Chaining updates in W98

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

KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1 restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?
12 answers Last reply
More about chaining updates
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    asur wrote:
    > KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It is
    > listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and others.
    > It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question is, does
    > Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because on a
    > fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
    > approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1 restart.) And
    > if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
    > applicable to W98 (SE)?

    Windows Update does NOT chain updates for 98, what it does instead is
    not offer prior updates but only the latest one (of any possible
    series) that applies to your machine. Viv le scan!

    QCheck tool actually reads file versions and modifies a registry key of
    NT only machines to insure that same named files that are pending
    replacement into the system have the highest version number no matter
    what order the updates were applied. Even then IIRC, some of the older
    updates for Win2K couldn't be used with QCheck because they weren't
    written with the tool in mind at the time of their release.
    only for reference to NT only reg key - not related to topic per se.
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995

    I'm thinking you are a bit optimistic with one reboot at WinUP site.
    Ie 6.00 SP1 requires a reboot of it's own (and can't be downloaded with
    any other update) so that would make at least two reboots to start
    with? Doing multiple updates at WinUp site, especially big ones like 5
    meg MS Java build 3810 leave a lot of users with machines that don't
    boot, you'll never get me to recommend more than two updates at a time
    for online users.
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
    and get those two straight in your mind.

    2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
    use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
    much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
    http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/about.asp?corporate=true as a
    place to start learning more about this topic.

    3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
    not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
    you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
    tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
    of tech knowledge and responsibility.

    4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
    Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
    UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
    why, I'm not a programmer.

    5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
    fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
    someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
    one.

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

    "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:BA332872-ED50-41AF-BCAE-2F893C46C946@microsoft.com...
    > KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
    > is
    > listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
    > others.
    > It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
    > is, does
    > Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
    > on a
    > fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
    > approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
    > restart.) And
    > if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
    > applicable to W98 (SE)?
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of QChain
    and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now, thanks.
    The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
    accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one restart (and
    preferably without each update asking for restart)?

    Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh W98 SE.
    I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the ~24
    critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24 updates
    take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of those
    updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and put on
    CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one. So,
    it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.

    "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

    > 1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
    > and get those two straight in your mind.
    >
    > 2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
    > use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
    > much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
    > http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/about.asp?corporate=true as a
    > place to start learning more about this topic.
    >
    > 3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
    > not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
    > you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
    > tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
    > of tech knowledge and responsibility.
    >
    > 4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
    > Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
    > UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
    > why, I'm not a programmer.
    >
    > 5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
    > fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
    > someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
    > one.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:BA332872-ED50-41AF-BCAE-2F893C46C946@microsoft.com...
    > > KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
    > > is
    > > listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
    > > others.
    > > It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
    > > is, does
    > > Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
    > > on a
    > > fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
    > > approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
    > > restart.) And
    > > if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
    > > applicable to W98 (SE)?
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Sorry, there is no straight answer to that. You can always install them
    in date order, refusing to restart when prompted, or guessing when it
    would be a good time to restart...

    But a *lot* of work goes into Windows Updates (I know because I help
    test the new versions--not the updates, the mechanisms.) It's a real
    chore just to make it properly detect what's missing, what needs to be
    installed, in what order they need to be installed, etc. No, the
    associated KB number isn't a good way to decide order--the updates are
    often updated without changing the actual designator. And no, without a
    seriously deep knowledge of the individual updates, well beyond anything
    you'll find in the simple KB articles, you can't really be sure when a
    restart is critically necessary in order to not screw up.

    I used to install updates manually from a CD, but these days Windows
    Updates is so much more certain to do it right that I would call an hour
    downloading from WinUp time well spent. And, as I said, I'm fairly
    certain that there are methods for chaining, but they're rather obsolete
    these days and I'm not sure I'd trust them.

    Just as an appropriate example, do you have any *idea* how long it took
    PSS to create and test that Windows Security Updates CD? By the time it
    was released, the most recent update contained within was over three
    months old. And that was just the cut-off date (Oct. 03). They'd been
    working on it for months before that.

    So, yes, there are ways to update from locally stored copies, without
    rebooting after each one, but I can't recommend anything. In fact, I
    would strongly recommend *against* any such techniques as they apply to
    Win9x systems.

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

    "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:C2FF59C5-E97F-42B0-8D51-840285CE464C@microsoft.com...
    > Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of
    > QChain
    > and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now,
    > thanks.
    > The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
    > accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one
    > restart (and
    > preferably without each update asking for restart)?
    >
    > Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh
    > W98 SE.
    > I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the
    > ~24
    > critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24
    > updates
    > take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of
    > those
    > updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and
    > put on
    > CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one.
    > So,
    > it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.
    >
    > "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
    >
    >> 1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more
    >> research
    >> and get those two straight in your mind.
    >>
    >> 2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does
    >> it
    >> use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
    >> much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
    >> http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/about.asp?corporate=true as
    >> a
    >> place to start learning more about this topic.
    >>
    >> 3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE,
    >> are
    >> not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the
    >> article
    >> you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
    >> tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator
    >> level
    >> of tech knowledge and responsibility.
    >>
    >> 4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of
    >> the
    >> Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
    >> UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
    >> why, I'm not a programmer.
    >>
    >> 5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
    >> fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it
    >> to
    >> someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer
    >> that
    >> one.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Gary S. Terhune
    >> MS MVP Shell/User
    >> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    >> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >>
    >> "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BA332872-ED50-41AF-BCAE-2F893C46C946@microsoft.com...
    >> > KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates.
    >> > It
    >> > is
    >> > listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
    >> > others.
    >> > It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
    >> > is, does
    >> > Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does
    >> > because
    >> > on a
    >> > fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and
    >> > installs
    >> > approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
    >> > restart.) And
    >> > if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed
    >> > as
    >> > applicable to W98 (SE)?
    >>
    >>
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as pointed
    out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an update of that CD
    offered :-|

    If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your system), it
    does have a function that shows the updates that are installed and whether
    they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you are current when used on 98
    though it does have that function for XP). I tried installing the more
    recent updates in KB order after using the above CD first and Belarc had
    several of them show up as failing verification and it took reapplying those
    specific updates and better yet using Windows Update to get things squared
    away.


    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:%23NvuRmqeFHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Sorry, there is no straight answer to that. You can always install them in
    > date order, refusing to restart when prompted, or guessing when it would
    > be a good time to restart...
    >
    > But a *lot* of work goes into Windows Updates (I know because I help test
    > the new versions--not the updates, the mechanisms.) It's a real chore just
    > to make it properly detect what's missing, what needs to be installed, in
    > what order they need to be installed, etc. No, the associated KB number
    > isn't a good way to decide order--the updates are often updated without
    > changing the actual designator. And no, without a seriously deep knowledge
    > of the individual updates, well beyond anything you'll find in the simple
    > KB articles, you can't really be sure when a restart is critically
    > necessary in order to not screw up.
    >
    > I used to install updates manually from a CD, but these days Windows
    > Updates is so much more certain to do it right that I would call an hour
    > downloading from WinUp time well spent. And, as I said, I'm fairly certain
    > that there are methods for chaining, but they're rather obsolete these
    > days and I'm not sure I'd trust them.
    >
    > Just as an appropriate example, do you have any *idea* how long it took
    > PSS to create and test that Windows Security Updates CD? By the time it
    > was released, the most recent update contained within was over three
    > months old. And that was just the cut-off date (Oct. 03). They'd been
    > working on it for months before that.
    >
    > So, yes, there are ways to update from locally stored copies, without
    > rebooting after each one, but I can't recommend anything. In fact, I would
    > strongly recommend *against* any such techniques as they apply to Win9x
    > systems.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:C2FF59C5-E97F-42B0-8D51-840285CE464C@microsoft.com...
    >> Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of
    >> QChain
    >> and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now,
    >> thanks.
    >> The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
    >> accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one restart
    >> (and
    >> preferably without each update asking for restart)?
    >>
    >> Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh W98
    >> SE.
    >> I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the
    >> ~24
    >> critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24
    >> updates
    >> take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of
    >> those
    >> updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and put
    >> on
    >> CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one. So,
    >> it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.
    >>
    >> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:
    >>
    >>> 1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
    >>> and get those two straight in your mind.
    >>>
    >>> 2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
    >>> use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
    >>> much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
    >>> http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/about.asp?corporate=true as a
    >>> place to start learning more about this topic.
    >>>
    >>> 3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
    >>> not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
    >>> you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
    >>> tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
    >>> of tech knowledge and responsibility.
    >>>
    >>> 4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
    >>> Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
    >>> UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
    >>> why, I'm not a programmer.
    >>>
    >>> 5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
    >>> fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
    >>> someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
    >>> one.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Gary S. Terhune
    >>> MS MVP Shell/User
    >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >>>
    >>> "asur" <asur@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:BA332872-ED50-41AF-BCAE-2F893C46C946@microsoft.com...
    >>> > KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
    >>> > is
    >>> > listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
    >>> > others.
    >>> > It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
    >>> > is, does
    >>> > Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
    >>> > on a
    >>> > fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
    >>> > approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
    >>> > restart.) And
    >>> > if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
    >>> > applicable to W98 (SE)?
    >>>
    >>>
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:OLJve.6685$ro.3636@fed1read02...
    > Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as
    > pointed out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an
    > update of that CD offered :-|

    They *did* update it--with WindowsXP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP3 (or was it
    SP4?) That CD was a response to an overwhelming need to catch as many
    people up to date as possible in view of some rather serious security
    issues that applied across the board and were becoming nigh overwhelming
    in '03. It was as serious a concern for WinXP and Win2K users as it was
    for users of older platforms, hence the extraordinary effort.

    Win9x Support is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Yes, they'll
    probably issue a few more Critical Updates before dooms day (almost
    exactly a year from now), but none of the future versions of "Optional"
    components, including IE, DirectX, WMP etc., are even likely to be
    installable to Win9x platforms. What I'm hoping *won't* happen is that
    Windows Updates for those platforms will disappear any time soon. But I
    suspect they will, long before the decade is out. Perhaps when support
    for 9x platforms is truly over, we can harrass them into one last
    "Updates CD". But don't hold your breath.

    > If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your
    > system), it does have a function that shows the updates that are
    > installed and whether they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you
    > are current when used on 98 though it does have that function for XP).
    > I tried installing the more recent updates in KB order after using the
    > above CD first and Belarc had several of them show up as failing
    > verification and it took reapplying those specific updates and better
    > yet using Windows Update to get things squared away.

    'Zactly what I was tellin' you, <s>.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:egfq99seFHA.2888@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:OLJve.6685$ro.3636@fed1read02...
    >> Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as
    >> pointed out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an update
    >> of that CD offered :-|
    >
    > They *did* update it--with WindowsXP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP3 (or was it
    > SP4?) That CD was a response to an overwhelming need to catch as many
    > people up to date as possible in view of some rather serious security
    > issues that applied across the board and were becoming nigh overwhelming
    > in '03. It was as serious a concern for WinXP and Win2K users as it was
    > for users of older platforms, hence the extraordinary effort.

    Of course...I just wish there was another CD for the Win98/98SE OS, though I
    am an XP user for the most part. I help out a few friends who use 98 who
    more often than not (but not always) have dial-up connections, where the CDs
    are great to use...sometimes I convince them to let me take the PC home
    where I can put it on my high speed connection for repair :-)
    Resisting the urge to patch up a lot of applications, add goodies, etc. so I
    can have a life of my own, I usually restrict myself to doing:

    -Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1 isn't
    on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
    -AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
    -Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
    -CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave that on
    their system )
    -ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some people
    tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I still do it if
    it doesn't conflict
    -"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes set swap
    file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted one is after
    loading up many programs)... never set a maximum
    -Recommend putting Firefox in
    -Belarc Advisor
    -Defrag

    Any other security or tweaks they are just going to have to learn on their
    own >:-|
    If they are capable of imaging their drive at this point, I encourage them
    to do so.

    > Win9x Support is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Yes, they'll
    > probably issue a few more Critical Updates before dooms day (almost
    > exactly a year from now), but none of the future versions of "Optional"
    > components, including IE, DirectX, WMP etc., are even likely to be
    > installable to Win9x platforms. What I'm hoping *won't* happen is that
    > Windows Updates for those platforms will disappear any time soon. But I
    > suspect they will, long before the decade is out. Perhaps when support for
    > 9x platforms is truly over, we can harrass them into one last "Updates
    > CD". But don't hold your breath.

    I'm hoping too, especially for a final Update CD...maybe they can make that
    into a downloadable file/service pack, though that would strain the servers
    probably. I'm not holding my breath either.

    >> If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your system),
    >> it does have a function that shows the updates that are installed and
    >> whether they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you are current when
    >> used on 98 though it does have that function for XP). I tried installing
    >> the more recent updates in KB order after using the above CD first and
    >> Belarc had several of them show up as failing verification and it took
    >> reapplying those specific updates and better yet using Windows Update to
    >> get things squared away.
    >
    > 'Zactly what I was tellin' you, <s>.

    Some people just have to learn the hard way :-/

    I do like that Belarc Advisor program though...very handy, and I keep a
    separate copy of results in case of future problems.

    Thanks for the comments.

    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:rXMve.6695$ro.6642@fed1read02...
    > -Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1
    > isn't on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
    I got six copies of the SecUp CD and made many more. It's an approved
    use. Run it whenever it seems likely that it's needed, I slap that thing
    in and go. Sent copies to friends, most of whom live farther away than a
    day's drive.

    > -AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
    I generally recommend EZ Armor, but at least EZAV.

    > -Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
    I recommend againt immunizing w/ Spybot. It's just too liable to cause
    problems. And I add George Geyde's HOSTS File Manager to the list.

    > -CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave
    > that on their system )
    I leave HJT on the system, but rather well buried. That way if they call
    with what sounds like an HJT chore, I can tell them to run it and send
    me the results.

    > -ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some
    > people tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I
    > still do it if it doesn't conflict
    As I said, I recommend EZ Armor, which uses a version of ZA as it's
    firewall. And I recommend firewall for all types of connections as long
    as the system can handle it.

    > -"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes
    > set swap file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted
    > one is after loading up many programs)... never set a maximum
    > -Recommend putting Firefox in
    I figure if they're the kind of folk to want Firefox features, they
    already know about it. I don't agree with the notion that it's any more
    "safe" than IE, and I certainly don't hold with any disabling of IE,
    other than to set rather stricter security settings than defaults, and
    to insist on IE6's Advanced Cookie Handling--Prompt for 1st-party,
    Bloock 3rd-party and allow Per-Session.

    > -Belarc Advisor
    I've used it on occasion, but it's not something I'd leave on most
    systems. Just too tempting for people who don't know how to judge the
    results.

    > -Defrag
    I routinely go through the steps described in my "Clean Boot" article.
    My "Security" article that accompanies it repeats the stuff above,
    including links, though I suspect they're getting long in the tooth.
    Need to check up on that. Article links in my sig.

    I also check up on Device Manager in Safe Mode, to see if any garbage
    needs to be cleaned out of the Hardware Profile. I also take a close
    look at the software installations, both to get rid of junk that isn't
    being used or is prone to spyware infection, etc.--and to suggest as
    many ways as possible to *not* have things loading automatically at
    startup. It's amazing what improvement can be had from these simple
    cleanup procedures.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:%23AqOuzueFHA.2584@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:rXMve.6695$ro.6642@fed1read02...
    >> -Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1
    >> isn't on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
    > I got six copies of the SecUp CD and made many more. It's an approved use.
    > Run it whenever it seems likely that it's needed, I slap that thing in and
    > go. Sent copies to friends, most of whom live farther away than a day's
    > drive.
    >
    >> -AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
    > I generally recommend EZ Armor, but at least EZAV.
    >
    >> -Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
    > I recommend againt immunizing w/ Spybot. It's just too liable to cause
    > problems. And I add George Geyde's HOSTS File Manager to the list.

    I've used the MVPS hosts file myself, but I haven't put it on others PCs. I
    have had to make minor tweaks to it to get my Excite home page to work OK,
    but usually that's it.

    Do you prefer SpywareBlaster's immunization to SpyBot? Is it that SpyBot can
    mess up a person's home page?
    By the way, why is SpyBot's HOSTS file they offer so ancient? I avoid it.

    >
    >> -CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave that
    >> on their system )


    > I leave HJT on the system, but rather well buried. That way if they call
    > with what sounds like an HJT chore, I can tell them to run it and send me
    > the results.

    Good point...I should have just hid it.

    >> -ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some
    >> people tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I
    >> still do it if it doesn't conflict
    > As I said, I recommend EZ Armor, which uses a version of ZA as it's
    > firewall. And I recommend firewall for all types of connections as long as
    > the system can handle it.
    >
    >> -"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes set
    >> swap file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted one is
    >> after loading up many programs)... never set a maximum


    >> -Recommend putting Firefox in
    > I figure if they're the kind of folk to want Firefox features, they
    > already know about it. I don't agree with the notion that it's any more
    > "safe" than IE, and I certainly don't hold with any disabling of IE, other
    > than to set rather stricter security settings than defaults, and to insist
    > on IE6's Advanced Cookie Handling--Prompt for 1st-party, Bloock 3rd-party
    > and allow Per-Session.

    I've done the cookies adjustment before on my PC but forgot about this tip!
    I've had good results with Firefox, but I inadvertently found another reason
    to have it installed (even if you don't want it as the default browser)...on
    one PC I was working on, Firefox would display pages, programs would update
    through the internet connection, but IE wouldn't display pages. Helped me
    troubleshoot, and it ended up being fixed by HiJackThis (BHO issues).

    >> -Belarc Advisor
    > I've used it on occasion, but it's not something I'd leave on most
    > systems. Just too tempting for people who don't know how to judge the
    > results.

    As it was more for my benefit, I could keep it on a USB thumbdrive instead.

    >
    >> -Defrag
    > I routinely go through the steps described in my "Clean Boot" article. My
    > "Security" article that accompanies it repeats the stuff above, including
    > links, though I suspect they're getting long in the tooth. Need to check
    > up on that. Article links in my sig.

    I'll check those out. Thanks.

    >
    > I also check up on Device Manager in Safe Mode, to see if any garbage
    > needs to be cleaned out of the Hardware Profile. I also take a close look
    > at the software installations, both to get rid of junk that isn't being
    > used or is prone to spyware infection, etc.--and to suggest as many ways
    > as possible to *not* have things loading automatically at startup. It's
    > amazing what improvement can be had from these simple cleanup procedures.

    Do you find duplicate stuff in the Device Manager in Safe Mode? That rings
    a bell with me.

    I do go in the startup folder, and mostly in MSCONFIG to root stuff out.
    It's almost second nature to do this in Windows now after I install a
    program (or look at another person's computer), to see what litter they put
    in there. Quicktime seems to keep reintalling itself in the tray though.

    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    > Yup, that's where you find them. But it takes some know-how to do the
    > task, to know what to remove and when. Not for the faint-hearted. Some
    > machines you can simply delete the ENUM key, reboot, and watch everything
    > reinstall, maybe a couple more reboots. Then there's machine like the HP
    > Pavilion 6736 with ME on it that I just finished today--it had almost
    > *everything* duplicated right after a reformat & restore, and I spent
    > about 16 hours, Restoring two more times, before I figured out all the
    > quirks and got the sequences right--what to Cancel, what to install, what
    > BIOS settings allowed successful installations. I started at noon
    > yesterday and didn't finish until 5 this morning. Funny thing is, I did
    > teh very same thing to the very same machine three years ago--so I'd
    > forgotten everything I knew about it!

    I hear ya when it comes to all that time getting a computer tweaked up.
    This is where I always like to make an image of the whole thing after
    everything is installed and stable (to another hard drive, CDs/DVDs, or
    both...one away from the house if possible).

    I brought home a friend's 6 year old PC with Win98SE to do updating, but
    they had also complained of some other problems that hinted at hardware and
    maybe the power supply, evident enough when I plugged it in and heard it go
    BANG, with smoke. P/S cooked...motherboard ruined somewhere on it. After
    giving them the news and getting their wishes, I found a motherboard and 1.5
    GHz CPU combo for $110 ($30 cheaper if I had the time to mail order it) and
    with a spare 350W supply and 512 MB of RAM I got for free from a neighbors
    castoff which was compatible I rebuilt the thing and it took out an ENTIRE
    Saturday and into the wee hours of Sunday with the rebuild and then the
    updating. The system has a 13.6 GB 5400 RPM drive with 10 GB free...if they
    ever wanted Win XP I wish that drive could be at least 20-40 GB and higher
    RPM and buffer (wouldn't hurt 98SE either) but they don't want to go down
    that road for now. If I can get them a cheap CD-RW drive for $20 or so and a
    USB 2.0 hub (since they only have the 2 connections on the back) I think
    they will be set; they mostly e-mail, save a few pics, work in Office 2000,
    and do light internet browsing. And if they had the CD-RW, I could image
    their drive to about 3-6 CDs :-) If they ever upgraded the hard drive and
    then went XP, I'd put the image on the older drive, but should that drive
    then come out of the computer, and how well do hard drives "keep" when out
    of the computer?

    Sorry for being a little off topic there :-)
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:0f3we.8267$ro.1436@fed1read02...
    > I hear ya when it comes to all that time getting a computer tweaked
    > up. This is where I always like to make an image of the whole thing
    > after everything is installed and stable (to another hard drive,
    > CDs/DVDs, or both...one away from the house if possible).

    I *did* image that HP to a set of CDs using BING--but made the mistake
    of letting them keep the CDs. Guess what?

    > I brought home a friend's 6 year old PC with Win98SE to do updating,
    > but they had also complained of some other problems that hinted at
    > hardware and maybe the power supply, evident enough when I plugged it
    > in and heard it go BANG, with smoke. P/S cooked...motherboard ruined
    > somewhere on it. After giving them the news and getting their wishes,
    > I found a motherboard and 1.5 GHz CPU combo for $110 ($30 cheaper if I
    > had the time to mail order it) and with a spare 350W supply and 512 MB
    > of RAM I got for free from a neighbors castoff which was compatible I
    > rebuilt the thing and it took out an ENTIRE Saturday and into the wee
    > hours of Sunday with the rebuild and then the updating. The system has
    > a 13.6 GB 5400 RPM drive with 10 GB free...if they ever wanted Win XP
    > I wish that drive could be at least 20-40 GB and higher RPM and buffer
    > (wouldn't hurt 98SE either) but they don't want to go down that road
    > for now. If I can get them a cheap CD-RW drive for $20 or so and a USB
    > 2.0 hub (since they only have the 2 connections on the back) I think
    > they will be set; they mostly e-mail, save a few pics, work in Office
    > 2000, and do light internet browsing. And if they had the CD-RW, I
    > could image their drive to about 3-6 CDs :-) If they ever upgraded the
    > hard drive and then went XP, I'd put the image on the older drive, but
    > should that drive then come out of the computer, and how well do hard
    > drives "keep" when out of the computer?
    >
    > Sorry for being a little off topic there :-)

    Not really all that off-topic. War stories can be both entertaining and
    informative. No, that hard drive needn't come out of the computer--but
    it *should_be* disconnected, both power and data cables. Disabling in
    BIOS won't protect it. Short of a magnetic blast, or a seriously direct
    lightening hit to the system, hard drives keep just fine. Might not be
    quite as durable as CD or DVD, but it's much less likely to get lost,
    <s>. I'm sure there's some bit rot over time, but you're talking years.

    I have a Sony DRX-510UL USB2/Firewire external burner that I use to
    image systems. It'll read/write pretty much every disk format there is.
    Especially nice where there's native support that allows me to image
    from a floppy or USB stick boot without cranking up the main OS.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

    > "Scott" <stacomaREMOVECAPS@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:OLJve.6685$ro.3636@fed1read02...
    > > Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as
    > > pointed out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an
    > > update of that CD offered :-|
    >
    > They *did* update it--with WindowsXP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP3 (or was it
    > SP4?) That CD was a response to an overwhelming need to catch as many
    > people up to date as possible in view of some rather serious security
    > issues that applied across the board and were becoming nigh overwhelming
    > in '03. It was as serious a concern for WinXP and Win2K users as it was
    > for users of older platforms, hence the extraordinary effort.
    >
    > Win9x Support is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Yes, they'll
    > probably issue a few more Critical Updates before dooms day (almost
    > exactly a year from now), but none of the future versions of "Optional"
    > components, including IE, DirectX, WMP etc., are even likely to be
    > installable to Win9x platforms. What I'm hoping *won't* happen is that
    > Windows Updates for those platforms will disappear any time soon. But I
    > suspect they will, long before the decade is out. Perhaps when support
    > for 9x platforms is truly over, we can harrass them into one last
    > "Updates CD". But don't hold your breath.

    Ok, I won't. As you say, the hour of Windows Update is a good hour.
    Nevertheless, what I find difficult to accept is that the sequence that
    Windows Update creates can't be "reused". In fact, it has to be creating
    something executable. (Is it a Java thingie?) Wouldn't it just be a matter of
    saving this "executable" and its applicable updates?

    See, if I take what you say at face value, then one can't be sure one is
    installing the updates in the right order, except by doing the kind of
    post-installation analysis Scott suggests. But why do that, when Windows
    Update, heir of much work, figures out the right order? Before I started
    using Windows Update, I'd been installing the updates manually in date order,
    and immediately restarting whenever the update said the system needed it. But
    if I understand what you're saying, the date order may not be the right
    order. Also, as I mentioned earlier, all of the ~24 critical updates (to a
    fresh W98 SE w/ IE 6 SP1 installed) are done by Windows Update in a single
    restart. So, apparently, all of *those* updates can be "bunched". So, at
    least for the critical updates, the only thing needed, it would seem, is an
    order and a way to tell the updates not to ask for restart.
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows Update Windows