Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Random Load Sequence of Systray Icons

Tags:
  • Microsoft
  • Error Message
  • Icons
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:08:09 PM

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

-- I have about 8 icons which appear in my System Tray at Boot-up, but each
time they appear in some seemingly randomly-ordered sequence. Is there some
method to this madness? Does the loading of the icons reflect the order of
loading of the programs themselves? From time to time (not all that
frequently, so I find it tolerable) I get some fatal error message, but a
subsequent reboot has no problems. I don't know if the two are connected,
but can someone maybe explain what might be going on? My OS is Windows 98SE.

little nemo in slumberland

More about : random load sequence systray icons

Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:22:43 PM

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

littlenemo wrote:
> -- I have about 8 icons which appear in my System Tray at Boot-up, but each
> time they appear in some seemingly randomly-ordered sequence. Is there
> some method to this madness? Does the loading of the icons reflect the
> order of loading of the programs themselves? From time to time (not all
> that frequently, so I find it tolerable) I get some fatal error message,
> but a subsequent reboot has no problems. I don't know if the two are
> connected, but can someone maybe explain what might be going on? My OS is
> Windows 98SE.
>
> little nemo in slumberland

Some programs depending on how their made can cause that, but more
importantly one thing you can do is keep your system light on it's feet upon
startup, where it's always good not to have too many programs running live
anyway which also shows up in the sys tray, when they are not needed.
As well it's certainly always good to do a 'find files' on and then delete
the ShellIconCache file and reboot ..do that every few or 6 months
(depending on use) for various good reasons, even if you have its
cache set to 2048.

Also it's very good occasional to boot to dos and run:
scanreg /fix
..and then
scanreg /opt
...which will clean up that a bit

The point in mentioning this is that I've personally seen 'numerous' times
after doing these procedures - it will stop the alternate loading of sys tray
icons that you've mentioned. (which always bugged me too ;) 

Rick
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:22:34 AM

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

Yes, there is *some* method to it....see here --
INFO: Run, RunOnce, RunServices, RunServicesOnce and Startup:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=179365

<quote>
......the keys are loaded in the following order:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServicesOnce

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices

<Logon Prompt>

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

StartUp Folder

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce

With the exception of the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\...\RunOnce key, all keys and their
entries are loaded asynchronously. Therefore, all entries in the RunServices and
RunServicesOnce keys can potentially run at the same time.

Entries in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\...\RunOnce key are loaded synchronously in an
undefined order.

Because the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\...\RunOnce key is loaded synchronously, all of its
entries must finish loading before the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\...\Run,
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\...\Run, HKEY_CURRENT_USER\...\RunOnce, and Startup Folder entries
can be loaded.

The RunServicesOnce and RunServices keys are loaded before the user logs into
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Me. Because these two keys run asynchronously
with the Logon dialog box, they can continue to run after the user has logged on.
However, since HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\...\RunOnce must load synchronously, its entries
will not begin loading until after the RunServicesOnce and RunServices keys have
finished loading.

<unquote>
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...


"littlenemo" <littlenemo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03BF3DDF-B3B3-46BB-8971-8E26CC22B305@microsoft.com...
>
> -- I have about 8 icons which appear in my System Tray at Boot-up, but each
> time they appear in some seemingly randomly-ordered sequence. Is there some
> method to this madness? Does the loading of the icons reflect the order of
> loading of the programs themselves? From time to time (not all that
> frequently, so I find it tolerable) I get some fatal error message, but a
> subsequent reboot has no problems. I don't know if the two are connected,
> but can someone maybe explain what might be going on? My OS is Windows 98SE.
>
> little nemo in slumberland
Related resources
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:34:42 AM

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

Others have given you excellent advice. However, the order in which the
icons show up and are listed in the tray doesn't necessarily follow the
order in which they start loading. The icons appear at the end of the
load procedure for each program---they signify that the program has
finished loading. However, since they take varying times to load, even
from one boot to the next, the order of the tray icons will vary
accordingly.

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

"littlenemo" <littlenemo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03BF3DDF-B3B3-46BB-8971-8E26CC22B305@microsoft.com...
>
> -- I have about 8 icons which appear in my System Tray at Boot-up, but
each
> time they appear in some seemingly randomly-ordered sequence. Is
there some
> method to this madness? Does the loading of the icons reflect the
order of
> loading of the programs themselves? From time to time (not all that
> frequently, so I find it tolerable) I get some fatal error message,
but a
> subsequent reboot has no problems. I don't know if the two are
connected,
> but can someone maybe explain what might be going on? My OS is
Windows 98SE.
>
> little nemo in slumberland
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:47:06 PM

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

Things like Norton System Works, with it's one-button tune-up, are
dangerous. Much more dangerous than Windows Updates, that's for sure.
There is no such thing as a mistake-proof utility. That's why I outline
the steps in my Clean Boot procedure the way I do, instead of telling
people to just use Cleanup Manager or Norton whatever. It's OK to use
these tools to suggest things that you might want to do, but it is *not*
OK to let them make the decisions for you, and it is *not* OK to do
*anything* they suggest you do unless you fully understand what you are
doing. You're better off not doing anything, most times.

The WORD 2000 program you installed is part of the Office Suite. There
are several Office Programs. You can install them in carious
combinations or only one. But they are *all* Office Programs. In
addition to things like Word, Excel, Outlook, etc., Office has
underlying support programs and utilities that each version of Office,
whether a single program or a Suite, includes in the installer. When you
first installed Word, before the installer got to actually install Word,
it had to install those underlying programs. Some of them are optional,
some of them are mandatory--common things that can be used by any of the
Office applications. One of the optional utilities is FastFind, a
program that indexes your files (searches for words in all files and
creates an index much like the one you might find at the end of a text
book.) Say you want to search your system for any files that contain the
word Russia (because you've been doing some research on Russia and can't
remember the name of one particular file, just that it's likely to
include the word Russia, somewhere.) The FastFind indexing feature
supposedly makes that searching go more quickly--because by using an
index, each Search operation doesn't have to read every file to find the
word Russia--it already has a list of those files. Unfortunately, as you
have discovered, FastFind causes lots of problems. When it detects that
your system ins "idle" it starts indexing files. Unfortunately, FF is
more suited to NT architecture than it is to 9x architecture, causes all
the problem you've seen. (Though, in fact, if you'd used my Clean Boot
procedures to prepare for Norton Speed Disk, you wouldn't have had that
particular problem with the FF Index, aka 'Microsoft Office Search
Services', because the Clean Boot procedures turn off FF indexing
temporarily.)

Now, you claim, somewhere, that you "never gave permission" to do this
or that... Well, yes you did--by using a Typical installation instead of
a Custom installation. Office chose that particular drive to put the
index on because it noticed it wasn't being used for anything else--was
a nice free chink of disk that would suit its purposes nicely. (By the
way, I think that many partitions on an 8GB drive is going way
overboard, <s>.)

Unless you particularly need its abilities (and most people don't,
though some do), you're better off not installing FastFind--but it's
part of every Office 2000 Default installation. Which is why I always
tell people, "ALWAYS use the Custom installation option, not Typical or
Full, etc." If you had used the Custom installation option when
installing Word, you'd have noticed several features that are part of
every Office installation, some of them enabled by default, others that
are not. And just like my previous comments on "do-it-all-for-you"
Utilities, "Typical" installations aren't usually the right choice to
installation choice. Even so, you might have seen FastFind listed as
enabled, and read the FF description and thought, "Well, that sounds
helpful", and installed it anyway. But at least you would have possibly
realized what was happening later on. Frankly, the FastFind issue is
*so* well known that if you had come here and simply asked, "Why is my
hard disk running continuously, *especially* when I'm not using the
system?!?", fifteen people would have immediately responded, "Uninstall
Fast Find!"

OK, so after all that, you'll want to know how. Simple: Go to Add/Remove
Programs, find Microsoft Word, double-click it and then choose "Add or
Change Components". Make sure you have *not* already disabled FastFind
in MSCONFIG--if it's disabled, the startup command won't be properly
removed. Once you've uninstalled FF and restarted, you can then delete
the index, that file you found on drive I.

And don't forget to review everything else in the Word setup to decide
if you want or need other things: Rule 1 is, "If you don't need
something, or don't know what it is or if you need it, don't install it.
You can always go back later and install it if you decide you need it."

There may also be a ton of files in the Windows folder with long names
that start with "ffff", (or something like that) and end in a long hex
number in {brackets}, and you'll want to get rid of those, too. They're
left-over temporary index files that should have been deleted once their
contents were written to the permanent index, but a bug often means that
they stay around forever.

I hope the above helps you understand a few things better.

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

"littlenemo" <littlenemo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EBCF9CC7-83F1-475F-831B-6BA7F8FFF3AB@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Gary--the advice is much appreciated even as most of what you
said
> just confirms what was already in the back of my mind. As for your
paper on
> a 'Clean Boot', I downloaded that months ago for future reference,
realizing
> that I would someday make use of its wisdom. But I have to say I'm a
little
> gun-shy about defragging and optimizing, although I've always known
its
> benefits. The program I normally use for that is Norton Systemworks
(it has
> a 'One Button Checkup' feature which includes defragging and
optimization),
> but it has caused me some headaches. I've tried to find out what's
causing
> the problem, but I've had no luck finding answers--Symantec won't
support a
> product more than 2 years old, and I haven't been able to find the
answer in
> Microsoft's Knowledge Base. But I might mention it here for your
> consideration--you might be able to direct me to someone who has the
answer.
>
> A couple of years ago, I installed a standalone copy of Microsoft Word
2002.
> Initially the install appeared to be installing some portion of
Microsoft
> Office before something seemed to go wrong and it aborted. On my
second try,
> the installation seemed to proceed smoothly, with no initial parts
having to
> do with Microsoft Office. The program seemed to work fine with no
problems.
> Not too long after that I noticed that my hard drive seemed to be on
> steroids, with the activity light on almost constantly for long
periods of
> time--something that had never occurred before. This seemed to happen
> whenever the computer was idle for awhile, and when I would return to
it, it
> would seem to respond sluggishly, as if coming out of a deep
coma---the disk
> activity would seem to resist the interrupting of its operations,
whatever
> they were. It would sometimes take up to a minute or so before
everything
> seemed to work punctually again, and the disk activity would cease.
During
> this period, the Systemworks defragging and optimization began bogging
down
> on my I: drive (partition). I have a 30 GB hard drive which I had
originally
> partitioned into drives C: through Q: (15 partitions). Most of these
> partitions were 'empty', including the I: drive, so I could not
immediately
> figure out why the defragging and optimization was taking 45 minutes
to an
> hour on this one drive, while all the rest of the drives combined,
including
> my C:, D:, and E: drives---which contain most of my software and data,
were
> being defragged and optimized in seconds. As far as I knew, I had
nothing on
> the I: drive, that is, until I took a look at it. It now contained a
folder
> called 'Microsoft Office Search Services' whose size was over 200 MB.
What
> was it and how did it get there without my knowledge? I've never been
able
> to really figure it out, except that it appears to have something to
do with
> 'indexing services' which in turn enable some kind of 'fast find' of
document
> contents for Microsoft Office-related programs. One thing that
bothers me is
> that I never gave any permission to the installation program to make
use of
> my I: drive, and I was never informed of it.
>
> In any event, it is this large folder which appears to be causing my
> Systemworks defrag and optimize to seemingly thrash about endlessly.
Just as
> strangely, within a matter of days, the folder appears to have again
become
> fragmented and disorganized to the point that it again requires the
same long
> time to defrag and optimize. It's as if the 2 programs--'Microsoft
Office
> Search Services' and 'Norton defragging and optimizing' were engaging
in
> un-doing each other's work. To try to correct this situation, I
attempted to
> configure Systemworks so as to get it to 'ignore' this particular
drive, but
> there isn't any such option, so I'm more or less forced to endure the
tedious
> defragging and optimization every time I choose to do the One Button
Checkup.
> I haven't been able to get answers from either Microsoft or Symantec
on how
> to deal with this. I've thought seriously about 'deleting' the
Microsoft
> Office Search Services folder, but I'm not sure what effect this would
> have--whether it would simply replace itself like 'ShellIconCache'
does, or
> perhaps jam up my computer in some painful way. Can you blame me for
being
> somewhat reluctant to make use of defragmentation and optimization?
Any
> suggestions?
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 11:22:17 AM

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

Yes, that's exactly what they are doing, Gary. They've also installed a keylogger
on your machine so Dan won't miss anything you write. ;-)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eluZUeRUFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sheesh! I never *can* remember if it's "Find Fast" or "Fast Find".
>
> I swear, they're monitoring these groups, and every time I use one term
> they quick run and change all the references in the KB to just the
> opposite!
>
> --
> 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:o RTyv$QUFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > OFFXP: Hard Disk Runs Continuously After You Install Office XP
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282106
> >
> > OFFXP: Overview of the New Search Feature in Office XP
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282107
> > --
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> >
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:24:25 PM

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

Hi, Dan!

--
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:o IRoOSWUFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Yes, that's exactly what they are doing, Gary. They've also installed
a keylogger
> on your machine so Dan won't miss anything you write. ;-)
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:eluZUeRUFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Sheesh! I never *can* remember if it's "Find Fast" or "Fast Find".
> >
> > I swear, they're monitoring these groups, and every time I use one
term
> > they quick run and change all the references in the KB to just the
> > opposite!
> >
> > --
> > 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:o RTyv$QUFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > OFFXP: Hard Disk Runs Continuously After You Install Office XP
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282106
> > >
> > > OFFXP: Overview of the New Search Feature in Office XP
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282107
> > > --
> > > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> > >
>
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:13:51 PM

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

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:47:06 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

>Things like Norton System Works, with it's one-button tune-up, are
>dangerous. Much more dangerous than Windows Updates, that's for sure.

Yes. There are dangers at every level of abstraction...
- user intention
- software intention
- software design
- software code
- unwanted software, i.e. malware
- hardware
....and the lower the level of abstraction, the greater the risk,
because scopes that rest on higher abstraction layers are meaningless.

So, from the bottom up, we have:

1) Bad RAM

Think of this as like a sniper who seldom fires, but never misses. If
the system encounters a situation where RAM is suspected to be bad, it
can do nothing safely, and will simply halt - but more often, there's
no chance to react to bad RAM because until the first shot there is
nil to see, and the first shot usually kills processing stone dead.

2) Bad HD

Think of bad HD as like quicksand - stray into an area of failing
disk, and you get trapped in low-level retry loops that won't let you
go for ages. Typically what is written to bad disk is lost forever,
though the system may fake recovery.

3) Bad untestables

Other hardware subsystems can fail, but there are generally no tests
for these - it's the "deadly sniper" effect all over again, but this
time the sniper is invisible. Bad PSUs or motherboard caps are as
likely to reset the PC as to lock it up, bad SVGA may show visible
anomalies on screen as well as locking up, and overheating may cause
slowdowns before errors, lockups and resets as the CPU protects itself
by retreating into thermal shutdown etc.

4) Malware

Malware can mimic anything else, and is designed not to be found. So
you have to go and look for it; it won't stand up to be counted.

5) Unsafe software

Safety failures are of three types:
- software takes risks on user's behalf
- software misrepresents risk to user
- software behaviour is not limited to risk shown to user
Malware thrives on software unsafety; it is this, rather than
"security", that is most relevant to malware.

6) Insane software

Software may be safely designed, but insane due to exploitable code
defects. For example, it may show you that a file is a JPEG (and thus
safe to "open") and it may not automatically run a mis-named .EXE as
code, but stop with an appropriate error. Yet the code that handles
the JPEG material may have flaws that allow it to take control.

7) Security issues

Security, as system administration goes, is about ensuring that
everything that happens is accounted for and can be linked to a
particular user, and that users are identified and limited to what
that identity is allowed to do. It only starts to be relevant after
factors (1-6) have been excluded.

8) User failure

Only once we know the user is supposed to be allowed access to the
system (7), and that the software does only what the user intends to
do (5), and that the system is sane (6), clean (4) and healthy (1-3),
are we left with genuine user stupidity or perfidity and can "blame
the victim" on a PBKAC basis :-)

>There is no such thing as a mistake-proof utility. It's OK to use
>these tools to suggest things that you might want to do, but it is *not*
>OK to let them make the decisions for you, and it is *not* OK to do
>*anything* they suggest you do unless you fully understand what you are
>doing. You're better off not doing anything, most times.

Now consider auto-Scandisk and XP's AutoChk against the backdrop of
(1-8) above. These automatically (5) make changes at a deep level of
abstraction that act below any patina of safety that "security" (7)
might apply, and are handling insanity (6) or ill-health (1-3). These
changes are poorly logged. Seems like a real (7) failure to me.

Why in 2005 do we allow XP to automatically "fix" things in a
destructive and irreversable way, and bury the results deep in Event
Viewer? How "accountable" is this? How does one square this with the
excellent advice to allow no unlogged changes to the system?

>FastFind causes lots of problems. Unfortunately, FF is
>more suited to NT architecture than it is to 9x architecture

Underfootware file touchers are a BAD idea, due to (6). Complex code
is sure to have defects, and if these are on an edge, they can be
exploited. NT (XP etc.) has the equivalent of Fast Find built into
the OS, and the wretched thing has already been found to have
exploitable defects. As such, it is the worst kind of (5), i.e.
software that is maximally unsafe because it automatically takes risks
on the user's behalf. If it "touches" a file that is crafted to
exploit it, then that content gets traction to run as code.

>Now, you claim, somewhere, that you "never gave permission" to do this
>or that... Well, yes you did--by using a Typical installation instead of
>a Custom installation.

In NT (XP) you have even less control; Office uses NT's built-in
indexing automatically, like it or not. As at 2005, current versions
of NT (i.e. XP) may not run the indexing service automatically.

>"ALWAYS use the Custom installation option"

ABSOLUTELY! Even if you just nod dumbly, you can at least see what
you are nodding dumbly to.

>There may also be a ton of files in the Windows folder with long names
>that start with "ffff", (or something like that) and end in a long hex
>number in {brackets}, and you'll want to get rid of those, too. They're
>left-over temporary index files that should have been deleted once their
>contents were written to the permanent index, but a bug often means that
>they stay around forever.

Actually, those files are not related to Fast Find at all. Fast Find
creates its index files (usually 4-5 of them) in each volume's root.

The FFFF....files in Windows base dir aren't "F^%ing Fast Find" as the
names suggest, but are spawned by MDM.EXE, i.e. the script debugger.

Normally, you kill that via IE's Tools, Options, Advanced, [x] Disable
script debugging, but recent versions of MS Office tend to enable the
wretched thing even when IE's settings appear to suppress it. Look
for MDM.EXE as a Task in the Ctl+Alt+Del list, and you may have to
explicitly kill it in RegEdit as well as "asking nicely" in IE.

Writing wads (thousands!) of dir entries into the Windows base dir is
a ^&%$ing STUPID thing to do, especially in FATxx systems where
directory access is linear. The directory gets long and fragmented,
and thus the critical period for each update is increated. Bad-exit
during this period, and the next Auto-Scandisk may just decide the
Windows directory is "bad" and trucate it, casting system files adrift
as nameless lost cluster chains. Game Over?

If MDM.EXE had any clue whatsoever, it would spawn its own dir
somewhere and puke in that. But as it is, etc.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
!