MS05-038 Cumulative for IE6SP1 doesn't fix the file/delete..

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

The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the long
time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)

Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would of
taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the current
update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in since I
see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all the
changes made using hex)

Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that haven't
head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
&
http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
&
http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm

Rick
13 answers Last reply
More about ms05 cumulative ie6sp1 doesn file delete
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-038
    Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (896727)
    Issued: August 9, 2005

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-038.mspx?pf=true

    ...available for 9x users via Windows Update
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer after
    taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero byte
    files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer showed it's
    customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's display. Also,
    I did get that low resources warning toward the end of the 2nd delete.
    Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI 80%...!... OE continues to work
    well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer do. Therefore, I'll hold off
    on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.

    Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.


    --
    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
    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the
    long
    | time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)
    |
    | Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would
    of
    | taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the current
    | update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in since
    I
    | see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all
    the
    | changes made using hex)
    |
    | Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that
    haven't
    | head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    |
    | http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    | &
    | http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    | &
    | http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    |
    | Rick
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I doubt you'll see anything "slid in" for Windows 98. As has been mentioned
    several times before, the entire Win9x family of operating systems are in
    extended support with only security fixes being offered when they can be.
    I'd refer you to the support policies in question but I know you already
    know them by heart. :-)

    --
    Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the long
    > time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)
    >
    > Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would of
    > taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the current
    > update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in since I
    > see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all the
    > changes made using hex)
    >
    > Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that haven't
    > head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    >
    > http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    > &
    > http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    > &
    > http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Richard G. Harper wrote:
    > I doubt you'll see anything "slid in" for Windows 98. As has been
    > mentioned several times before, the entire Win9x family of operating
    > systems are in extended support with only security fixes being offered
    > when they can be. I'd refer you to the support policies in question but
    > I know you already know them by heart. :-)

    Hi Richard,

    I understand what you said and I know you know I know.
    'Slid in' was just a term I used at that moment, but I really would like to
    see this problem finally fixed though because it's been a problem for so
    long. When I updated the cumulative yesterday and noticed the problem was
    still there I just thought to mention it aloud again is all.

    thanks for the reply.
    Rick


    > --
    > Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    > * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    > * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >
    >
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the
    >> long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)
    >>
    >> Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would of
    >> taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the current
    >> update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in since I
    >> see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all the
    >> changes made using hex)
    >>
    >> Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that haven't
    >> head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    >>
    >> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    >> &
    >> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    >> &
    >> http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    >>
    >> Rick
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Hi PCR,

    Yep love those zero byte files makes it so easy to test this.
    thanks for the reply and checking it too.

    Rick

    PCR wrote:
    > Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer after
    > taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero byte
    > files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer showed it's
    > customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's display. Also,
    > I did get that low resources warning toward the end of the 2nd delete.
    > Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI 80%...!... OE continues to work
    > well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer do. Therefore, I'll hold off
    > on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.
    >
    > Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.
    >
    >
    > --
    > 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
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >| The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the
    >| long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)
    >|
    >| Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would of
    >| taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the current
    >| update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in since I
    >| see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all the
    >| changes made using hex)
    >|
    >| Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that haven't
    >| head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    >|
    >| http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    >| &
    >| http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    >| &
    >| http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    >|
    >| Rick
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    You are welcome. Here is an interesting point about Defrag: it removes
    deleted items from the FAT...

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q136836
    Disk Defragmenter May Seem to Stop Responding
    ........Quote................
    In particular, because removing deleted folder entries can take a long
    time, emptying the Temporary Internet Files folder or deleting a large
    number of files from another folder on your hard disk can cause this
    problem to occur. When the problem occurs for this reason, it occurs
    when Disk Defragmenter is between 5 and 10 percent finished because this
    is when Disk Defragmenter removes deleted folder entries.
    ........EOQ...................

    I wonder whether it is the deleted folder entries still in the FAT that
    causes the problem in Explorer too. Then...

    (1) Do a Scandisk, as every good Defrag is preceded by a recent
    Scandisk.

    (2) Trigger the problem in Explorer with a massive delete.
    After that, a single delete will be sluggish.

    (3) Don't reboot. Do a Defrag, instead.

    (4) Delete a useless file. Was the sluggishness gone?


    --
    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
    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:eFRdB$nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | Hi PCR,
    |
    | Yep love those zero byte files makes it so easy to test this.
    | thanks for the reply and checking it too.
    |
    | Rick
    |
    | PCR wrote:
    | > Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer after
    | > taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero
    byte
    | > files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer showed
    it's
    | > customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's display.
    Also,
    | > I did get that low resources warning toward the end of the 2nd
    delete.
    | > Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI 80%...!... OE continues to
    work
    | > well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer do. Therefore, I'll hold
    off
    | > on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.
    | >
    | > Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > 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
    | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >| The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix
    the
    | >| long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue
    ;)
    | >|
    | >| Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they
    would of
    | >| taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the
    current
    | >| update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in
    since I
    | >| see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared all
    the
    | >| changes made using hex)
    | >|
    | >| Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that
    haven't
    | >| head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    | >|
    | >| http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    | >| &
    | >| http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    | >| &
    | >| http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    | >|
    | >| Rick
    |
    |
    |
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    What part of "only critical security updates, when available" is hard to
    understand? :-)

    --
    Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:Ogdp1%23nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

    > I understand what you said and I know you know I know.
    > 'Slid in' was just a term I used at that moment, but I really would like
    > to
    > see this problem finally fixed though because it's been a problem for so
    > long. When I updated the cumulative yesterday and noticed the problem was
    > still there I just thought to mention it aloud again is all.
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    | I wonder whether it is the deleted folder entries still in the FAT
    that
    | causes the problem in Explorer too.

    Nope! Defrag was no remedy for it! It still took a reboot.


    --
    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
    "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:u8EYZXqnFHA.3304@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    | You are welcome. Here is an interesting point about Defrag: it removes
    | deleted items from the FAT...
    |
    | http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q136836
    | Disk Defragmenter May Seem to Stop Responding
    | .......Quote................
    | In particular, because removing deleted folder entries can take a long
    | time, emptying the Temporary Internet Files folder or deleting a large
    | number of files from another folder on your hard disk can cause this
    | problem to occur. When the problem occurs for this reason, it occurs
    | when Disk Defragmenter is between 5 and 10 percent finished because
    this
    | is when Disk Defragmenter removes deleted folder entries.
    | .......EOQ...................
    |
    | I wonder whether it is the deleted folder entries still in the FAT
    that
    | causes the problem in Explorer too. Then...
    |
    | (1) Do a Scandisk, as every good Defrag is preceded by a recent
    | Scandisk.
    |
    | (2) Trigger the problem in Explorer with a massive delete.
    | After that, a single delete will be sluggish.
    |
    | (3) Don't reboot. Do a Defrag, instead.
    |
    | (4) Delete a useless file. Was the sluggishness gone?
    |
    |
    | --
    | 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
    | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | news:eFRdB$nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | | Hi PCR,
    | |
    | | Yep love those zero byte files makes it so easy to test this.
    | | thanks for the reply and checking it too.
    | |
    | | Rick
    | |
    | | PCR wrote:
    | | > Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer
    after
    | | > taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero
    | byte
    | | > files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer showed
    | it's
    | | > customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's display.
    | Also,
    | | > I did get that low resources warning toward the end of the 2nd
    | delete.
    | | > Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI 80%...!... OE continues
    to
    | work
    | | > well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer do. Therefore, I'll
    hold
    | off
    | | > on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.
    | | >
    | | > Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.
    | | >
    | | >
    | | > --
    | | > 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
    | | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | | > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | | >| The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix
    | the
    | | >| long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang
    issue
    | ;)
    | | >|
    | | >| Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they
    | would of
    | | >| taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the
    | current
    | | >| update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide it in
    | since I
    | | >| see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked (compared
    all
    | the
    | | >| changes made using hex)
    | | >|
    | | >| Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that
    | haven't
    | | >| head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is about.
    | | >|
    | | >| http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    | | >| &
    | | >| http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    | | >| &
    | | >| http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    | | >|
    | | >| Rick
    | |
    | |
    | |
    |
    |
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    PCR wrote:
    > You are welcome. Here is an interesting point about Defrag: it removes
    > deleted items from the FAT...
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q136836
    > Disk Defragmenter May Seem to Stop Responding
    > .......Quote................
    > In particular, because removing deleted folder entries can take a long
    > time, emptying the Temporary Internet Files folder or deleting a large
    > number of files from another folder on your hard disk can cause this
    > problem to occur. When the problem occurs for this reason, it occurs
    > when Disk Defragmenter is between 5 and 10 percent finished because this
    > is when Disk Defragmenter removes deleted folder entries.
    > .......EOQ...................
    >
    > I wonder whether it is the deleted folder entries still in the FAT that
    > causes the problem in Explorer too. Then...

    I would say no since after a fresh defrag is done the problem is still
    there, however I think the article is talking more about pointing out that
    a defrag can take longer when it has to remove those unlinked deleted
    folder entries that are still there. It may be all still in the ballpark
    though but I'm not gonna open my test bench with this again this time
    unless its wanted from MS or thereabouts. It was an interesting read
    though.

    > (1) Do a Scandisk, as every good Defrag is preceded by a recent
    > Scandisk.
    >
    > (2) Trigger the problem in Explorer with a massive delete.
    > After that, a single delete will be sluggish.
    >
    > (3) Don't reboot. Do a Defrag, instead.
    >
    > (4) Delete a useless file. Was the sluggishness gone?

    Nope.

    thanks though,
    Rick

    >
    >
    > --
    > 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
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:eFRdB$nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >| Hi PCR,
    >|
    >| Yep love those zero byte files makes it so easy to test this.
    >| thanks for the reply and checking it too.
    >|
    >| Rick
    >|
    >| PCR wrote:
    >| > Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer after
    >| > taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero byte
    >| > files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer showed
    >| > it's customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's
    >| > display. Also, I did get that low resources warning toward the end of
    >| > the 2nd delete. Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI 80%...!...
    >| > OE continues to work well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer do.
    >| > Therefore, I'll hold off on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.
    >| >
    >| > Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.
    >| >
    >| >
    >| > --
    >| > 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
    >| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    >| > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >| >| The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix the
    >| >| long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang issue ;)
    >| >|
    >| >| Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they would
    >| >| of taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the
    >| >| current update, and this would of been a good opportunity to slide
    >| >| it in since I see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again reworked
    >| >| (compared all the changes made using hex)
    >| >|
    >| >| Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that
    >| >| haven't head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is
    >| >| about.
    >| >|
    >| >| http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    >| >| &
    >| >| http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    >| >| &
    >| >| http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    >| >|
    >| >| Rick
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Richard G. Harper wrote:
    > What part of "only critical security updates, when available" is hard to
    > understand? :-)

    I do understand Richard what you are saying, but the thinking always has
    been this is somewhat a critical issue in a real sense although maybe not
    'security' related as you are referring to what is MS stipulated; but
    certainly it's critical in many other senses and has been like this ever
    since IE6 was released for W98 which is long ago. Somehow its resolve
    slipped through the cracks although certainly not on purpose at all
    and just happened this way. It just would be nice if somehow someway this
    could get repaired as goodwill toward W98 and the millions of users who
    still use it.

    Thanks,
    Rick

    >
    > --
    > Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    > * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    > * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >
    >
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:Ogdp1%23nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >
    >> I understand what you said and I know you know I know.
    >> 'Slid in' was just a term I used at that moment, but I really would like
    >> to
    >> see this problem finally fixed though because it's been a problem for so
    >> long. When I updated the cumulative yesterday and noticed the problem
    >> was still there I just thought to mention it aloud again is all.
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    You are right. I tested it myself an hour before your post, & Defrag was
    no cure. It appears to be...

    (a) A Resources problem maybe-- because I always get a low resources
    warning these days during the delete that triggers the effect. Most of
    the time Resource Meter does not show them to be low, though.

    (b) A Recycle Bin problem definitely-- because I have a 3rd party app
    (PCMag's HDValet) that can do unlimited deletes UNLESS I let it put the
    files into the Bin. It can delete them to oblivion OR to a holding
    folder of it's own with no problem at all.


    --
    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
    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:O$YwI7snFHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    | PCR wrote:
    | > You are welcome. Here is an interesting point about Defrag: it
    removes
    | > deleted items from the FAT...
    | >
    | > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q136836
    | > Disk Defragmenter May Seem to Stop Responding
    | > .......Quote................
    | > In particular, because removing deleted folder entries can take a
    long
    | > time, emptying the Temporary Internet Files folder or deleting a
    large
    | > number of files from another folder on your hard disk can cause this
    | > problem to occur. When the problem occurs for this reason, it occurs
    | > when Disk Defragmenter is between 5 and 10 percent finished because
    this
    | > is when Disk Defragmenter removes deleted folder entries.
    | > .......EOQ...................
    | >
    | > I wonder whether it is the deleted folder entries still in the FAT
    that
    | > causes the problem in Explorer too. Then...
    |
    | I would say no since after a fresh defrag is done the problem is still
    | there, however I think the article is talking more about pointing out
    that
    | a defrag can take longer when it has to remove those unlinked deleted
    | folder entries that are still there. It may be all still in the
    ballpark
    | though but I'm not gonna open my test bench with this again this time
    | unless its wanted from MS or thereabouts. It was an interesting read
    | though.
    |
    | > (1) Do a Scandisk, as every good Defrag is preceded by a recent
    | > Scandisk.
    | >
    | > (2) Trigger the problem in Explorer with a massive delete.
    | > After that, a single delete will be sluggish.
    | >
    | > (3) Don't reboot. Do a Defrag, instead.
    | >
    | > (4) Delete a useless file. Was the sluggishness gone?
    |
    | Nope.
    |
    | thanks though,
    | Rick
    |
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > 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
    | > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | > news:eFRdB$nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    | >| Hi PCR,
    | >|
    | >| Yep love those zero byte files makes it so easy to test this.
    | >| thanks for the reply and checking it too.
    | >|
    | >| Rick
    | >|
    | >| PCR wrote:
    | >| > Too bad! I verify the delete problem is not solved in Explorer
    after
    | >| > taking that IE Cumulative Q896727. One thousand of Blanton's zero
    byte
    | >| > files did delete well. After another two thousand, Explorer
    showed
    | >| > it's customary sluggishness doing any work &/or updating it's
    | >| > display. Also, I did get that low resources warning toward the
    end of
    | >| > the 2nd delete. Yet, Resource Meter shows: User 65%; GDI
    80%...!...
    | >| > OE continues to work well, as I imagine all things non-Explorer
    do.
    | >| > Therefore, I'll hold off on the reboot that "cures" Explorer.
    | >| >
    | >| > Thanks for the heads-up on the cumulative, though.
    | >| >
    | >| >
    | >| > --
    | >| > 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
    | >| > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | >| > news:%23vYbP7bnFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | >| >| The MS05-038 896727 Cumulative for IE6 unfortunately doesn't fix
    the
    | >| >| long time problem of the specific IE6x W98x file delete hang
    issue ;)
    | >| >|
    | >| >| Not that is was suppose to mind you, but I had half-hoped they
    would
    | >| >| of taken care of this long time problem at the same time as the
    | >| >| current update, and this would of been a good opportunity to
    slide
    | >| >| it in since I see that the Browseui.dll was yet once again
    reworked
    | >| >| (compared all the changes made using hex)
    | >| >|
    | >| >| Here are the current links outlining this anomaly for those that
    | >| >| haven't head about it yet if you wanted to know what my post is
    | >| >| about.
    | >| >|
    | >| >| http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
    | >| >| &
    | >| >| http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
    | >| >| &
    | >| >| http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm
    | >| >|
    | >| >| Rick
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Regardless of the support policy, I think one can make a case that Microsoft has an obligation to fix this issue. Why? Well, this is not a recently introduced bug. The bug was introduced with the release of IE 6 back in 2001! It is a serious problem which affects a core function of Windows Explorer.

    Since IE 6 SP1 is currently the only supported version of IE for Windows 98, this issue should be fixed.

    By the way, has anybody tested this in Windows Me yet? If not, Rick, would you be willing to post to the Windows Me newsgroup about this, asking people to replicate the problem? (I could do it too, but I figure you have information about this issue gathered in a more coherent manner.)

    IB


    "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message news:%23WcVXhrnFHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    What part of "only critical security updates, when available" is hard to
    understand? :-)

    --
    Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:Ogdp1%23nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

    > I understand what you said and I know you know I know.
    > 'Slid in' was just a term I used at that moment, but I really would like
    > to
    > see this problem finally fixed though because it's been a problem for so
    > long. When I updated the cumulative yesterday and noticed the problem was
    > still there I just thought to mention it aloud again is all.
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > Regardless of the support policy, I think one can make a case that
    > Microsoft has an obligation to fix this issue. Why? Well, this is not a
    > recently introduced bug. The bug was introduced with the release of IE 6
    > back in 2001! It is a serious problem which affects a core function of
    > Windows Explorer.

    I would hope they would consider fixing this under a grandfather clause of
    some sort since this problem has been so ever present since IE6 first came
    out in August of 2001. I've always suggested that it would be great if on
    the next IE6 Cumulative that comes out for 98 if they could fit a fix for
    this in with it too, and everytime over the years that a cumulative came
    out I was always surprised that it was never fixed yet.

    > Since IE 6 SP1 is currently the only supported version of IE for Windows
    > 98, this issue should be fixed.

    Okay :)

    > By the way, has anybody tested this in Windows Me yet?

    Yes cquirke said it has happened to him on WME, and I think (but my memory
    is not positive on this) that glee tested it on a WME machine at work and
    seen it happen too? I do not currently use WME or have easy access to it
    at the moment to test it right this minute.

    > If not, Rick, would you be willing to post to the Windows Me newsgroup
    > about this, asking people to replicate the problem? (I could do it too,
    but
    > I figure you have information about this issue gathered in a more
    coherent
    > manner.)

    If I was an active user of WME and frequented that group it would be
    natural for me to post there, but besides W2K & WXP I also use W98SE and so
    it's best I just support/report upon what I actually frequently use and
    know.

    thank you,
    Rick

    >
    > IB
    >
    >
    >
    > "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23WcVXhrnFHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > What part of "only critical security updates, when available" is hard to
    > understand? :-)
    >
    > --
    > Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
    > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    > * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    > * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
    > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >
    >
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:Ogdp1%23nnFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >
    >> I understand what you said and I know you know I know.
    >> 'Slid in' was just a term I used at that moment, but I really would like
    >> to
    >> see this problem finally fixed though because it's been a problem for so
    >> long. When I updated the cumulative yesterday and noticed the problem
    >> was still there I just thought to mention it aloud again is all.
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows