "support" I can
| >> handle.
| >>
| >> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
| >> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released
there
| >> have been at least four complaints (including mine) on these boards
| >> by folks whose machines go into reboot when when shutdown is
| >> pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in Windows 98 so four
| >> GENERAL complaints over this period might be about normal. These
| >> however have been identical and very specific, the only difference
| >> being that some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from
| >> MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had
| >> not.
| >>
| >> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
|
|
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:35:49 PM

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

So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths of the
registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without defeating its purpose?
Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust whatever would/would not show
up in add-remove on this one.

PCR wrote:
> It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last change
> made. You're right about that. But, if things were working a while
> with the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause. I do believe
> KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does nothing after it has
> been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't positively know that, as an
> .exe can do anything after it is run just once.)
>
> Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective items
> using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to it,
> likely.
>
>
>> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to make
>> the point that among people who brought up this problem, some had
>> previously installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm not
>> ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP application, but,
>> on the assumption that if you had the patch installed and things
>> were OK but now they're not, reinstalling the patch over itself is a
>> saner first step than the procedurally correct but mentally
>> discombobulating reductive analysis that generally gets proposed
>> here out of the box for this condition. Worked fer me at least.
>>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if
>>> they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think
>>> Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
>>> actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running Tasks. I
>>> applaud him for that! We all should!
>>>
>>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
>>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be got
>>> back by uninstalling the patch.
>>>
>>>
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
>>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
>>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the preteen
>>>> summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft
>>>> Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take not only on
>>>> 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch debacle, the
>>>> Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that permanently destroyed
>>>> 4th and 5th button functionality for 98 users, etc., etc. Note
>>>> that two out these three items were not fixed at all, and the
>>>> third got fixed only after the howls from the chorus became more
>>>> than even Microsoft could stand. I'm not sure how much more of
>>>> this "support" I can handle.
>>>>
>>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
>>>> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released
>>>> there have been at least four complaints (including mine) on these
>>>> boards by folks whose machines go into reboot when when shutdown is
>>>> pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in Windows 98 so four
>>>> GENERAL complaints over this period might be about normal. These
>>>> however have been identical and very specific, the only difference
>>>> being that some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from
>>>> MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:12:52 AM

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

Well, who knows anything about any of them? KB891711.exe as installed
needs to be running at all times. MS did it that way TWICE. One can only
presume from that it makes no permanent changes to anything that have a
lasting effect. Nothing else about it seems to do any work. It's
Registry entries do nothing of importance except to put it in the
Startup Group. The rest of those just puts it into QFECheck, MSInfo32,
Installed Components, & Add/Remove Programs, that I can see.

Thankfully, PCMag's DiskAction is not reporting that it writes to
C:p artition or even to G:p artition where I have my TIFs & OE Store.
Perhaps it will when it's ready but it certainly hasn't been named in
DiskAction yet.


--
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
"Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
news:o C6gIQESFHA.3140@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths of
the
| registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without defeating its
purpose?
| Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust whatever would/would not
show
| up in add-remove on this one.
|
| PCR wrote:
| > It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last
change
| > made. You're right about that. But, if things were working a while
| > with the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause. I do
believe
| > KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does nothing after it
has
| > been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't positively know that, as an
| > .exe can do anything after it is run just once.)
| >
| > Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective
items
| > using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to it,
| > likely.
| >
| >
| >> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to
make
| >> the point that among people who brought up this problem, some had
| >> previously installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm not
| >> ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP application,
but,
| >> on the assumption that if you had the patch installed and things
| >> were OK but now they're not, reinstalling the patch over itself is
a
| >> saner first step than the procedurally correct but mentally
| >> discombobulating reductive analysis that generally gets proposed
| >> here out of the box for this condition. Worked fer me at least.
| >>
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if
| >>> they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think
| >>> Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
| >>> actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running Tasks.
I
| >>> applaud him for that! We all should!
| >>>
| >>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
| >>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be
got
| >>> back by uninstalling the patch.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
| >>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
| >>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
| >>>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the
preteen
| >>>> summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the Microsoft
| >>>> Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take not only on
| >>>> 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch debacle, the
| >>>> Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that permanently destroyed
| >>>> 4th and 5th button functionality for 98 users, etc., etc. Note
| >>>> that two out these three items were not fixed at all, and the
| >>>> third got fixed only after the howls from the chorus became more
| >>>> than even Microsoft could stand. I'm not sure how much more of
| >>>> this "support" I can handle.
| >>>>
| >>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
| >>>> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released
| >>>> there have been at least four complaints (including mine) on
these
| >>>> boards by folks whose machines go into reboot when when shutdown
is
| >>>> pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in Windows 98 so four
| >>>> GENERAL complaints over this period might be about normal. These
| >>>> however have been identical and very specific, the only
difference
| >>>> being that some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from
| >>>> MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had
| >>>> not.
| >>>>
| >>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
|
|
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:51:51 PM

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

Given the idiosycratic nature of this thing (second iteration of a security
patch in your startup??), I could see removing it from startup and then
having add-remove showing in error that it's uninstalled, like a Mission
Accomplished banner on an aircraft carrier. But I digress....

PCR wrote:
> Well, who knows anything about any of them? KB891711.exe as installed
> needs to be running at all times. MS did it that way TWICE. One can
> only presume from that it makes no permanent changes to anything that
> have a lasting effect. Nothing else about it seems to do any work.
> It's Registry entries do nothing of importance except to put it in the
> Startup Group. The rest of those just puts it into QFECheck, MSInfo32,
> Installed Components, & Add/Remove Programs, that I can see.
>
> Thankfully, PCMag's DiskAction is not reporting that it writes to
> C:p artition or even to G:p artition where I have my TIFs & OE Store.
> Perhaps it will when it's ready but it certainly hasn't been named in
> DiskAction yet.
>
>
>> So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths of
>> the registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without defeating its
>> purpose? Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust whatever
>> would/would not show up in add-remove on this one.
>>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last
>>> change made. You're right about that. But, if things were working a
>>> while with the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause. I
>>> do believe KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does
>>> nothing after it has been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't
>>> positively know that, as an .exe can do anything after it is run
>>> just once.)
>>>
>>> Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective
>>> items using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to
>>> it, likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to
>>>> make the point that among people who brought up this problem, some
>>>> had previously installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm
>>>> not ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP
>>>> application, but, on the assumption that if you had the patch
>>>> installed and things were OK but now they're not, reinstalling the
>>>> patch over itself is a saner first step than the procedurally
>>>> correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis that
>>>> generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition.
>>>> Worked fer me at least.
>>>>
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage, if
>>>>> they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do think
>>>>> Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
>>>>> actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running
>>>>> Tasks. I applaud him for that! We all should!
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
>>>>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be
>>>>> got back by uninstalling the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
>>>>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
>>>>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the
>>>>>> preteen summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the
>>>>>> Microsoft Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take
>>>>>> not only on 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch
>>>>>> debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that
>>>>>> permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98
>>>>>> users, etc., etc. Note that two out these three items were not
>>>>>> fixed at all, and the third got fixed only after the howls from
>>>>>> the chorus became more than even Microsoft could stand. I'm not
>>>>>> sure how much more of this "support" I can handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm not
>>>>>> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released
>>>>>> there have been at least four complaints (including mine) on
>>>>>> these boards by folks whose machines go into reboot when when
>>>>>> shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in
>>>>>> Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this period might be
>>>>>> about normal. These however have been identical and very
>>>>>> specific, the only difference being that some had had "disable
>>>>>> fast shutdown" removed from MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch
>>>>>> 4756US8.exe installed) and some had not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:05:05 PM

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

You may digress, Fink. JUST, don't undress while you're doing it!
Anyway, I am done with speculation in this particular thread. OK, then.


--
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
"Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
news:o R5qixMSFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Given the idiosycratic nature of this thing (second iteration of a
security
| patch in your startup??), I could see removing it from startup and
then
| having add-remove showing in error that it's uninstalled, like a
Mission
| Accomplished banner on an aircraft carrier. But I digress....
|
| PCR wrote:
| > Well, who knows anything about any of them? KB891711.exe as
installed
| > needs to be running at all times. MS did it that way TWICE. One can
| > only presume from that it makes no permanent changes to anything
that
| > have a lasting effect. Nothing else about it seems to do any work.
| > It's Registry entries do nothing of importance except to put it in
the
| > Startup Group. The rest of those just puts it into QFECheck,
MSInfo32,
| > Installed Components, & Add/Remove Programs, that I can see.
| >
| > Thankfully, PCMag's DiskAction is not reporting that it writes to
| > C:p artition or even to G:p artition where I have my TIFs & OE Store.
| > Perhaps it will when it's ready but it certainly hasn't been named
in
| > DiskAction yet.
| >
| >
| >> So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths
of
| >> the registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without defeating its
| >> purpose? Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust whatever
| >> would/would not show up in add-remove on this one.
| >>
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last
| >>> change made. You're right about that. But, if things were working
a
| >>> while with the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause. I
| >>> do believe KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does
| >>> nothing after it has been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't
| >>> positively know that, as an .exe can do anything after it is run
| >>> just once.)
| >>>
| >>> Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective
| >>> items using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to
| >>> it, likely.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to
| >>>> make the point that among people who brought up this problem,
some
| >>>> had previously installed the shutdown patch and some had not. I'm
| >>>> not ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP
| >>>> application, but, on the assumption that if you had the patch
| >>>> installed and things were OK but now they're not, reinstalling
the
| >>>> patch over itself is a saner first step than the procedurally
| >>>> correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis that
| >>>> generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition.
| >>>> Worked fer me at least.
| >>>>
| >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage,
if
| >>>>> they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do
think
| >>>>> Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711, provided it
| >>>>> actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my Running
| >>>>> Tasks. I applaud him for that! We all should!
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
| >>>>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be
| >>>>> got back by uninstalling the patch.
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
| >>>>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
| >>>>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the
| >>>>>> preteen summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the
| >>>>>> Microsoft Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take
| >>>>>> not only on 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch
| >>>>>> debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that
| >>>>>> permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98
| >>>>>> users, etc., etc. Note that two out these three items were not
| >>>>>> fixed at all, and the third got fixed only after the howls from
| >>>>>> the chorus became more than even Microsoft could stand. I'm not
| >>>>>> sure how much more of this "support" I can handle.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm
not
| >>>>>> fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was released
| >>>>>> there have been at least four complaints (including mine) on
| >>>>>> these boards by folks whose machines go into reboot when when
| >>>>>> shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has always been an issue in
| >>>>>> Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this period might be
| >>>>>> about normal. These however have been identical and very
| >>>>>> specific, the only difference being that some had had "disable
| >>>>>> fast shutdown" removed from MSCONFIG (i.e. shutdown patch
| >>>>>> 4756US8.exe installed) and some had not.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
|
|
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:59:28 PM

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

Your ghostwriter has been reported.

PCR wrote:
> You may digress, Fink. JUST, don't undress while you're doing it!
> Anyway, I am done with speculation in this particular thread. OK,
> then.
>
>
>> Given the idiosycratic nature of this thing (second iteration of a
>> security patch in your startup??), I could see removing it from
>> startup and then having add-remove showing in error that it's
>> uninstalled, like a Mission Accomplished banner on an aircraft
>> carrier. But I digress....
>>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Well, who knows anything about any of them? KB891711.exe as
>>> installed needs to be running at all times. MS did it that way
>>> TWICE. One can only presume from that it makes no permanent changes
>>> to anything that have a lasting effect. Nothing else about it seems
>>> to do any work. It's Registry entries do nothing of importance
>>> except to put it in the Startup Group. The rest of those just puts
>>> it into QFECheck, MSInfo32, Installed Components, & Add/Remove
>>> Programs, that I can see.
>>>
>>> Thankfully, PCMag's DiskAction is not reporting that it writes to
>>> C:p artition or even to G:p artition where I have my TIFs & OE Store.
>>> Perhaps it will when it's ready but it certainly hasn't been named
>>> in DiskAction yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths
>>>> of the registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without defeating
>>>> its purpose? Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust whatever
>>>> would/would not show up in add-remove on this one.
>>>>
>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>> It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last
>>>>> change made. You're right about that. But, if things were working
>>>>> a while with the new item, then it becomes less likely the cause.
>>>>> I do believe KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does
>>>>> nothing after it has been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't
>>>>> positively know that, as an .exe can do anything after it is run
>>>>> just once.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective
>>>>> items using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply to
>>>>> it, likely.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to
>>>>>> make the point that among people who brought up this problem,
>>>>>> some had previously installed the shutdown patch and some had
>>>>>> not. I'm not ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP
>>>>>> application, but, on the assumption that if you had the patch
>>>>>> installed and things were OK but now they're not, reinstalling
>>>>>> the patch over itself is a saner first step than the procedurally
>>>>>> correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis that
>>>>>> generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition.
>>>>>> Worked fer me at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT] peopleage,
>>>>>>> if they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I do
>>>>>>> think Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711,
>>>>>>> provided it actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in my
>>>>>>> Running Tasks. I applaud him for that! We all should!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
>>>>>>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can be
>>>>>>> got back by uninstalling the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
>>>>>>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
>>>>>>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the
>>>>>>>> preteen summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up the
>>>>>>>> Microsoft Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their take
>>>>>>>> not only on 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch
>>>>>>>> debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that
>>>>>>>> permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98
>>>>>>>> users, etc., etc. Note that two out these three items were not
>>>>>>>> fixed at all, and the third got fixed only after the howls from
>>>>>>>> the chorus became more than even Microsoft could stand. I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure how much more of this "support" I can handle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm
>>>>>>>> not fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was
>>>>>>>> released there have been at least four complaints (including
>>>>>>>> mine) on these boards by folks whose machines go into reboot
>>>>>>>> when when shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has always been an
>>>>>>>> issue in Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this
>>>>>>>> period might be about normal. These however have been
>>>>>>>> identical and very specific, the only difference being that
>>>>>>>> some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from MSCONFIG
>>>>>>>> (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 11:01:20 PM

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

:-). OK, bye.

--
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
"Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
news:%23QBp8%23PSFHA.2680@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Your ghostwriter has been reported.
|
| PCR wrote:
| > You may digress, Fink. JUST, don't undress while you're doing it!
| > Anyway, I am done with speculation in this particular thread. OK,
| > then.
| >
| >
| >> Given the idiosycratic nature of this thing (second iteration of a
| >> security patch in your startup??), I could see removing it from
| >> startup and then having add-remove showing in error that it's
| >> uninstalled, like a Mission Accomplished banner on an aircraft
| >> carrier. But I digress....
| >>
| >> PCR wrote:
| >>> Well, who knows anything about any of them? KB891711.exe as
| >>> installed needs to be running at all times. MS did it that way
| >>> TWICE. One can only presume from that it makes no permanent
changes
| >>> to anything that have a lasting effect. Nothing else about it
seems
| >>> to do any work. It's Registry entries do nothing of importance
| >>> except to put it in the Startup Group. The rest of those just puts
| >>> it into QFECheck, MSInfo32, Installed Components, & Add/Remove
| >>> Programs, that I can see.
| >>>
| >>> Thankfully, PCMag's DiskAction is not reporting that it writes to
| >>> C:p artition or even to G:p artition where I have my TIFs & OE
Store.
| >>> Perhaps it will when it's ready but it certainly hasn't been named
| >>> in DiskAction yet.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>> So does anybody know for sure whether it's OK to plumb the depths
| >>>> of the registry and remove that unchecked 891711 without
defeating
| >>>> its purpose? Given 891711's quirky history, I don't trust
whatever
| >>>> would/would not show up in add-remove on this one.
| >>>>
| >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> It is true that, for any condition, a prime suspect is the last
| >>>>> change made. You're right about that. But, if things were
working
| >>>>> a while with the new item, then it becomes less likely the
cause.
| >>>>> I do believe KB891711 is not a complex install, & that it does
| >>>>> nothing after it has been unchecked in MSConfig. (But I don't
| >>>>> positively know that, as an .exe can do anything after it is run
| >>>>> just once.)
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Therefore, the normal rigmarole of examining/disabling selective
| >>>>> items using MSConfig (to see which may be the cause) will apply
to
| >>>>> it, likely.
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine too. I was trying to
| >>>>>> make the point that among people who brought up this problem,
| >>>>>> some had previously installed the shutdown patch and some had
| >>>>>> not. I'm not ready yet to do a Google search for an on-line MVP
| >>>>>> application, but, on the assumption that if you had the patch
| >>>>>> installed and things were OK but now they're not, reinstalling
| >>>>>> the patch over itself is a saner first step than the
procedurally
| >>>>>> correct but mentally discombobulating reductive analysis that
| >>>>>> generally gets proposed here out of the box for this condition.
| >>>>>> Worked fer me at least.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>>>> You go a long way toward explaining why those [MSFT]
peopleage,
| >>>>>>> if they ever show up at all, just drop a notice & run! But I
do
| >>>>>>> think Jerry Bryant [MSFT] did well enough with KB891711,
| >>>>>>> provided it actually is working & not just sitting dumbly in
my
| >>>>>>> Running Tasks. I applaud him for that! We all should!
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen four complaints here about
| >>>>>>> KB891711. "Disable fast shutdown" is removed in mine. It can
be
| >>>>>>> got back by uninstalling the patch.
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>>>>>> I see. Yea, yea, they apparently did well with KB891711
| >>>>>>>>> ultimately , & it never was the cause of your problem. And
| >>>>>>>>> Kingdom of Zeros and Ones is ruthless.
| >>>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>> STILL, an MS site to test their stuff would be welcome!
| >>>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> I would like to meet the cunning high level schemers or the
| >>>>>>>> preteen summer interns, not sure which, who are heading up
the
| >>>>>>>> Microsoft Windows 98 patch department so I can hear their
take
| >>>>>>>> not only on 891711, but also the 98 Troubleshooter patch
| >>>>>>>> debacle, the Intellipoint software upgrade debacle that
| >>>>>>>> permanently destroyed 4th and 5th button functionality for 98
| >>>>>>>> users, etc., etc. Note that two out these three items were
not
| >>>>>>>> fixed at all, and the third got fixed only after the howls
from
| >>>>>>>> the chorus became more than even Microsoft could stand. I'm
not
| >>>>>>>> sure how much more of this "support" I can handle.
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> While KB891711SE is a vast improvement over the original, I'm
| >>>>>>>> not fully convinced that it is problem free. Since it was
| >>>>>>>> released there have been at least four complaints (including
| >>>>>>>> mine) on these boards by folks whose machines go into reboot
| >>>>>>>> when when shutdown is pressed. Shutdown has always been an
| >>>>>>>> issue in Windows 98 so four GENERAL complaints over this
| >>>>>>>> period might be about normal. These however have been
| >>>>>>>> identical and very specific, the only difference being that
| >>>>>>>> some had had "disable fast shutdown" removed from MSCONFIG
| >>>>>>>> (i.e. shutdown patch 4756US8.exe installed) and some had not.
| >>>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> By the way, I can't prove a thing.
|
|
!