Jump to content

rickk1

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rickk1

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/23/1953

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vincennes, Indiana
  • Interests
    Golf, Target shooting, Formula-1 racing

Previous Fields

  • System Specifications:
    Dell Dimension E520, Windows Vista Home Premium initially installed then totally removed and replaced with xpprosp2, 320gb HDD w/280gb free, 4gb pc5300 ddr2 dram, 256mb ati video card x1300pro, Dell 20" widescreen flatpanel monitor, NetGear Wireless Router, Seagate 100gb External HDD, Surfboard SB3100 Cable Modem w3mb/sec
  • Teams:
    Nothing Selected
  1. For the likes of me, I cannot figure out what all the hoopla is about with windows7. I was one of Microsoft's beta testers for windows7 and was not impressed with it. In fact, I found lots of problems with it and the operating system reminded me constantly that it was Vista with a new name and a new face. I'll stay with XP. It has no problems to speak of and is secure. I read yesterday that Microsoft released 10 major updates for Windows7 due to some major flaws that caused it to crash. Imagine that... Furthermore, why would I want to change from a dependable operating system to one that won't be around for more than a couple of years. Vista lasted maybe 2 years and Windows7 will last about 2 years and then Microsoft will decide it needs some more money so it will create another operating system by 2014 which is the final year of Windows XP support. I've already advised my clients not to upgrade to windows7 let alone Vista. I've advised them to stay with XP since they're not having problems of any kind.
  2. I'll just quit posting. This place sucks anyhow.
  3. But if the manufacturers are going to offer computers with 4gb as max, then those computers ought to be able to show they're using the entire 4gb of memory...not 2 or 3gb. I still say it is about money. Since the 32bit operating system is limited to 4gb max, then why won't it say it is using the entire 4gb? Someone is lying again. I still say it is all about money.
  4. http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry147393
  5. I've used Linux on other computers and was not real fond of it. Vista would not have been so bad if Microsoft had not readjusted the way folders are located in windows explorer and if Microsoft had merely added some features instead of changing the way commands are located and adjusted. Example being display properties on desktop. Xp's display properties let the user adjust more than just the fonts. And finding those other display tabs in Vista made it very user unfriendly, in my opinion. Backward compatible with XP would have been nice too. Power...Hmmm...Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Compaq, HP, Acer, etc...they were all into the power scheme or rather scam. Think about it. For instance, my computer has 4gb of ram and is maxed out. When Vista was initially installed on my system, only 3gb of the 4gb was being shown. Everyone claims that video cards hog the extra 1gb of ram but that is not true. IF I remove one of my ram chips and reduce my total ram from 4gb to 3gb, then why does my system show I still have 3gb of memory? If the video card did hog extra memory, then why doesn't the 3gb system show 2gb instead? Money..it all boils down to money. My system has more than enough memory to run Vista but fact is, Vista suks! Xp was, still is, and always will be a million times more user-friendly than vista. AND XP is not the memory hog or power hungry child that vista is. Like I said earlier, Vista is just another Win-Me. Some people like it but the majority of people hate it and will never buy it let alone use it.
  6. I, too, think Microsoft screwed up by trying to replace XP with Vista. To me, Vista is and always will be another Windows-Me. I had Vista for 3-4 months and absolutely hated it so I went back to XP-Pro. I have clients and friends that asked me several months ago which operating system I recommended and my choice at that time and at this time is still Windows XP. I continue to hear praise from my clients for making a wise choice since they've experienced Vista on a limited basis through some of their friends and they've told me that Vista really does suk!! Personally speaking, I really don't understand why Microsoft has to continue to build a new operating system for reasons other than money. MS already makes billions of dollars on their other software. XP is here to stay with me. If MS does not make major changes to Vista to make it more user and tech friendly, my next computer will definitely be a Mac. Alot of my friends feel the same way as I do.
  7. Microsoft To Extend Windows XP Sales As Vista Concerns Mount The software company said it will make the full version of Windows XP available to PC manufacturers and retailers through June 30, 2008. By Paul McDougall InformationWeek September 28, 2007 11:20 AM Responding to some customers' lukewarm embrace of Windows Vista, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said it will extend by several months availability of the operating system's predecessor, Windows XP. The company said it will make the full version of Windows XP available to PC manufacturers and retailers through June 30, 2008. It will continue to offer a basic edition in emerging markets through June 2010. Microsoft introduced Windows XP in late 2001. The company ordinarily makes operating systems available only for four years after launch date. But delays in producing Windows Vista, which debuted in January, forced Microsoft to continue selling Windows XP longer than planned. In recent months, Microsoft had pegged Windows XP's official expiration date at Jan. 30. That will fall by the wayside in favor of the new dates, Microsoft said Thursday. Microsoft's official explanation for the move is that too many customers have yet to complete the transition from Windows XP to Windows Vista. "There are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch," said Mike Nash, Microsoft's Windows product manager, in a statement posted on the company's Web site. While that may be, a number of signs have emerged in recent months that Windows Vista's problems go beyond timing. A survey conducted earlier this year by InformationWeek showed that an astonishing 30% of businesses have no plans to purchase Windows Vista. It's an indication that many corporate software buyers may take a long look at Linux, the Mac OS, or some other alternative to Vista once Windows XP is no longer available. Among other things, software buyers have railed against Windows Vista's price, lack of compatibility with existing software, and system requirements that exceed the capabilities of PCs more than a couple of years old. PC makers have responded to such concerns by continuing to push Windows XP, despite the millions of dollars that their partner in Redmond has spent promoting Vista. Dell (Dell), Lenovo, and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HP) have in recent weeks gone as far as offering customers discs that effectively let them "downgrade" their Windows Vista systems to Windows XP. Despite such troubling signals from the market, Nash insists that Microsoft doesn't believe Windows Vista is destined to become the tech industry's version of the Ford Edsel.
  8. Protect yourself from silent Windows updates By Scott Dunn Microsoft has confirmed Windows Secrets' Sept. 13 story that Windows Update periodically installs certain files even if you've selected a "do not install" option. Many companies and individuals require prior notification before any files are changed, so I explain today how you can completely prevent silent installs, if you wish. In my Sept. 13 article, I reported that Windows Update (WU) has been silently installing nine small executable files on Windows XP and Vista, despite the fact that users had disabled auto-installation. The files that WU has overwritten to date consist of benign support files — but many Windows users expressed outrage that any process was installing files without notification. Reaction from Microsoft to the article was almost immediate. In a post the same day on the Microsoft Update Product Team Blog, program manager Nate Clinton confirmed that updates to Windows Update itself are performed without notifying users. This is true even if users specify Let me choose when to install them or Notify me but don't automatically download or install (two of the four options available to users). In his statement, Clinton acknowledged that the silent file writes are not what users expect after they disable automatic installs: "The point of this explanation is not to suggest that we were as transparent as we could have been; to the contrary, people have told us that we should have been clearer on how Windows Update behaves when it updates itself. This is helpful and important feedback, and we are now looking at the best way to clarify WU's behavior to customers so that they can more clearly understand how WU works." Soon after Clinton's post, Vista product manager Nick White wrote his own response to the reactions pouring in from angry Windows users: "Your comments are completely understandable and I'm making sure the WU team is well aware of how the community feels on this issue. You'll note in Nate's post (the one I linked to) that we freely admit to having fallen down on this issue and that we can, and should, do better when it comes to behaviors of this type and the necessary disclosure of same. Please know that we hear what you have to say and are taking your feedback seriously. (I, for one, want to avoid similar events in the future, as reactive posts such as this one are not what I want to spend my time blogging about.)" Clinton's initial explanation, which suggested that Windows Update had no choice but to install support files silently, drew a large number of critical remarks from Microsoft's normally supportive developer community. For example, a commenter identified as TheDave wrote that WU could easily notify users that updates were needed: "The situation I am describing is *exactly* the same thing as happens with a out of the box XP SP2 install, you see a WU update available and nothing more. Once you install WU, you see the dozens of other updates available. Works great in theory, and in practice. "There is absolutely no excuse for updating executable code on a customer's machine when the customer has selected a choice of 'but let me choose whether to install them.' Period. Full stop. No exceptions." How to put an end to silent updates It's important to note that there is no reason to remove or roll back the updated support files that Windows Update may have installed on a PC. There's no evidence that these files are harmful or cause any software conflicts. Furthermore, if you use a corporate patch management solution, such as Microsoft's WSUS (Windows Server Update Services), you circumvent Windows Update and no files will be installed by WU. But if you're an individual or a small business using Windows Update (or its enhanced sibling, Microsoft Update), you may be concerned about Microsoft installing patches before you've had a chance to research their reliability. In that case, you can completely turn off the Automatic Updates Agent, thereby preventing updates or even notifications from occurring. If you take this step, you'll become solely responsible for learning about new Microsoft patches yourself. I'll explain below how to adapt to this situation. In the meantime, here's how to turn off Automatic Updates and prevent stealth installs: In Windows XP, take these steps: Step 1. Open Control Panel and launch Automatic Updates (in the Security Center category). Step 2. Select Turn off Automatic Updates. Click OK. In Windows Vista, take these steps: Step 1. Open Control Panel and launch Windows Update (in the System and Maintenance category). Step 2. In the left pane, click Change settings. Step 3. Click Never check for updates (not recommended). Click OK. Step 4. Click Continue, if prompted by User Account Control. With Automatic Updates turned off, Windows Update will still update itself (and notify you of patches), but only when you manually launch Windows Update and give your consent. What to do about repeated boot-up warnings Turning off Automatic Updates can cause Windows Security Alert pop-up balloons to appear in the taskbar tray every time you log on. Turning off Automatic Updates causes scary error balloons featuring a red shield. If this bothers you, Windows XP allows you to suppress any warnings that relate to Automatic Updates. You can also do this in Vista but, unfortunately, the newer OS forces you to turn off all security alerts just to suppress the Automatic Updates warnings. To eliminate the warning balloons about Automatic Updates in both XP and Vista, take these steps: Step 1. Double-click the red shield icon in the taskbar, or open the Control Panel and launch the Security Center. Step 2. In the left pane or box, click Change the way Security Center alerts me. Step 3. In XP, uncheck Automatic Updates and click OK. In Vista, select the second or third option. Use Secunia's Software Inspector to check for updates With the Windows Update Agent turned off, how will you know if you have the latest security patches and updates you need? First, read the Windows Secrets Newsletter that comes out two days after Patch Tuesday. Look in our paid section for descriptions of any patches that are reported to have negative side-effects, and use our recommended workarounds if any problems might affect you. Then, to check for needed updates to Windows and dozens of other programs, use the Secunia Software Inspector. This free service was described in the Aug. 16 and Sept. 6 issues of Windows Secrets. Once you know what updates you need, you can visit the Microsoft Update Web site, which offers updates for both Windows and Microsoft Office. The Secunia report includes a link to Microsoft's site and other update sites so you don't even have to bookmark them. Independent test labs confirm the behavior One of the first test centers to independently confirm WU's silent installs was eWeek Labs. An eWeek analyst, Andrew Garcia, published a blog entry on Sept. 13 documenting the logs of two test machines that had been set to Notify but do not install updates. According to Garcia, even though one of the PCs hadn't been touched in months, both machines showed evidence that version 7.0.6000.381 of the files had been installed in August. The lab had acted at the request of eWeek's Microsoft Watch columnist Joe Wilcox, one of several journalists who picked up on a press release issued by Windows Secrets publicist Revell-Pechar Inc. In a series of three blog posts, Wilcox wrote that nothing in the Windows Update Privacy Statement gives Microsoft "permission to update without user consent" (Sept. 12); that "the silent downloads also raise questions about ownership" of users' PCs (Sept. 13); and that Microsoft was using the existence of its employees' blog posts "to avoid answering tough questions the news media might ask about privacy and Windows Update" (Sept. 14). One blog, Nynaeve, recounted yet another downside to the silent updates. The patching process had awakened the blogger's portable computer from standby mode at 3:00 a.m. while stored in an insulated laptop bag. Because the update process failed to put the computer back into standby after the installation, the laptop's battery was exhausted by the time the writer discovered the problem later that day. Furthermore, the fact that the computer was running in a bag for so long could damage the machine and might even pose a fire hazard. To say this story has sparked controversy would be an understatement. The comments flying around the Web vary from outrage to the exact opposite position: that Microsoft is completely right to install WU support files, regardless of the user's Automatic Updates preferences. One account, in the Handler's Diary blog, said there was no cause for concern since the Turn off Automatic Updates setting in the Automatic Updates control panel prevents the silent updates from occurring. (This is true, although it generates repeated boot-up warnings, as described below. Some readers incorrectly inferred from my article that even this setting allows stealthy updates; it does not.) Perhaps the situation is best summed up by reporter Todd Bishop, who wrote in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article: "But all of those details shouldn't obscure the bottom line: According to the evidence assembled by Windows Secrets, these updates were silently downloaded and installed, without notifying end users, even in cases where those end users had specifically told Microsoft, through their PC settings, not to install updates without letting them choose to do so."
  9. I think everyone has missed the point here. To me the main issue is not about the operating system but about security. If Microsoft can do this to Windows, then what or who will prevent terrorists, hackers, and other unmentioned scumbags from invading our systems without our consent and perhaps without our knowledge? If scumbags can access Windows in this manner, has anyone else checked their linux or other operating systems? Is nothing safe anymore? Doesn't ownership of a computer and assumed ownership of your copy of windows give you the right to restrict software manufacturers, terrorists, etc from accessing your system? Where will it all end? If Microsoft claims they can always have access due to their eula agreement, then what will that do to all the millions of websites that have privacy policies and/or terms of use? Will this allow them to stealthily install software without our knowledge and/or permission legally as well? Microsoft, in my opinion, has crossed the line on this one. They've shown to the world's scumbags that nothing is safe. They've opened a can of worms.
  10. http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Mi...t-users-consent I am subscribed to a tech newsletter called Windows Secrets and the info below is questionable as far as being legal, in my opinion. If Microsoft is allowed to continue performing stealth updates without the users/owners knowledge and/or consent, then what will prevent hackers & terrorists from using this as well? Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent By Scott Dunn Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates. Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching. Files changed with no notice to users In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC. It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be set to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be installed regardless of the settings — without notifying users. When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU wasn't authorized to install anything. This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update, as last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case, however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had to be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a notice never appears. For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set your preferences to require it. Microsoft provides no tech information — yet To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you were, for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a stealth install or nothing. A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states: "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself. It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed." Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft Partner Support about the update and received this short reply: "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is available." Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses. System logs confirm stealth installs In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP and Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381, according to the post. In Vista, the following files are updated: 1. wuapi.dll 2. wuapp.exe 3. wuauclt.exe 4. wuaueng.dll 5. wucltux.dll 6. wudriver.dll 7. wups.dll 8. wups2.dll 9. wuwebv.dll In XP, the following files are updated: 1. cdm.dll 2. wuapi.dll 3. wuauclt.exe 4. wuaucpl.cpl 5. wuaueng.dll 6. wucltui.dll 7. wups.dll 8. wups2.dll 9. wuweb.dll These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?" How to check which version your PC has If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables in Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374, or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version tab and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.) In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders: c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event Log: Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run. Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter. Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System. Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them. Event types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for system patches. On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the Event Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were stealth-updated in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on machines that received the patch on other dates.) To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information at Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU updates that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic Updates." No need to roll back the updated files Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the updated files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the latest patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant in the future.
  11. rickk1

    An Observation

    When I first ordered my system with Pentium D, Dell's site said that my system could handle 4gb ram maximum. I ordered 2gb ram and the operating system was Vista Home Edition. Vista had some ram issues, so I was led to believe, that allowed the motherboard to supposedly consume ram. What I mean is...if the system had 4gb which is the maximum then Vista would consume 1/2 to 1 full gb of ram since Vista was a power-hungry, resource-robbing system. I could relate to that but didn't understand when only 2gb ram was in the system and it would show the entire 2gb. That does not make sense. Why does one but not the other? I then removed Vista and installed XP-Pro w/sp2 and my system had 2gb of ram and it showed it all. I then decided to max out my ram and bought another 2gb of ram and upon installation, I noticed that my system did not show the full 4gb...it showed 3gb ram instead. Why is that? Why doesn't my system consume the ram difference in the lower amount of 2gb? I then did some tests and the results were explained to me that video drivers that were integrated into the motherboard were consuming the other 1gb when I had installed 4gb and it showed 3gb. What doesn't make sense again is that my system is using a video card that has 256mb ram installed. If the test result explanation were true, then why doesn't my video drivers report that they now have 1.25gb ram since the system's video drivers consumed a gig of ram? This again does not make sense. Why doesn't the system's integrated graphics consume the initial 1gb of ram in a 2gb system? So, now the question is..which consumes more resources...Vista or XP? Why do the tech experts claim Vista is responsible for consuming 1/2 to 1 full gig of ram? Due to their claims and so-called in-depth findings, if this is true, then why does XP consume the same amount too? And another question unanswered is why doesn't Vista or XP consume any ram when it is not maxxed out in ram? Some one is lying to someone. I then decided to try something else. I removed 1gb of my ram so that my system then had 3gb of ram. Guess what? My system showed it had the full 3gb ram available. Why doesn't it show a loss like the full amount? It also amazes me that some systems show 3gb of ram and others show 3 1/2gb of ram when both systems have the maximum of 4gb of ram installed but both systems show 3gb of ram when only 3gb are installed. Doesn't make sense!
  12. I don't know why anyone would want such a horrible operating system such as Vista. I've got it and hate it. I'm going back to xp-pro where I have more control and will be able to permanently delete info since vista home premium does not allow that to happen. To me, the onset of Vista took everyone back to the stone ages. What a JOKE!!!
  13. HJT may not be the best solution. I recommend opening the startup utility first and viewing which programs are activated to run upon boot. Click start then run then type "msconfig" without the quotes and then click ok. When the configuration window opens, locate and click on the tab called Startup. Every program that has a checkmark in the box next to it...runs upon boot is completed. Now, surf to the website called http://sysinfo.org and then click on "Full Startup List". This list will then let you perform searches based upon the startup utility. Now, go back to the startup utility and search for it using sysinfo and then read the results. According to sysinfo, "X" means it is not needed, "Y" means it is needed, "U" means it is undecided, and if there are no results, that means the search is something new and not listed just yet. Upon completion of the startup utility, click ok then restart. When it reboots, place a checkmark into the empty box of the configuration window that runs after boot. Be careful what you turn off.
  14. People still use Ad-Aware? I can't believe it. I've got several friends that were using the free and the paid version of AdAware and their systems were acting really strange. Since I'm in the computer repair business, I looked at their systems for free since they're my best friends. I updated their adaware first then configured them to scan as deeply as possible and their scans showed nothing but webtracks. I then installed my trusty Spybot and found many spyware trojans. Upon removal of them, their systems began working correctly again. They no longer use adaware. I've had other clients using Adaware too and had the same problems. Spybot is not the best..but it is much better than Adaware but it must be configured correctly and immunized as well or it will run as bad as adaware.
  15. Since you're using winxp, you have to manually repair internet explorer via the registry. I had the same problem that you had repairing the internet explorer did not fix it. I fixed the problem by using the winxp-cd and using repair windows also known as upgrading windows. Do not do a full install as this will format and repartition your hard drive. You must have your winxp cd to do this and you'll also need your registration numbers as well since it will be asking for them.
×
×
  • Create New...