Spyware kills Modem connections.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi,

When is this rumored update, to
WinXP going to get rid of all this
secret tasking, under my operating
system.

If I try to access a directory, the
extra processor load, kills the
WinModem.
I have had this problem, in the
past, that got so bad, it even killed a
hardware modem (connection).

I'm burning megabytes of
unnecessary bandwidth, because files are
being re-downloaded, over having the
modem dying, part-way through - numerous
times.

I've run AdAware, Spybot, MS-Beta,
and online scanners, till I'm running
ruts in my hard drive.

Whatcha got, that I can push
through TextAloud, to manage my system,
that will make these crutches (However
grateful, I might be about their
availability.) unnecessary ?

Thanks,
Ken .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Rumored update ? What rumored update ?

Secret tasking ? Like spyware you mean ? I think the
date is June 34 of this year, that's when all the secret
tasking under the operating system will be taken care of.

The amount of processor power needed to access a directory
is less than a fly uses to flap his wings once.

A megabyte is a measure of the space needed to encode a
quantity of data. Bandwidth is measured in bits-per-
second or megabits per second. Two totally different
things.

Go down to the mall and ask someone there to sell you a
magic bullet for your computer. That should fix it.

>-----Original Message-----
>Hi,
>
> When is this rumored update, to
>WinXP going to get rid of all this
>secret tasking, under my operating
>system.
>
> If I try to access a directory, the
>extra processor load, kills the
>WinModem.
> I have had this problem, in the
>past, that got so bad, it even killed a
>hardware modem (connection).
>
> I'm burning megabytes of
>unnecessary bandwidth, because files are
>being re-downloaded, over having the
>modem dying, part-way through - numerous
>times.
>
> I've run AdAware, Spybot, MS-Beta,
>and online scanners, till I'm running
>ruts in my hard drive.
>
> Whatcha got, that I can push
>through TextAloud, to manage my system,
>that will make these crutches (However
>grateful, I might be about their
>availability.) unnecessary ?
>
>Thanks,
>Ken .
>
>.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi,

Ya don't say.
June 34 ? What year ?

Flap ? And still, programs
die.

Megabytes/versus velocity.
Picking nits.

Magic bullets ? I thought that
only the medical industry, had magic
bullets.

Get some sleep,
Ken .



On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:15:40 -0800, "Huh
?" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Rumored update ? What rumored update ?
>
>Secret tasking ? Like spyware you mean ? I think the
>date is June 34 of this year, that's when all the secret
>tasking under the operating system will be taken care of.
>
>The amount of processor power needed to access a directory
>is less than a fly uses to flap his wings once.
>
>A megabyte is a measure of the space needed to encode a
>quantity of data. Bandwidth is measured in bits-per-
>second or megabits per second. Two totally different
>things.
>
>Go down to the mall and ask someone there to sell you a
>magic bullet for your computer. That should fix it.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Hi,
>>
>> When is this rumored update, to
>>WinXP going to get rid of all this
>>secret tasking, under my operating
>>system.
>>
>> If I try to access a directory, the
>>extra processor load, kills the
>>WinModem.
>> I have had this problem, in the
>>past, that got so bad, it even killed a
>>hardware modem (connection).
>>
>> I'm burning megabytes of
>>unnecessary bandwidth, because files are
>>being re-downloaded, over having the
>>modem dying, part-way through - numerous
>>times.
>>
>> I've run AdAware, Spybot, MS-Beta,
>>and online scanners, till I'm running
>>ruts in my hard drive.
>>
>> Whatcha got, that I can push
>>through TextAloud, to manage my system,
>>that will make these crutches (However
>>grateful, I might be about their
>>availability.) unnecessary ?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ken .
>>
>>.
>>