Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Freezing when deleting files

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
April 14, 2005 2:50:01 AM

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

On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.

Does anyone know a way to solve this?

Regards,
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:50:02 AM

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

You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
upgrade...

Or you can simply remember not to do large file manipulations
(deletions, copies, moves) using Windows Explorer. It's an issue that is
well-known, and while there is a cadre of hard-core 98 fans trying to
get MS to fix the problem, I seriously doubt *that* will ever happen.

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

"junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br> wrote in message
news:o wsmMCKQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze
for
> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
problem
> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:40:52 AM

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

This was very recently discussed yet again, in this group, if you search the
messages over the past few weeks. It seems to be a by-product of upgrading to IE6
or IE6 SP1, and generally happens when a relatively large number of files are
deleted at one time (~1400 to 1500).

See here for more info --
Win9x Explorer vs. Bulk File Ops:
http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...


"junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br> wrote in message
news:o wsmMCKQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:10:26 AM

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

BTW, in addition to the somewhat questionable "solution" reported on Chris' web
page, and Gary's suggestion of simply *not* deleting so many files at once, you can
mass delete files from a DOS prompt (DOS box in Windows) using the DOS command, DEL,
and there will not be any freeze problem. It only occurs if you delete in Windows
Explorer/My Computer/Folder window.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...

"junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br> wrote in message
news:o wsmMCKQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:38:17 PM

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

junior wrote:
> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
> Regards,

Hi junior,

Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came out
for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso lately has
been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group. Many users
just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it happen
consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and when it stalls
out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's a fluke and reboot
and never report it to those that have the power to persuade those that are
in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'

If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being related
to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by MVPs' even at
this late date that you still report the issues by calling 1 (866) PCSAFETY.
If everyone called them in quantity and reported it - let's all at least be
hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some way.

Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even an
older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed out
and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.

I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread that
anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on the list to
be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 

Rick
April 14, 2005 5:12:29 PM

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

I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received any
info about this issue from Microsoft?

Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?


"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:#eiJFePQFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> junior wrote:
> > On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
> > about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
problem
> > was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
> >
> > Does anyone know a way to solve this?
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Hi junior,
>
> Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came
out
> for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso lately has
> been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group. Many users
> just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it happen
> consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and when it
stalls
> out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's a fluke and
reboot
> and never report it to those that have the power to persuade those that
are
> in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'
>
> If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being
related
> to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by MVPs' even at
> this late date that you still report the issues by calling 1 (866)
PCSAFETY.
> If everyone called them in quantity and reported it - let's all at least
be
> hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some way.
>
> Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even
an
> older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>
> I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed out
> and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
> unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.
>
> I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread
that
> anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on the list
to
> be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:12:30 PM

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

"All systems go..." over here (even after the DLL switch). (But I'm not
taking in all the windows updates, either).

So far, I haven't read here of any clearly defined problems with the DLL
switch, except, of course, you're not going to be as up to date, security
wise.

(And btw, I don't think you have to delete 1500 files to see the problem.
That figure is overinflated).

junior wrote:
> I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received any
> info about this issue from Microsoft?
>
> Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?
>
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:#eiJFePQFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> junior wrote:
>>> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
>>> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
problem
>>> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>> Hi junior,
>>
>> Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came
out
>> for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso lately
has
>> been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group. Many users
>> just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it happen
>> consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and when it
stalls
>> out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's a fluke and
reboot
>> and never report it to those that have the power to persuade those that
are
>> in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'
>>
>> If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being
related
>> to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by MVPs' even at
>> this late date that you still report the issues by calling 1 (866)
PCSAFETY.
>> If everyone called them in quantity and reported it - let's all at least
be
>> hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some way.
>>
>> Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even
an
>> older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
>> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>>
>> I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed
out
>> and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
>> unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.
>>
>> I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread
that
>> anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on the list
to
>> be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:21:07 PM

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

junior wrote:
> I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received any
> info about this issue from Microsoft?
>
> Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?

junior,
It's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6, but after that I just
went back to IE5.5SP2 for a while instead, but to answer your question yes I
have noticed minor issues after using the dll swap for quite some time, and
it's been a while but recalling from memory it was something to do when
opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in it I would notice the
icons for those files each time taking a split second as one by one
they assimilated themselves - something like that (yes my icon cache was
clean etc etc - believe me it was a direct reflection of the dll swap and
putting the right dlls back whatever those little problems were did not
happen anymore and so was proof positive) ..and there was one or two other
slight oddities that convinced for me that the dll swap was a hack I was
not anymore comfortable with, and perplexed that 2 years went by and it
wasn't being fixed - I wanted to move forward instead.

Honestly, the reasons that Gary and also everyone has previously mentioned
all combined together as to all the reasons why it's best not to swap dlls
backwards and is just not appropriate ultimately - however yes it's true - it
does work. I do support those whom want to do it and I see their frustration
that they shouldn't have to do that - but I also think it is better served if
we all put the effort into going forward with a positive can do attitude
toward getting the current dlls or problem professionally repaired for the
rest of the world that use 9x.

Rick




> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:#eiJFePQFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> junior wrote:
>> > On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
>> > about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
>> > problem was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows
>> > ME.
>> >
>> > Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>>
>> Hi junior,
>>
>> Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came
>> out for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso
>> lately has been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group.
>> Many users just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it
>> happen consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and when
>> it stalls out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's a
>> fluke and reboot and never report it to those that have the power to
>> persuade those that are in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'
>>
>> If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being
>> related to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by MVPs'
>> even at this late date that you still report the issues by calling 1
>> (866) PCSAFETY. If everyone called them in quantity and reported it -
>> let's all at least be hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some
>> way.
>>
>> Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even
>> an older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
>> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>>
>> I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed out
>> and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
>> unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.
>>
>> I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread
>> that anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on the
>> list to be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:25:06 PM

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

Bill in Co. wrote:
> "All systems go..." over here (even after the DLL switch). (But I'm not
> taking in all the windows updates, either).
>
> So far, I haven't read here of any clearly defined problems with the DLL
> switch, except, of course, you're not going to be as up to date, security
> wise.
>
> (And btw, I don't think you have to delete 1500 files to see the problem.
> That figure is overinflated).

Yes as it has been talked about many many times, yes anything can cause it to
happen, even just deleting a few files or a single random simple process will
occasionally and randomly set it off too, occasionally, but the point of
saying up front that it takes deleting about 1500 files to do it is because
that is a 'known' and proven way that the issue can be triggered each and
every single time 'instantly' ..and so that figure is used as a known factor
in testing or explaining about it. cquirkes webpage now covers most all of
the other little idiosyncrasies.

Rick


> junior wrote:
>> I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received any
>> info about this issue from Microsoft?
>>
>> Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?
>>
>>
>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
>> news:#eiJFePQFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> junior wrote:
>>>> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
>>>> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
>>>> problem was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows
>>>> ME.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hi junior,
>>>
>>> Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came
>>> out for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso
>>> lately has been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group.
>>> Many users just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it
>>> happen consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and
>>> when it stalls out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's
>>> a fluke and reboot and never report it to those that have the power to
>>> persuade those that are in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'
>>>
>>> If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being
>>> related to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by
>>> MVPs' even at this late date that you still report the issues by calling
>>> 1 (866) PCSAFETY. If everyone called them in quantity and reported it -
>>> let's all at least be hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
>>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even
>>> an older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
>>> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>>>
>>> I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed
>>> out and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
>>> unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.
>>>
>>> I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread
>>> that anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on
>>> the list to be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 
>>>
>>> Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:52:41 PM

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

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> junior wrote:
>> I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received
any
>> info about this issue from Microsoft?
>>
>> Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?
>
> junior,
> It's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6, but after that I
just
> went back to IE5.5SP2 for a while instead, but to answer your question yes
I
> have noticed minor issues after using the dll swap for quite some time,
and
> it's been a while but recalling from memory it was something to do when
> opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in it I would notice the
> icons for those files each time taking a split second as one by one
> they assimilated themselves - something like that (yes my icon cache was
> clean etc etc - believe me it was a direct reflection of the dll swap and

That hasn't happened to me at least yet, after all this time. But when the
ShelLiconcache is filled or being rebuilt, I know what ya mean...

> putting the right dlls back whatever those little problems were did not
> happen anymore and so was proof positive) ..and there was one or two other
> slight oddities that convinced for me that the dll swap was a hack I was

They must have been pretty minor, or you'd probably remember them, I'd
guess. Haven't noticed any such oddities over here yet.

> not anymore comfortable with, and perplexed that 2 years went by and it
> wasn't being fixed - I wanted to move forward instead.
>
> Honestly, the reasons that Gary and also everyone has previously mentioned
> all combined together as to all the reasons why it's best not to swap dlls
> backwards and is just not appropriate ultimately - however yes it's true -
it
> does work. I do support those whom want to do it and I see their
frustration
> that they shouldn't have to do that - but I also think it is better served
if
> we all put the effort into going forward with a positive can do attitude
> toward getting the current dlls or problem professionally repaired for the
> rest of the world that use 9x.

But Rick, let's be realistic and pragmatic here - that ain't going happen.

So, if you do much work in Windows Explorer, I'd say go for the patch.
(Unless that "one minute hangup" doesn't bother you. But I'm not going to
put up with that, and that's for damn sure)!

> Rick
>
>
>
>
>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
>> news:#eiJFePQFHA.2520@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> junior wrote:
>>>> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
>>>> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
>>>> problem was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows
>>>> ME.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hi junior,
>>>
>>> Trust me, we feel your pain. It's been doing that every since IE6x came
>>> out for 9x users. It's been talked about ever since then but moreso
>>> lately has been realized by some of the prominent MVP's of this group.
>>> Many users just don't consistently delete 1500 files at once to see it
>>> happen consistently, and when the occasional deleter does see it and
when
>>> it stalls out on them when it's done deleting, many just think it's a
>>> fluke and reboot and never report it to those that have the power to
>>> persuade those that are in the 'project manger seat' to say 'fix it'
>>>
>>> If all the W98x users actually knew that they have this problem being
>>> related to IE6x, and they all reported it as it's been suggested by
MVPs'
>>> even at this late date that you still report the issues by calling 1
>>> (866) PCSAFETY. If everyone called them in quantity and reported it -
>>> let's all at least be hopeful it would still get properly fixed in some
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Glee and Gary spoke to it already and where you can read about it here
>>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm and also you can read about it at even
>>> an older (not updated since Oct, 2003) website here
>>> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>>>
>>> I do not advocate swapping dlls backwards for the reasons Gary pointed
out
>>> and more, although doing it does offer limited relief, but imho it's
>>> unacceptable in principle to have to do it that way.
>>>
>>> I do support MS fixing the problem though because it is more widespread
>>> that anyone can imagine, and it is a major flaw surly ranking high on
the
>>> list to be consistently obstinate enough to warrant a fix :) 
>>>
>>> Rick
April 14, 2005 9:17:33 PM

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

"junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br> wrote in message news:o wsmMCKQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
> about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
> was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
> Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
> Regards,
>


Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log Off" from the
Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer (providing I haven't
attempted to delete any further files after the first occurance - which can
cause a complete lock-up).

Regards,

Mel.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 9:17:34 PM

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

Mel wrote:

> Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log Off" from
> the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer (providing I
> haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first occurance -
which
> can cause a complete lock-up).
>
> Regards,
>
> Mel.

That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with log off
since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start menu, but
for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.

Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang happens,
and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and just use that
when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot. You know now
that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was cquirk and his
website does mention one can reset it too by closing and restoring Explorer,
and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.

thanks for posting

Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 9:38:02 PM

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

Bill in Co. wrote:
> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>> junior wrote:
>>> I would like to thank all the replies, and ask if some of you received
>>> any info about this issue from Microsoft?
>>>
>>> Any known problem caused by the DLLs switch?
>>
>> junior,
>> It's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6, but after that I
>> just went back to IE5.5SP2 for a while instead, but to answer your
>> question yes I have noticed minor issues after using the dll swap for
>> quite some time, and it's been a while but recalling from memory it was
>> something to do when opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in
>> it I would notice the icons for those files each time taking a split
>> second as one by one
>> they assimilated themselves - something like that (yes my icon cache was
>> clean etc etc - believe me it was a direct reflection of the dll swap and
>
> That hasn't happened to me at least yet, after all this time. But when
> the ShelLiconcache is filled or being rebuilt, I know what ya mean...

I know it, and it sorta seemed like what happens when the ShellIconCache file
gets to big, sorta but it was different but similar and a little funky but
not critical no, but was unnerving nonetheless wondering what it was
searching for with possible dll disconnects because of the swap. No I can't
remember the other little things exactly, just small oddities, and they
weren't critical you're right, but still concerned me enough after a while
and finally I just wanted to move on from that, although I do support you
using it.

>> frustration that they shouldn't have to do that - but I also think it is
>> better served if we all put the effort into going forward with a positive
>> can do attitude toward getting the current dlls or problem professionally
>> repaired for the rest of the world that use 9x.
>
> But Rick, let's be realistic and pragmatic here - that ain't going happen.

Like many of you I've been in a large company and in a facility director
position fully capable of making changes and I know how all the bureaucracy
works from the bottom up. When things were said couldn't be done in a
company is where I came in and made them happen if it was needed. I always
succeeded in my goal of what I was in charge of and If I couldn't do it
myself I had the reign to get someone who could do it, and did. I first
hand know the power of positive thought backed up with being in position
having the ability to make a change irregardless of what any lower
bureaucracy said could be done - I got it done every single time if it was
needed and I was in the position to decide if it was needed or not.
If a regular employee came up to me and said, hey, this conveyors or system
would be better if we did ...this ..or that ..well if I thought it served the
greater good - I would and could make it happen, and did!

Granted - here the reality is I'm not at all in control of what the few at MS
who have the power with just one word spoken to have it done - but you see my
mindset of know-how is still in my blood to know that all things are possible
when you're in the right position and have a positive thought toward the
goal. ...been there done that and I know what is possible when you are the
manager in charge of whatever situation. My can do attitude is a good thing
and so enjoy it and please try not to be on the opposite end saying not, and
instead help the process go forward - put that realistic and pragmatic
thoughts of yours into action and call that phone number, but don't use words
to bring me down please. Thank you. If it's meant to be fine - if it's not
fine. I work for the greater good at all times, and no one can ever say I did
not try in all sincerity.

Rick

(sorry for any snips but wanted to keep it trim and to the point)
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:51:24 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:50:01 -0300, "junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br>
wrote:

>On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze for
>about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This problem
>was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>
>Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>
>Regards,

Junior,

I'm using Win98SE with IE 5.5 with no patches and that delay happens
when I use Windows Explorer to delete the copy of my C: partition on
my backup drive just prior to another backup. It has always
happened, I figured it just took some time to digest the massive
operation. I click on another folder and when those files are
displayed the wait is over. It could be about a minute, as you say.

When I delete smaller partitions the delay is less or no delay at
all.

Regards,

Bill Watt
Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:51:25 AM

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

Your delay is normal, Bill, just as you suggested. It's not at all the
same issue as what is being discussed here.

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

"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:rn6u519s1nn68ilrhn4mtilq8r5tv5t38o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:50:01 -0300, "junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br>
> wrote:
>
> >On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze
for
> >about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
problem
> >was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
> >
> >Does anyone know a way to solve this?
> >
> >Regards,
>
> Junior,
>
> I'm using Win98SE with IE 5.5 with no patches and that delay happens
> when I use Windows Explorer to delete the copy of my C: partition on
> my backup drive just prior to another backup. It has always
> happened, I figured it just took some time to digest the massive
> operation. I click on another folder and when those files are
> displayed the wait is over. It could be about a minute, as you say.
>
> When I delete smaller partitions the delay is less or no delay at
> all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Watt
> Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:03:21 AM

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

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mel wrote:
>
> > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log Off" from
> > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer (providing I
> > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first occurance -
> which
> > can cause a complete lock-up).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mel.
>
> That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with log off
> since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start menu, but
> for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
>
> Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang happens,
> and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and just use that
> when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot. You know now
> that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was cquirk and his
> website does mention one can reset it too by closing and restoring Explorer,
> and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.

Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ and myself, and
also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the past about the
dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a little quicker way to
recover from the bug after the fact.

I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug, and your wish for
a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold a hope, however
small, that something does happen toward that end, though it likely does not fall
under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my input with whomever I
can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:04:34 AM

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

You're a good one, Glee! And don't worry if you find a tack on your seat
in Redmond. I'm sure it will be unrelated!


--
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
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23AHmdeWQFHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > Mel wrote:
| >
| > > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log
Off" from
| > > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
(providing I
| > > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first
occurance -
| > which
| > > can cause a complete lock-up).
| > >
| > > Regards,
| > >
| > > Mel.
| >
| > That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with
log off
| > since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start
menu, but
| > for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
| >
| > Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang
happens,
| > and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and just
use that
| > when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot. You
know now
| > that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was cquirk
and his
| > website does mention one can reset it too by closing and restoring
Explorer,
| > and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.
|
| Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ and
myself, and
| also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the
past about the
| dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a little
quicker way to
| recover from the bug after the fact.
|
| I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug, and
your wish for
| a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold a
hope, however
| small, that something does happen toward that end, though it likely
does not fall
| under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my input
with whomever I
| can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
|
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:11:47 AM

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

Gary,

It sounds like the same thing. Unless others were not getting the
"normal" delay before installing IE6SP!.

Regards,

Bill Watt
Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
__________________________________________

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:35:36 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:

>Your delay is normal, Bill, just as you suggested. It's not at all the
>same issue as what is being discussed here.
>
>--
>Gary S. Terhune
>MS MVP Shell/User
>http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
>"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:rn6u519s1nn68ilrhn4mtilq8r5tv5t38o@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:50:01 -0300, "junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze
>for
>> >about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
>problem
>> >was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
>> >
>> >Does anyone know a way to solve this?
>> >
>> >Regards,
>>
>> Junior,
>>
>> I'm using Win98SE with IE 5.5 with no patches and that delay happens
>> when I use Windows Explorer to delete the copy of my C: partition on
>> my backup drive just prior to another backup. It has always
>> happened, I figured it just took some time to digest the massive
>> operation. I click on another folder and when those files are
>> displayed the wait is over. It could be about a minute, as you say.
>>
>> When I delete smaller partitions the delay is less or no delay at
>> all.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill Watt
>> Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:14:20 AM

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

If I were going to Redmond, I am sure I would find a great many tacks on my seat!
;-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uVBFq$WQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> You're a good one, Glee! And don't worry if you find a tack on your seat
> in Redmond. I'm sure it will be unrelated!
>
>
> --
> 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
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%23AHmdeWQFHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> | news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> | > Mel wrote:
> | >
> | > > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log
> Off" from
> | > > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
> (providing I
> | > > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first
> occurance -
> | > which
> | > > can cause a complete lock-up).
> | > >
> | > > Regards,
> | > >
> | > > Mel.
> | >
> | > That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with
> log off
> | > since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start
> menu, but
> | > for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
> | >
> | > Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang
> happens,
> | > and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and just
> use that
> | > when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot. You
> know now
> | > that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was cquirk
> and his
> | > website does mention one can reset it too by closing and restoring
> Explorer,
> | > and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.
> |
> | Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ and
> myself, and
> | also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the
> past about the
> | dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a little
> quicker way to
> | recover from the bug after the fact.
> |
> | I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug, and
> your wish for
> | a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold a
> hope, however
> | small, that something does happen toward that end, though it likely
> does not fall
> | under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my input
> with whomever I
> | can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
> | --
> | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> | http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> |
>
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:14:21 AM

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

Note to self: Come Fall, remember to send Glee a box of tacks, <g>.

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

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23MTwJGXQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If I were going to Redmond, I am sure I would find a great many tacks
on my seat!
> ;-)
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
>
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:uVBFq$WQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > You're a good one, Glee! And don't worry if you find a tack on your
seat
> > in Redmond. I'm sure it will be unrelated!
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23AHmdeWQFHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> > | news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > | > Mel wrote:
> > | >
> > | > > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select
"Log
> > Off" from
> > | > > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
> > (providing I
> > | > > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first
> > occurance -
> > | > which
> > | > > can cause a complete lock-up).
> > | > >
> > | > > Regards,
> > | > >
> > | > > Mel.
> > | >
> > | > That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way
with
> > log off
> > | > since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my
start
> > menu, but
> > | > for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
> > | >
> > | > Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the
hang
> > happens,
> > | > and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and
just
> > use that
> > | > when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot.
You
> > know now
> > | > that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was
cquirk
> > and his
> > | > website does mention one can reset it too by closing and
restoring
> > Explorer,
> > | > and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.
> > |
> > | Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ
and
> > myself, and
> > | also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the
> > past about the
> > | dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a
little
> > quicker way to
> > | recover from the bug after the fact.
> > |
> > | I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug,
and
> > your wish for
> > | a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold
a
> > hope, however
> > | small, that something does happen toward that end, though it
likely
> > does not fall
> > | under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my
input
> > with whomever I
> > | can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
> > | --
> > | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > | http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> > |
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:52:38 AM

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

OK, then. All is well if tacks won't stop you. I'm behind you too in the
matter. You know that!

--
:-),
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
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23MTwJGXQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| If I were going to Redmond, I am sure I would find a great many tacks
on my seat!
| ;-)
| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:uVBFq$WQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > You're a good one, Glee! And don't worry if you find a tack on your
seat
| > in Redmond. I'm sure it will be unrelated!
| >
| >
| > --
| > 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
| > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
| > news:%23AHmdeWQFHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| > | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| > | news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > | > Mel wrote:
| > | >
| > | > > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select
"Log
| > Off" from
| > | > > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
| > (providing I
| > | > > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first
| > occurance -
| > | > which
| > | > > can cause a complete lock-up).
| > | > >
| > | > > Regards,
| > | > >
| > | > > Mel.
| > | >
| > | > That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way
with
| > log off
| > | > since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my
start
| > menu, but
| > | > for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
| > | >
| > | > Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the
hang
| > happens,
| > | > and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and
just
| > use that
| > | > when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot.
You
| > know now
| > | > that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was
cquirk
| > and his
| > | > website does mention one can reset it too by closing and
restoring
| > Explorer,
| > | > and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.
| > |
| > | Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ
and
| > myself, and
| > | also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the
| > past about the
| > | dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a
little
| > quicker way to
| > | recover from the bug after the fact.
| > |
| > | I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug,
and
| > your wish for
| > | a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold
a
| > hope, however
| > | small, that something does happen toward that end, though it
likely
| > does not fall
| > | under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my
input
| > with whomever I
| > | can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
| > | --
| > | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| > | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| > | http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
| > |
| >
| >
|
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 12:26:24 PM

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

glee wrote:
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Mel wrote:
>>
>> > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log Off"
>> > from the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
>> > (providing I haven't attempted to delete any further files after the
>> > first occurance -
>> which
>> > can cause a complete lock-up).
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Mel.
>>
>> That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with log
>> off since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start
>> menu, but for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
>>
>> Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang
>> happens, and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and
>> just use that when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a
>> reboot. You know now that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely
>> it was cquirk and his website does mention one can reset it too by
>> closing and restoring Explorer, and so logoff surly is doing the same
>> thing.
>
> Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ and
> myself, and also on the original older web site that you have linked to in
> the past about the dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at
> least a little quicker way to recover from the bug after the fact.
>
> I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug, and
> your wish for a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to
> hold a hope, however small, that something does happen toward that end,
> though it likely does not fall under the "serious" heading for a lot of
> users. I will add my input with whomever I can at MS on the issue, FWIW.

Okay thank you Glen, I much appreciate what you have said and have done to
help others with this.

Rick
.............ps, <smile> reading the other teasing posts - I will brush off
any tacks that may be on your seat - actually I think what will really be
there instead is a comfortable cushion.

> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 12:28:32 PM

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

Bill Watt wrote:

> I'm using Win98SE with IE 5.5 with no patches and that delay happens
> when I use Windows Explorer to delete the copy of my C: partition on
> my backup drive just prior to another backup. It has always
> happened, I figured it just took some time to digest the massive

If you are deleting it like it sounds you are, then you are deleting quite a
large number of individual files and it does them all 'one by one' - and so
then the wait is normal as has been said - especially if you have an older
setup with less processing speed. Just a side note is that the best way to
do backups of partitions is using a partition imager that still lets you have
total access to your backup files, but when you go to delete the old backup
image it sees it as only one large file and therefore deletes it almost
instantly - as well as you would have the other benefits of using imagers for
backup procedures.

> operation. I click on another folder and when those files are
> displayed the wait is over. It could be about a minute, as you say.

And this is the key to show you it's not the same thing as being referred to
in this post, If it was, your computer would not respond properly anymore
when you went to do anything else until you rebooted or log'd off/on.

Rick


>
> When I delete smaller partitions the delay is less or no delay at
> all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Watt
> Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:09:52 AM

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

Hi Rick,

Reply inline and at the end.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:28:32 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
<justask@nospamz.com> wrote:

>Bill Watt wrote:
>
>> I'm using Win98SE with IE 5.5 with no patches and that delay happens
>> when I use Windows Explorer to delete the copy of my C: partition on
>> my backup drive just prior to another backup. It has always
>> happened, I figured it just took some time to digest the massive
>
>If you are deleting it like it sounds you are, then you are deleting quite a
>large number of individual files and it does them all 'one by one' - and so
>then the wait is normal as has been said - especially if you have an older
>setup with less processing speed. Just a side note is that the best way to
>do backups of partitions is using a partition imager that still lets you have
>total access to your backup files, but when you go to delete the old backup
>image it sees it as only one large file and therefore deletes it almost
>instantly - as well as you would have the other benefits of using imagers for
>backup procedures.

I have a PIII 1GB with 256 MB. I use Maxtor's Partition Copy for
the backups. The backed up drive is bootable if needed. I prefer
this method.

>> operation. I click on another folder and when those files are
>> displayed the wait is over. It could be about a minute, as you say.
>
>And this is the key to show you it's not the same thing as being referred to
>in this post, If it was, your computer would not respond properly anymore
>when you went to do anything else until you rebooted or log'd off/on.
>
>Rick

The *only* thing I can do is click on something else. However
nothing happens until the wait is over. Except for that the machine
is locked up for about a minute. However, I don't have the hourglass
cursor, maybe the others do. And I don't need to re-boot if I wait.

The OP (Junior) said "the OS freezes for about 1 minute after
deleting many files on Windows Explorer."

That is exactly the situation I have and it's really no big deal
with me. I mentioned it because I have not installed IE6SP1.

Snip

Regards,

Bill Watt
Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:22:34 PM

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

Bill Watt wrote:

[...]

> I have a PIII 1GB with 256 MB. I use Maxtor's Partition Copy for

I GHz ? 256 MB, pokey these days but that's no a putdown in any way!

> the backups. The backed up drive is bootable if needed. I prefer
> this method.

understood and that's fine, but my point was other than that..

> The *only* thing I can do is click on something else. However
> nothing happens until the wait is over. Except for that the machine
> is locked up for about a minute. However, I don't have the hourglass
> cursor, maybe the others do. And I don't need to re-boot if I wait.
>
> The OP (Junior) said "the OS freezes for about 1 minute after
> deleting many files on Windows Explorer."
>
> That is exactly the situation I have and it's really no big deal
> with me. I mentioned it because I have not installed IE6SP1.

What I was explaining if you delete it the way you said, it has to process
each file one by one which is in the thousands and for that you will have to
wait a period of time and that wait is Normal; whereas just deleting the same
thing but instead if it's all in ONE file consisting of one partition backup
image it's very quick.

The topic of this post and Junior's computer, or anyone with W9x IE6
installed, the complete story is about when it hangs because of quantity file
deletes - it hangs yes, but beyond that Explorer is unusable afterwards until
they reboot and with IE5.5x that issue does not exist and Explorer is usable.
Take a W98x & IE6x machine and do the test yourself then to see what we mean.
http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm

I don't want to go Off Topic about partition backup imaging here, it's very
different than what you are using now but allows you all the same
flexabilities but so much more - but glancing at your website link (very
nice) ..then with your knowledge I suspect you already know what I am talking
about. All I can say once you use it and understand the remarkable
advantages over any other backup method - you would never look back; you can
also have your extra bootable partition, but to delete/replace it with anew
is a much simpler quick and all inclusive task. There are a few different
brand names and versions around these days, lot's of MVP's like to use BootIt
NG but I much prefer using TrueImage http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage...

Rick

>
> Snip
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Watt
> Computer Help and Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
April 17, 2005 7:26:04 AM

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

I highly doubt it too Gary since 98 and 98SE handle memory and CPU speed more
poorly than XP does. See I do compromise that XP is better at some things.
<g>

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
> upgrade...
>
> Or you can simply remember not to do large file manipulations
> (deletions, copies, moves) using Windows Explorer. It's an issue that is
> well-known, and while there is a cadre of hard-core 98 fans trying to
> get MS to fix the problem, I seriously doubt *that* will ever happen.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "junior" <abuse@antispam.org.br> wrote in message
> news:o wsmMCKQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > On a Windows 98SE system, after IE6SP1 was installed, the OS freeze
> for
> > about 1 minute after deleting many files on Windows Explorer. This
> problem
> > was noted on many different configurations and even on Windows ME.
> >
> > Does anyone know a way to solve this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
>
>
April 17, 2005 7:32:01 AM

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

My goal is to work for Microsoft for pay rather than volunteer within 5-10
years after a great deal more computer education.

"glee" wrote:

> If I were going to Redmond, I am sure I would find a great many tacks on my seat!
> ;-)
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
>
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:uVBFq$WQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > You're a good one, Glee! And don't worry if you find a tack on your seat
> > in Redmond. I'm sure it will be unrelated!
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23AHmdeWQFHA.3704@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> > | news:%23ollKDSQFHA.3144@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > | > Mel wrote:
> > | >
> > | > > Although the desktop freezes up, I can usually still select "Log
> > Off" from
> > | > > the Start Menu, then log straight back on to re-start Explorer
> > (providing I
> > | > > haven't attempted to delete any further files after the first
> > occurance -
> > | > which
> > | > > can cause a complete lock-up).
> > | > >
> > | > > Regards,
> > | > >
> > | > > Mel.
> > | >
> > | > That's an interesting tidbit Mel - I've never tried it that way with
> > log off
> > | > since I have always have TweakUI set to not show logoff on my start
> > menu, but
> > | > for gp I will set TweakUI to put it back and try it right now.
> > | >
> > | > Yes by golly your are right Mel - that does reset it after the hang
> > happens,
> > | > and so from now on I will leave my log off icon there now and just
> > use that
> > | > when it happens because that is a lot quicker than a reboot. You
> > know now
> > | > that I think about it was maybe glee but definitely it was cquirk
> > and his
> > | > website does mention one can reset it too by closing and restoring
> > Explorer,
> > | > and so logoff surly is doing the same thing.
> > |
> > | Yep, I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way by ChrisQ and
> > myself, and
> > | also on the original older web site that you have linked to in the
> > past about the
> > | dll swap. Nowhere near the fix we would like, but at least a little
> > quicker way to
> > | recover from the bug after the fact.
> > |
> > | I appreciate and understand your desire to see a fix for this bug, and
> > your wish for
> > | a positive attitude toward achieving it. I will continue to hold a
> > hope, however
> > | small, that something does happen toward that end, though it likely
> > does not fall
> > | under the "serious" heading for a lot of users. I will add my input
> > with whomever I
> > | can at MS on the issue, FWIW.
> > | --
> > | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > | http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> > |
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 11:53:27 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:26:04 -0700, Dan
>"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
>> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
>> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
>> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
>> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
>> upgrade...

I'd take that choice, especially as IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the files
have been said to work. IE 5.5 SP2 is MIME-safe at least.

The files to replace are BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll - keep the new
ones in IE's base dir and place the IE 5.5 SP2 ones where the new
(i.e. IE 6) ones were. You can always swap back.

Do this from DOS mode; the .DLL are in use in Windows.

>> Or you can simply remember not to do large file manipulations
>> (deletions, copies, moves) using Windows Explorer.

It's not that simple, given that while "bulk" is usually required to
trigger the problem, it can be triggered at lower thresholds too.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:10:19 AM

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

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:26:04 -0700, Dan
>>>"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>>> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
>>> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
>>> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
>>> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
>>> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
>>> upgrade...

> I'd take that choice, especially as IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the files
> have been said to work. IE 5.5 SP2 is MIME-safe at least.

I'm not so sure if it's the right choice though, because for one thing there
are known dll disconnects that happen if you do - such as
~You'll lose the ability to Lock Toolbars in Explorer
~The IE Repair Tool will malfunction when used.
These are not big deals in themselves but still point to the fact things
don't match up with code written that goes nowhere or somewhere else it
shouldn't. Also, not to mention since IE6 came out there were what about 5,
6 or 7 cumulative updates because of security changes and in each of those
updates, one or the other dll was replaced each time - so how can we know
that whichever security update changes were made to the dll would be
neglected if we were still carrying the old 5.5 dlls. And last but not
least, it's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6 but yes I had
noticed other minor issues after using the dll swap for quite some time, and
it's been a while but recalling from memory it was something to do when
opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in it I would notice the
icons for those files each time taking a split second as one by one they
assimilated themselves down the line ...quite odd I thought when I watched it
(yes my icon cache was clean etc - believe me it was a direct reflection of
the dll swap and putting the right dlls back whatever those little problems
were did not happen anymore and so was proof positive) ..and there was one or
two other slight oddities that convinced for me that the dll swap was a hack
I was not anymore comfortable with and wanted to move forward instead.

Personally, my feelings after a while became that I would rather have the
defunct IE6 dlls in place and deal with it, rather that swap to the old
5.5SP2 ones again because of the little glitches and big unknowns which to me
were worse than the actual problem. I can say that after personally having
used the 5.5SP2 dlls in IE6 for about a year and just got tired of so many
updates coming out and again was just too much of an unknown staying with the
old dll's anymore; however I do support whomever wants to use them and don't
blame them at all - but I suspect after time passes they will maybe feel the
way I did about it.

I'd rather put my effort into getting the current IE6 SP1 dll's get updated
properly - it's the best way to do it imho.

Rick




> The files to replace are BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll - keep the new
> ones in IE's base dir and place the IE 5.5 SP2 ones where the new
> (i.e. IE 6) ones were. You can always swap back.
>
> Do this from DOS mode; the .DLL are in use in Windows.
>
>>> Or you can simply remember not to do large file manipulations
>>> (deletions, copies, moves) using Windows Explorer.
>
> It's not that simple, given that while "bulk" is usually required to
> trigger the problem, it can be triggered at lower thresholds too.
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
April 18, 2005 7:38:09 AM

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

Thanks Chris. In my opinion, your advice is always welcome and needed here.
Have a great week, Chris and all the other experts too. <smile>

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:26:04 -0700, Dan
> >"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>
> >> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
> >> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
> >> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
> >> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
> >> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
> >> upgrade...
>
> I'd take that choice, especially as IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the files
> have been said to work. IE 5.5 SP2 is MIME-safe at least.
>
> The files to replace are BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll - keep the new
> ones in IE's base dir and place the IE 5.5 SP2 ones where the new
> (i.e. IE 6) ones were. You can always swap back.
>
> Do this from DOS mode; the .DLL are in use in Windows.
>
> >> Or you can simply remember not to do large file manipulations
> >> (deletions, copies, moves) using Windows Explorer.
>
> It's not that simple, given that while "bulk" is usually required to
> trigger the problem, it can be triggered at lower thresholds too.
>
>
>
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
April 19, 2005 1:33:01 PM

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

*sigh*

The is NO point to upgrading Internet Explorer beyond
5.00 if you have no application forcing you to. I've debated
this before with these MVP toadies and all they can do is
recite the standard MS BS lines about keeping your
security up to date, But thing is that at any given moment,
there are any number of unfixed exploits of IE circulating
in the wild. Just look at the unrelenting releases of
critical updates to IE 6.0:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120413,00.asp
http://secunia.com/product/11

If you really are concerned about security, install a good
firewall, use Firefox whenever possible (and be sure to
check periodically for updates for that as well -- while
it's inherentely much more secure than IE, there are still
exploit risks inherent when running on Windows and with
Java:
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID...)
and avoid IE-dependent apps like Outlook and Outlook
Express.

-BC
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:10:26 PM

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

Yeah, you've debated us "toadies" before. You were wrong then and you're
wrong now.

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

"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113928381.497994.131550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> *sigh*
>
> The is NO point to upgrading Internet Explorer beyond
> 5.00 if you have no application forcing you to. I've debated
> this before with these MVP toadies and all they can do is
> recite the standard MS BS lines about keeping your
> security up to date, But thing is that at any given moment,
> there are any number of unfixed exploits of IE circulating
> in the wild. Just look at the unrelenting releases of
> critical updates to IE 6.0:
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120413,00.asp
> http://secunia.com/product/11
>
> If you really are concerned about security, install a good
> firewall, use Firefox whenever possible (and be sure to
> check periodically for updates for that as well -- while
> it's inherentely much more secure than IE, there are still
> exploit risks inherent when running on Windows and with
> Java:
> http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID...)
> and avoid IE-dependent apps like Outlook and Outlook
> Express.
>
> -BC
>
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:34:45 PM

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

Although you have that right to feel the way you do and I respect that right,
however I do not at all agree with most things you've said. I do not agree
with your remark about toadies either - most MVP's I know do not mimic or
follow everything MS says - actually I've noticed the opposite where most
always tell it just like it is irregardless of corporate agreement..

One thing I agree with you is about is a firewall of course, and anything
else security appropriate in any given situation.

Rick


BC wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> The is NO point to upgrading Internet Explorer beyond
> 5.00 if you have no application forcing you to. I've debated
> this before with these MVP toadies and all they can do is
> recite the standard MS BS lines about keeping your
> security up to date, But thing is that at any given moment,
> there are any number of unfixed exploits of IE circulating
> in the wild. Just look at the unrelenting releases of
> critical updates to IE 6.0:
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120413,00.asp
> http://secunia.com/product/11
>
> If you really are concerned about security, install a good
> firewall, use Firefox whenever possible (and be sure to
> check periodically for updates for that as well -- while
> it's inherentely much more secure than IE, there are still
> exploit risks inherent when running on Windows and with
> Java:
> http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID...)
> and avoid IE-dependent apps like Outlook and Outlook
> Express.
>
> -BC
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:17:28 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:10:19 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:26:04 -0700, Dan
>>>>"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>>>> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
>>>> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
>>>> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
>>>> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
>>>> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
>>>> upgrade...

>> I'd take that choice, especially as IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the files
>> have been said to work. IE 5.5 SP2 is MIME-safe at least.

>I'm not so sure if it's the right choice though, because for one thing there
>are known dll disconnects that happen if you do - such as

>~You'll lose the ability to Lock Toolbars in Explorer

That's interesting.

Even while MS were claiming IE was "part of the OS" due to IE 4's
"Desktop Integration" thing, they were developing IE 5.00 so that it
could run with less overlap, in case a court judgement insisted that
IE be ripped out of the OS.

So when you install IE 5.xx over IE 3.xx, you don't get desktop
integration at all - no "View As Web Page" (YESSS!!!) no "Active
Desktop" (yay!) and no QuickLaunch etc. toolbars (bummer!).

That's why it's interesting that you lose "Lock Toolbars". I wonder
if the above is the reason?

>~The IE Repair Tool will malfunction when used.

Sure. It's like ripping out WSH and .HTA engine files as a risk
management strategy; any IE update may fall you back.

>These are not big deals in themselves but still point to the fact things
>don't match up with code written that goes nowhere or somewhere else it
>shouldn't. Also, not to mention since IE6 came out there were what about 5,
>6 or 7 cumulative updates because of security changes and in each of those
>updates, one or the other dll was replaced each time - so how can we know
>that whichever security update changes were made to the dll would be
>neglected if we were still carrying the old 5.5 dlls.

That's what worries me:
- fixes within the .DLLs that are lost; hello, risk
- fixes elsewhere that break compatibility with these .DLLs

That's what has to be tested even to officially endorse the workaround
(as opposed to dev up less broken .DLLs) and as it's quite a bit of
work at a time the same devs are chasing up '711 issues, I'm not
surprised MS hasn't fixed this since we formally submitted it as a
case. Which reminds me; time for a nudge on that one.

>it's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6 but yes I had
>noticed other minor issues after using the dll swap for some time, when
>opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in it I would notice the
>icons for those files each time taking a split second as one by one they
>assimilated themselves down the line ...

That smells like an IE5-era overhead; it's pulling icons from file
cluster chains, and that's gotta hurt. Shelliconcache is supposed to
ease that pain, and it prolly does, but IE4 logic may have added
additional and unrelated per-item overhead that would slow the
handling of each file, and thus delay accessing the icon even when
that access is speeded up through the icon cache.

The tendency has been (and remains to be) to add more and more junk to
what should be as simple listing of files. This is not only a
performance PITA, but it's dangerous for two reasons:
- larger malware-exploitable risk surface
- risk of bogging down in bad sectors when the HD is failing

Both make the OS less fit for use in maintenance scenarios, at a time
when USB, HD > 137G and NTFS preclude the use of DOS as a mOS.

See http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm

>I'd rather put my effort into getting the current IE6 SP1 dll's get updated
>properly - it's the best way to do it imho.

That would be the best fix, yes.

"Can the maker repair what he makes?" (Blade Runner)



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:25:32 AM

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

On 19 Apr 2005 09:33:01 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:

>The is NO point to upgrading Internet Explorer beyond
>5.00 if you have no application forcing you to.

Bollocks, IMO. I'd go IE 5.5 SP2 at least.

>I've debated this before with these MVP toadies

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm refers.

Making sure that MS's wretched HTML viewer NEVER gets its teeth into
HTML is not as trivial as "just use FireFox" plus "just use a decent
email app", though both of those steps would be mandatory if you were
to leave MIME-dangerous IE versions in place.

IE 6 SP1 + ongoing patches is first prize, but IE 5.5 SP2 or IE 3.xx
would be the best fallbacks IMO. On a really old PC, I'd rip out
IE4.xx or later and go back to IE 3.xx with all the "acticve content"
junk killed in Tools, Options as the preferred option.

IE 4 and MIME-vunerable IE 5.xx are just the wrong age; smart enough
to understand when strange men offer them cookies, but too stupid to
tell them to F off. IE 3.xx won't understand what the man's saying.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:33:08 PM

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

BC wrote:

[........sniped for the brevity of my answer.........]

> Now do I make myself clear?

Yes...

...But it's not for me to reply with a qualified answer to your post.
cquirke has more verbiage to give for that, however, I hope he saves his
discussion energy for what's currently at hand instead.. o:) 

Rick

>
> -BC
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:40:25 PM

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

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:10:19 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
>>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:26:04 -0700, Dan
>>>>>"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
>
>>>>> You have two choices: You can do what someone else here is bound to
>>>>> suggest, i.e. move a couple of DLL files from the System folder to the
>>>>> Internet Explorer folder and then put older versions of those same DLL
>>>>> files (from IE 5.5) into the System folder, thereby probably breaking
>>>>> whatever unknown and uncounted security patches were effected by the
>>>>> upgrade...
>
>>> I'd take that choice, especially as IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the files
>>> have been said to work. IE 5.5 SP2 is MIME-safe at least.
>
>>I'm not so sure if it's the right choice though, because for one thing
>>there are known dll disconnects that happen if you do - such as
>
>>~You'll lose the ability to Lock Toolbars in Explorer
>
> That's interesting.


Yep, and it's only one example of the many backwards 6 to 5 dll swap
disconnect problems that presents in its wake.


> Even while MS were claiming IE was "part of the OS" due to IE 4's
> "Desktop Integration" thing, they were developing IE 5.00 so that it
> could run with less overlap, in case a court judgement insisted that
> IE be ripped out of the OS.
>
> So when you install IE 5.xx over IE 3.xx, you don't get desktop
> integration at all - no "View As Web Page" (YESSS!!!) no "Active
> Desktop" (yay!) and no QuickLaunch etc. toolbars (bummer!).

Well Chris it didn't have to be a bummer because a little tidbit is that you
still could of gleaned the Active Desktop and thus QuickLaunch in that
situation, I've done it before which is when you have the ie5setup.exe in
hand and from a MSDOS window or Start-> Run and this run this line:
ie5setup.exe /c:"ie5wzd /e:IE4Shell_WIN /I:Y"
..which will install the ActiveDesktop/DeskopUpdate component of IE5, where
under normal circumstances only gets installed if you're upgrading from an
IE4 installation that already included ActiveDesktop. (ie, it helps mostly
in the case when you want to get AD and install ie5 directly instead of going
the 'official' install IE4+AD first, then install/upgrade-to IE5 route).

> That's why it's interesting that you lose "Lock Toolbars". I wonder
> if the above is the reason?


No, ..at least I don't think that was reason; although with these things it
could be a simple . in the wrong place - human error.


>>~The IE Repair Tool will malfunction when used.
>
> Sure. It's like ripping out WSH and .HTA engine files as a risk
> management strategy; any IE update may fall you back.

exactly

>>These are not big deals in themselves but still point to the fact things
>>don't match up with code written that goes nowhere or somewhere else it
>>shouldn't. Also, not to mention since IE6 came out there were what about
>>5, 6 or 7 cumulative updates because of security changes and in each of
>>those updates, one or the other dll was replaced each time - so how can we
>>know that whichever security update changes were made to the dll would be
>>neglected if we were still carrying the old 5.5 dlls.
>
> That's what worries me:
> - fixes within the .DLLs that are lost; hello, risk
> - fixes elsewhere that break compatibility with these .DLLs


exactly my points too


> That's what has to be tested even to officially endorse the workaround
> (as opposed to dev up less broken .DLLs) and as it's quite a bit of
> work at a time the same devs are chasing up '711 issues, I'm not
> surprised MS hasn't fixed this since we formally submitted it as a
> case. Which reminds me; time for a nudge on that one.


nudge, nudge, <smile>


>>it's been a year or so since I ran the 5.5 dlls in IE6 but yes I had
>>noticed other minor issues after using the dll swap for some time, when
>>opening drives or folders that had lot's of files in it I would notice the
>>icons for those files each time taking a split second as one by one they
>>assimilated themselves down the line ...
>
> That smells like an IE5-era overhead; it's pulling icons from file
> cluster chains, and that's gotta hurt. Shelliconcache is supposed to
> ease that pain, and it prolly does, but IE4 logic may have added
> additional and unrelated per-item overhead that would slow the
> handling of each file, and thus delay accessing the icon even when
> that access is speeded up through the icon cache.
>
> The tendency has been (and remains to be) to add more and more junk to
> what should be as simple listing of files. This is not only a
> performance PITA, but it's dangerous for two reasons:
> - larger malware-exploitable risk surface
> - risk of bogging down in bad sectors when the HD is failing
>
> Both make the OS less fit for use in maintenance scenarios, at a time
> when USB, HD > 137G and NTFS preclude the use of DOS as a mOS.
>
> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm
>
>>I'd rather put my effort into getting the current IE6 SP1 dll's get updated
>>properly - it's the best way to do it imho.
>
> That would be the best fix, yes.


Yes it would be the totally best of ways to do it.
However, I do certainly realize on the one hand it 'may' take quite an effort
to do so, however on the other hand I know if you get the right experienced
original programmer, or even a better one, they can dissect this issue in no
time.. ..click, click, type, type, type in a few lines of code in the right
spot to resolve this issue. I know it can be done!!! ...it's just getting
the right coder in the right spot at the right time to do it - heck it could
even be on the side at MS (good coders can even solve the problems while
they're daydreaming where all inspiration happens) ...and then the fix could
even be 'slid in' to the very few (if any) of the new updates that will come
out for 9x in the future. If the original programmer even finds out this
problem exists, I would think just for the sake of ones own personal pride of
their work I would think that they would immediately set out to resolve this
problem and even if it had to be on the side if MS can't legally do it (which
i don't believe that for a moment and know so) ..then they could offer the
solution off site through one of you MVP's or their own site. If it was me -
I would do it without question. I care about the integrity of the work I do!
....and I have to believe so does that original programmer too, if they knew.

> "Can the maker repair what he makes?" (Blade Runner)

Absolutely, If the right chain of events = people, energy, and events are in
the flow of wanting it - this can be fixed.

Rick


>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:04:21 PM

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

On 19 Apr 2005 14:17:11 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:

>The whole point of keeping IE up to date and
>patched is to keep it reasonably safe to use.

Not quite; it's to keep it reasonably safe, whether you use it or not
(given the OS is likely to use it behind your back). My own preference
is to both keep it patched *and* use something else; in my case,
Firefox for web and Eudora for email, with Eudora set to not use
Microsoft's viewer to display HTML messages.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/eudwhy.htm explains "why Eudora?"

The very worst data management strategy is to:
- bind data version to app version
- bind app version to whatever it's bundled with
- store data in proprietary binary format
- mix user data with malware-risky incoming material
- store everything within one big and brittle file
- use predicatble paths and file names
- store in deeply-nested, hard to recover paths
- require "special" import/export procedures to move data

With the above in mind, it's clear why OE and especially Outlook are
far from being my preferred email applications.

>at any given moment, especially in recent years,
>there are any number of unfixed IE exploits that
>the latest updates don't address.

That's why I'd rather avoid such a widely-used target. But not using
IE does not make it safe to leave lying around unpatched.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:07:40 PM

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

On 20 Apr 2005 05:02:25 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:

>Naw, I think the plain 5.00 version is the best -- you
>only need a couple of patches for it and your are
>fairly immune to a lot of exploits that affect 5.01
>and above.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm refers. Anything that
presents HTML to the OS to render provides an opportunity for
clickless attack, thanks to that defect that does affect IE 5.00

>But be sure to have at least a freebie firewall running

A firewall will do nothing to protect you against HTML that exploits
the MIME hole. If the HTML is delivered to the system - and a
firewall won't prevent it from doing so - then off we go.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:12:30 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:40:25 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

>> So when you install IE 5.xx over IE 3.xx, you don't get desktop
>> integration at all - no "View As Web Page" (YESSS!!!) no "Active
>> Desktop" (yay!) and no QuickLaunch etc. toolbars (bummer!).

>Well Chris it didn't have to be a bummer because a little tidbit is that you
>still could of gleaned the Active Desktop and thus QuickLaunch

That's the point; I don't want any part of "desktop integration"
whatsoever, except possibly QuickLaunch. I certainly do not want
script-dropping opportunities in every single directory (View As Web
Page via Desktop.ini) or Active Desktop.

>However, I do certainly realize on the one hand it 'may' take quite an effort
>to do so, however on the other hand I know if you get the right experienced
>original programmer, or even a better one, they can dissect this issue in no
>time.. ..click, click, type, type, type in a few lines of code in the right
>spot to resolve this issue. I know it can be done!!!

Somehow, I don't think it will be that easy :-)



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:12:31 PM

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

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:40:25 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
>>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>
>>> So when you install IE 5.xx over IE 3.xx, you don't get desktop
>>> integration at all - no "View As Web Page" (YESSS!!!) no "Active
>>> Desktop" (yay!) and no QuickLaunch etc. toolbars (bummer!).
>
>>Well Chris it didn't have to be a bummer because a little tidbit is that
>>you still could of gleaned the Active Desktop and thus QuickLaunch
>
> That's the point; I don't want any part of "desktop integration"
> whatsoever, except possibly QuickLaunch. I certainly do not want
> script-dropping opportunities in every single directory (View As Web
> Page via Desktop.ini) or Active Desktop.


Yes I agree I never wanted Anything of AD either but just Only the
QuickLaunch, but that was the only way to get it at that point in time, which
was my only point for posting in reply about it.

>>However, I do certainly realize on the one hand it 'may' take quite an
>>effort to do so, however on the other hand I know if you get the right
>>experienced original programmer, or even a better one, they can dissect
>>this issue in no time.. ..click, click, type, type, type in a few lines of
>>code in the right spot to resolve this issue. I know it can be done!!!
>
> Somehow, I don't think it will be that easy :-)


:-) I know but I think for the right original programmer it maybe could be,
otherwise I realize it will be a lot tougher.

Changing from that thought to the issue, it's interesting that after however
many files (let's say 1600) getting put in the delete process buffer and
activating that this hang happens, and so it seems it's almost like it runs
out of entry space in it's allotted buffer for listing ability.

I mean if deleting 500 files works fine but 2000 doesn't.... and so logically
something runs out of room. Just make that buffer listing capacity bigger.
hehe, i wish it was simple as that. ........maybe it is o:) 

Rick



>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
April 24, 2005 1:14:38 PM

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

" I know for a fact that IE5 fails the same vulnerability tests that
IE6
does - but because IE5 is unsupported no onemakes any big waves
over this. "

So if IE5 and IE6 have the same vulnerabilities, then there's no
point in upgrading then, yes?

But that's not quite true a statement. Microsoft's been cagey about
which vulnerabilities affect 6.0 and not earlier versions, but here is
one example:

"13 December 2001 Cumulative Patch for IE
This is a cumulative patch that, when installed, eliminates all
previously discussed security vulnerabilities affecting IE 5.5 and
IE 6. In addition, it eliminates three newly discovered
vulnerabilities.

- The first vulnerability involves a flaw in the handling of the
Content-Disposition and Content-Type header fields in an HTML.
stream. These fields, the hosting URL, and the hosted file data
determine how a file is handled upon download in Internet Explorer.
A security vulnerability exists because, if an attacker altered the
HTML header information in a certain way, it could be possible to
make IE believe that an executable file was actually a different type
of file -- one that it is appropriate to simply open without asking the

user for confirmation. This could enable the attacker to create a
web page or HTML mail that, when opened, would automatically
run an executable on the user's system. This vulnerability affects
IE 6.0 only. It does not affect IE 5.5."

'Nuff said

-BC
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:05:32 AM

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

Bye!

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
* http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm


"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114359278.947387.235910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>" I know for a fact that IE5 fails the same vulnerability tests that
> IE6
> does - but because IE5 is unsupported no onemakes any big waves
> over this. "
>
> So if IE5 and IE6 have the same vulnerabilities, then there's no
> point in upgrading then, yes?
>
> But that's not quite true a statement. Microsoft's been cagey about
> which vulnerabilities affect 6.0 and not earlier versions, but here is
> one example:
>
> "13 December 2001 Cumulative Patch for IE
> This is a cumulative patch that, when installed, eliminates all
> previously discussed security vulnerabilities affecting IE 5.5 and
> IE 6. In addition, it eliminates three newly discovered
> vulnerabilities.
>
> - The first vulnerability involves a flaw in the handling of the
> Content-Disposition and Content-Type header fields in an HTML.
> stream. These fields, the hosting URL, and the hosted file data
> determine how a file is handled upon download in Internet Explorer.
> A security vulnerability exists because, if an attacker altered the
> HTML header information in a certain way, it could be possible to
> make IE believe that an executable file was actually a different type
> of file -- one that it is appropriate to simply open without asking the
>
> user for confirmation. This could enable the attacker to create a
> web page or HTML mail that, when opened, would automatically
> run an executable on the user's system. This vulnerability affects
> IE 6.0 only. It does not affect IE 5.5."
>
> 'Nuff said
>
> -BC
>
April 25, 2005 3:11:25 PM

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

Come back when you have something other than a
bogus Microsoft policy to share.

-BC
!