Latest Outlook Express for MSIE8?

[Jeff Strickland]

"Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8e3hl0FbmfU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> OE is no longer supported and has been replaced by MSoft with Windows
>> Live
>> Mail.
>
> That's not correct. OE6 is still supported as it's a component included
> in Windows XP (SP3) - the same applies even for IE6 in Windows XP (SP3)
> <shrug>.
>

(JS) -- you said the same thing twice here, then followed it with a <shrug>,
I'm not sure what you meant to say.


> http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2578 leeds you to
> http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2073 which leads to
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/ stating for
> "Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3" that
> "Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end
> of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first." As we all(?)
> know, there's no more SP planned for Windows XP and (extended) support for
> Windows XP (Home, MCE and Professional) ends on April 8th 2014, see
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean23 and
> http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223
>
> Bye,
> Freudi


Perhaps my use of "supported" is the problem here. OE is not being improved
upon, has no updates planned, is not "supported."

Without regard to the level of support that may or may not exist, Outlook
Express is entirely independent of Internet Explorer. OE6 works along side
IE8 as well as it has ever worked, which was the OP's concern.

Since we all know there are no more Service Packs planned for XP, then it
follows that support has stopped, or at the very least is an a very steep
ramp downward.

The point I was making is that if the OP wants to move forward (perhaps that
is a misnomer the same as "supported") then he will need to get Windows Live
Mail because there is no new version of Outlook Express. Personally, I'd not
recommend such a move.

 

[Rob]

Jeff Strickland <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps my use of "supported" is the problem here. OE is not being improved
> upon, has no updates planned, is not "supported."

Well, it is supported in the sense that when a security problem is discovered,
a hotfix will be released. Which of course won't be installed by BillW50,
because he thinks it serves only to make his system slower.

 

[Ottmar Freudenberger]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:8e3hl0FbmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> OE is no longer supported and has been replaced by MSoft with Windows
>>> Live
>>> Mail.
>>
>> That's not correct. OE6 is still supported as it's a component included
>> in Windows XP (SP3) - the same applies even for IE6 in Windows XP (SP3)
>> <shrug>.
>>
>
> (JS) -- you said the same thing twice here, then followed it with a <shrug>,
> I'm not sure what you meant to say.

Well, you may find the difference between I and O sooner oder later

> Perhaps my use of "supported" is the problem here. OE is not being improved
> upon, has no updates planned,

True, the same applies for Windows Mail in Vista.

> is not "supported."

Not correct, pardon.

> Without regard to the level of support that may or may not exist, Outlook
> Express is entirely independent of Internet Explorer. OE6 works along side
> IE8 as well as it has ever worked, which was the OP's concern.

True and I didn't dispute on that one.

> Since we all know there are no more Service Packs planned for XP, then it
> follows that support has stopped,

Nope.

> The point I was making is that if the OP wants to move forward (perhaps that
> is a misnomer the same as "supported") then he will need to get Windows Live
> Mail because there is no new version of Outlook Express.

Well, WLM is IMHO by far not even a slice better but worse than OE6 in many
points. The upcoming "Live Essentials 2011" do even top that piece of sh*t.

> Personally, I'd not recommend such a move.

Me neither.

Bye,
Freudi

 

[Ottmar Freudenberger]

Your unpatched OE6 which came with Windows XP SP2 may hallunicate an
attachement and you may not see the answer. Your choice.

begin Click_me.exe.eml

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
> In news:8e3gt5F7ppU1@mid.individual.net,
> Ottmar Freudenberger typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:05:42 +0200:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
>>
>>> I listened to you and that was a big disaster! Installing SP3 breaks
>>> things
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> And Windows updates offers two
>>> things, hotfixes and security updates! And installing either or when
>>> you don't need them will only gum up the works and make your
>>> computer run slower.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> I think people need to know this truth.
>>
>> Nope, truth yes, but no BS.

> Gee you must not be too bright when it comes to this computer stuff, eh?

Well, you may be surpised, but beeing enlighted does feel much better
than beeing left in the dark and posting about stuff I wouldn't know
anything about.

> Google -> How to remove SP3
> Shows 2,950,000 hits. Why would all of these people be interested in
> removing SP3 for?

Ah, 2.950.000 hits/result in a search engine (tortuerd with unprecise
terms) equals 2.950.000 individuals having a problem? While that's
not true in my world, it may be in yours. You've checked every search
result for sure, have you?

> Even Microsoft tells you how to remove SP3 as well. Why would they tell
> you this if there is no need to ever do this?
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950249

Since I'm you mother:
| To continue receiving security updates for Windows, make sure you're
| running Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3).
[...]
| Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) contains important updates for Windows XP.
| After you install Windows XP SP3, a hardware device or an installed
| program may work differently. Therefore, you may want to uninstall Windows
| XP SP3 as a troubleshooting step.

Got the idea? Still not? Okay, what's that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875350

> Even Leo Notenboom admits so: "Window XP SP3 has had a fairly reasonable
> success rate, but it definitely causes some people problems."
>
> http://ask-leo.com/how_do_i_block_windows_xp_service_pack_3.html

"*Some* people". You've continued reading for sure, did you?

> Windows Secrets has posted the following:

Oerks, the same guys that once have stated that MS would deploy updates
even with Auto Update beeing disabled. That has never been true, these
guys are not trustworthy in my world.

> Here are the most glaring SP3-related problems:
>
> * Internet connectivity fails when using black hole routers, which drop
> packets (see Susan Bradley's May 1 column in our paid content and
> Microsoft's Knowledge Base article 314825).

Wow. Do you have any idea, what a black hole router is?

> * False positives are generated by Norton Internet Security and other
> security applications (see my May 2 Top Story).

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
| 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.

> * Device Manager settings go missing, especially in connection with
> using Norton Antivirus (see Susan Bradley's column in the May 29
> newsletter as well as KB 953791).

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
| 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953979/en-us
| In some cases, some antivirus applications may not let the Fixccs.exe
| process delete these intermediate registry subkeys.

> * Repeated rebooting occurs on machines using an AMD processor (see
> Susan Bradley's May 22 column and KB 953356).

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953356/en-us
The update is offered via WU/AU to possibly affected systems *prior* to
SP3. http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=953356

> * You can't install any new updates (see KB 943144).

Doesn't happen in case you've installed the updates offered via WU/AU.
("regsvr32 wups2.dll" isn't even new for SP3.

> * Third-party visual styles encounter problems (see the Support Alert
> Newsletter of June 19).

Nothing new for SP3: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327101
| APPLIES TO
| * Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3
| * Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition SP1

> http://www.windowssecrets.com/2008/09/11/02-Dont-let-XP-Service-Pack-3-hose-your-system

See above.

> And of course, you can find probably millions of reports from a search
> engine of people having problems with SP3.

Sure, those who can't read nor think about what happend and what may have
caused a possible problem. You may have some difficulties in finding the
hundreds of millions that did and do not have any problem with SP3 for
Windows XP. Guess what? They just don't write their success messages.

> It is all there if you ever bothered to look.

Well, how do you feel know? You're looking like a crying lamer - at least
for now.
end

Bye,
Freudi

 

[BillW50]

In news:slrni7q0ip.v7j.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl,
Rob typed on 31 Aug 2010 13:237 GMT:
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> And of course, you can find probably millions of reports from a
>> search engine of people having problems with SP3. It is all there if
>> you ever bothered to look.
>
> And of course you do not even TRY to find the problems experienced by
> people who have NOT installed SP3!

Sure I do Rob! For example, I installed KB909095 on these Gateway MX6124
laptops. This is part of SP3. The rest so far I don't need yet. I
haven't found any hotfix that I needed yet on my four EeePCs running XP
SP2 at any rate.

There are hundreds and maybe thousand of us who don't use Windows
updates. I even ran two test machines for over a year looking for
problems and viruses. Yet nothing happened and they ran so very stable.
Which is a far cry different when I was accepting Windows updates all of
the time. As it seemed like every other update screwed something up.

> Especially now that SP2 support has ended, and critical security fixes
> no longer appear for SP2 users.

Critical security fixes are only important if you run without a firewall
and have no real-time anti-virus checker. And if you are stupid enough
to run without a firewall and antivirus checker, your system can be
infected within 90 seconds on the Internet. I know, I did this as a test
and it really does happen. And security patches might help a bit, but I
still wouldn't trust it for long.

If you are using a firewall and a real-time anti antivirus checker,
critical security patches are pretty insignificant. As the antivirus
scans everything coming in for one (now it is trapped anyway) and before
it runs, the antivirus scans it again (so it is trapped twice). So it
can't do anything whether there are security holes or not. So security
patches or not really doesn't make any difference in this case.

If you are getting infected even with all of the security patches and
keeping your antivirus up-to-date. Then you are most likely being hit by
zero day viruses. And all of the security patches in the world won't
help you here, nor will your antivirus checker either. So what do you do
in this case?

Easy, use Sandboxie, a virtual machine, or even Microsoft's EWF. Even
running without a firewall, no antivirus checker, no security updates,
and even zero day viruses don't have much of a chance to do anything.
The more you understand about security protection Rob, the more prepared
you are. And the more you learn what is important and what isn't! And
security updates are virtually meaningless.

If Microsoft was really serious and thought security patches were
important too, they would have an update within hours of learning of a
new venerability. But they don't, as it takes them weeks, months, and
sometimes years to come up with a patch. So they too know it isn't that
important either. All it does is to make people who don't know any
better to feel better.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Rob]

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
> There are hundreds and maybe thousand of us who don't use Windows
> updates.

No need to tell me. It is because of those dumbwits that I get a
constant stream of spam offered by their compromised Windows boxes.

They usually are as stubborn as you are, or they copied Windows and
do not get security updates because their licensekey is a compromised
VLK that got leaked on the internet.

There should have been a way to disconnect all unpatched systems from
the internet so they cannot bother the others as much as they do today.

I don't mind if idiots like you run their own computer museum in their
home, but the shit from those systems should not be allowed to go onto
the internet.

 

[BillW50]

In news:8e4u8gFq3dU1@mid.individual.net,
Ottmar Freudenberger typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:59:46 +0200:
> Your unpatched OE6 which came with Windows XP SP2 may hallunicate an
> attachement and you may not see the answer. Your choice.
>
> begin Click_me.exe.eml

In your dreams! Seeing the source does wonders, eh? I do that anyway to
grab the date so I can paste it in above.

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
> In news:8e3gt5F7ppU1@mid.individual.net,
> Ottmar Freudenberger typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:05:42 +0200:
>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I listened to you and that was a big disaster! Installing SP3
>>>> breaks things.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> And Windows updates offers two things, hotfixes and security
>>>> updates! And installing either or when you don't need them will
>>>> only gum up the works and make your computer run slower.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> I think people need to know this truth.
>>>
>>> Nope, truth yes, but no BS.
>
>> Gee you must not be too bright when it comes to this computer stuff,
>> eh?
>
> Well, you may be surpised, but beeing enlighted does feel much better
> than beeing left in the dark and posting about stuff I wouldn't know
> anything about.

Really? What don't I know? It seems your little stupid trick didn't
work! As I saw everything anyway, eh?

>> Google -> How to remove SP3
>> Shows 2,950,000 hits. Why would all of these people be interested in
>> removing SP3 for?
>
> Ah, 2.950.000 hits/result in a search engine (tortuerd with unprecise
> terms) equals 2.950.000 individuals having a problem? While that's not
> true in my world, it may be in yours. You've checked every search
> result for sure, have you?

Not in my world either. But what it does mean is lots of people have had
problems with SP3, something you still deny because you have no
knowledge of how things works.

>> Even Microsoft tells you how to remove SP3 as well. Why would they
>> tell you this if there is no need to ever do this?
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950249
>
>> Since I'm you mother:
>| To continue receiving security updates for Windows, make sure you're
>| running Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3).
> [...]
> | Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) contains important updates for
> Windows XP.
> | After you install Windows XP SP3, a hardware device or an installed
> | program may work differently. Therefore, you may want to uninstall
> Windows
> | XP SP3 as a troubleshooting step.
>
> Got the idea? Still not? Okay, what's that?
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875350

Microsoft says a lot of things that are pure BS! Need examples? Okay
what about that you can't run Windows off of an USB HDD? Microsoft says
you can't but others know differently.

>> Even Leo Notenboom admits so: "Window XP SP3 has had a fairly
>> reasonable success rate, but it definitely causes some people
>> problems."
>>
>> http://ask-leo.com/how_do_i_block_windows_xp_service_pack_3.html
>
> "*Some* people". You've continued reading for sure, did you?

Sure I did!

>> Windows Secrets has posted the following:
>
> Oerks, the same guys that once have stated that MS would deploy
> updates even with Auto Update beeing disabled. That has never been
> true, these guys are not trustworthy in my world.

Oh so that means that all of those problems doesn't exist? If you think
not, want to make a $10 million dollar bet then?

>> Here are the most glaring SP3-related problems:
>>
>> * Internet connectivity fails when using black hole routers, which
>> drop packets (see Susan Bradley's May 1 column in our paid content
>> and Microsoft's Knowledge Base article 314825).
>
> Wow. Do you have any idea, what a black hole router is?

Yup and I use one and most home users use them as well (if they use a
router) unless they configured it from the default settings.

>> * False positives are generated by Norton Internet Security and other
>> security applications (see my May 2 Top Story).
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
> | 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.

You are trusting the source isn't effected if you do that. Microsoft's
computers have been infected before.

>> * Device Manager settings go missing, especially in connection with
>> using Norton Antivirus (see Susan Bradley's column in the May 29
>> newsletter as well as KB 953791).
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
> | 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.

See above.

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953979/en-us
> | In some cases, some antivirus applications may not let the
> Fixccs.exe
> | process delete these intermediate registry subkeys.
>
>> * Repeated rebooting occurs on machines using an AMD processor (see
>> Susan Bradley's May 22 column and KB 953356).
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953356/en-us
> The update is offered via WU/AU to possibly affected systems *prior*
> to SP3.
> http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=953356
>
>> * You can't install any new updates (see KB 943144).
>
> Doesn't happen in case you've installed the updates offered via WU/AU.
> ("regsvr32 wups2.dll" isn't even new for SP3.
>
>> * Third-party visual styles encounter problems (see the Support Alert
>> Newsletter of June 19).
>
> Nothing new for SP3: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327101
> | APPLIES TO
> | * Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3
> | * Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition SP1
>
>> http://www.windowssecrets.com/2008/09/11/02-Dont-let-XP-Service-Pack-3-hose-your-system
>
> See above.
>
>> And of course, you can find probably millions of reports from a
>> search engine of people having problems with SP3.
>
> Sure, those who can't read nor think about what happend and what may
> have caused a possible problem. You may have some difficulties in
> finding the hundreds of millions that did and do not have any problem
> with SP3 for Windows XP. Guess what? They just don't write their
> success messages.

Nor do most of the ones who has uninstalled SP3 successfully either.

>> It is all there if you ever bothered to look.
>
> Well, how do you feel know? You're looking like a crying lamer - at
> least for now.
> end

Oddly enough, no! But you do seem to have your head in the sand. Say are
you willing to make that $10,000,000 bet now?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:slrni7qi7q.89s.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl,
Rob typed on 31 Aug 2010 18:24:58 GMT:
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> There are hundreds and maybe thousand of us who don't use Windows
>> updates.
>
> No need to tell me. It is because of those dumbwits that I get a
> constant stream of spam offered by their compromised Windows boxes.

Not from me, my family, or friends.

> They usually are as stubborn as you are, or they copied Windows and
> do not get security updates because their licensekey is a compromised
> VLK that got leaked on the internet.

Not from me, my family, or friends. And why don't we ever hear stories
from people like me who have two unused Windows XP copies on the shelf
and two still sealed copies of Windows 7 there too. Sure blame
everything on pirates, but don't blame the people who legally bought the
software and latter learn they can't use it. Or what about all of those
OEM copies? I bought a few machines that turned out the hardware was
just crap. Lost on the hardware and the OEM software to boot. Yet nobody
is offering any money back now are they?

The worse case of this ripoff was from Berkeley Software. Not only did
they charge me over one thousand dollars for all of their software. But
they charged me 20 bucks a year to replace their worn out copy protected
boot disk. And what did they do? They quit and all bought yachts. Left
us all high and dry! But nobody talks about this nonsense, now do they?

> There should have been a way to disconnect all unpatched systems from
> the internet so they cannot bother the others as much as they do
> today.

There are lots of unpatched systems out there that are not bothering
anybody.

> I don't mind if idiots like you run their own computer museum in their
> home, but the shit from those systems should not be allowed to go onto
> the internet.

Why? Our systems are not getting infected with anything.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Gordon]

On 31/08/2010 21:00, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:slrni7qi7q.89s.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl,
> Rob typed on 31 Aug 2010 18:24:58 GMT:
>> BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> There are hundreds and maybe thousand of us who don't use Windows
>>> updates.
>>
>> No need to tell me. It is because of those dumbwits that I get a
>> constant stream of spam offered by their compromised Windows boxes.
>
> Not from me, my family, or friends.

How do you KNOW that?

>
>> They usually are as stubborn as you are, or they copied Windows and
>> do not get security updates because their licensekey is a compromised
>> VLK that got leaked on the internet.
>
> Not from me, my family, or friends. And why don't we ever hear stories
> from people like me who have two unused Windows XP copies on the shelf
> and two still sealed copies of Windows 7 there too. Sure blame
> everything on pirates, but don't blame the people who legally bought the
> software and latter learn they can't use it. Or what about all of those
> OEM copies? I bought a few machines that turned out the hardware was
> just crap. Lost on the hardware and the OEM software to boot. Yet nobody
> is offering any money back now are they?
>
> The worse case of this ripoff was from Berkeley Software. Not only did
> they charge me over one thousand dollars for all of their software. But
> they charged me 20 bucks a year to replace their worn out copy protected
> boot disk. And what did they do? They quit and all bought yachts. Left
> us all high and dry! But nobody talks about this nonsense, now do they?
>
>> There should have been a way to disconnect all unpatched systems from
>> the internet so they cannot bother the others as much as they do
>> today.
>
> There are lots of unpatched systems out there that are not bothering
> anybody.
>

Oh yes they are. Never heard of botnets?

>> I don't mind if idiots like you run their own computer museum in their
>> home, but the shit from those systems should not be allowed to go onto
>> the internet.
>
> Why? Our systems are not getting infected with anything.
>
How do you KNOW? Yes yours may not show any symptoms - botnets usually
don't. You are just PLAIN SELFISH.

 

[BillW50]

In news:i5jp8b$tvl$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Gordon typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 2188 +0100:
> On 31/08/2010 21:00, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:slrni7qi7q.89s.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl,
>> Rob typed on 31 Aug 2010 18:24:58 GMT:
>>> BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>>> There are hundreds and maybe thousand of us who don't use Windows
>>>> updates.
>>>
>>> No need to tell me. It is because of those dumbwits that I get a
>>> constant stream of spam offered by their compromised Windows boxes.
>>
>> Not from me, my family, or friends.
>
> How do you KNOW that?

Because I know such things. This is simple stuff for me to figure out
because I am a computer scientist and an electronic engineer.

>>> They usually are as stubborn as you are, or they copied Windows and
>>> do not get security updates because their licensekey is a
>>> compromised VLK that got leaked on the internet.
>>
>> Not from me, my family, or friends. And why don't we ever hear
>> stories from people like me who have two unused Windows XP copies on
>> the shelf and two still sealed copies of Windows 7 there too. Sure
>> blame everything on pirates, but don't blame the people who legally
>> bought the software and latter learn they can't use it. Or what
>> about all of those OEM copies? I bought a few machines that turned
>> out the hardware was just crap. Lost on the hardware and the OEM
>> software to boot. Yet nobody is offering any money back now are they?
>>
>> The worse case of this ripoff was from Berkeley Software. Not only
>> did they charge me over one thousand dollars for all of their
>> software. But they charged me 20 bucks a year to replace their worn
>> out copy protected boot disk. And what did they do? They quit and
>> all bought yachts. Left us all high and dry! But nobody talks about
>> this nonsense, now do they?
>>> There should have been a way to disconnect all unpatched systems
>>> from the internet so they cannot bother the others as much as they
>>> do today.
>>
>> There are lots of unpatched systems out there that are not bothering
>> anybody.
>
> Oh yes they are. Never heard of botnets?

Yes that is why you need antivirus and spyware checkers.

>>> I don't mind if idiots like you run their own computer museum in
>>> their home, but the shit from those systems should not be allowed
>>> to go onto the internet.
>>
>> Why? Our systems are not getting infected with anything.
>>
> How do you KNOW? Yes yours may not show any symptoms - botnets usually
> don't. You are just PLAIN SELFISH.

No you are! Tell people to update their Windows and then run and hide
when it screws up their systems. So who is selfish and a coward here? Do
you offer a money back guarantee, I thought not!

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Ottmar Freudenberger]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
> In news:8e4u8gFq3dU1@mid.individual.net,
> Ottmar Freudenberger typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:59:46 +0200:
>> Your unpatched OE6 which came with Windows XP SP2 may hallunicate an
>> attachement and you may not see the answer. Your choice.
>>
>> begin Click_me.exe.eml
>
> In your dreams! Seeing the source does wonders, eh?

Wow, that's indeed comfortable, isn't it?

> I do that anyway to grab the date so I can paste it in above.

LOL
>
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
>> In news:8e3gt5F7ppU1@mid.individual.net,
>> Ottmar Freudenberger typed on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:05:42 +0200:
>>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> I listened to you and that was a big disaster! Installing SP3
>>>>> breaks things.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> And Windows updates offers two things, hotfixes and security
>>>>> updates! And installing either or when you don't need them will
>>>>> only gum up the works and make your computer run slower.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> I think people need to know this truth.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, truth yes, but no BS.
>>
>>> Gee you must not be too bright when it comes to this computer stuff,
>>> eh?
>>
>> Well, you may be surpised, but beeing enlighted does feel much better
>> than beeing left in the dark and posting about stuff I wouldn't know
>> anything about.
>
> Really? What don't I know?

A lot of things about security for instance.

>>> Google -> How to remove SP3
>>> Shows 2,950,000 hits. Why would all of these people be interested in
>>> removing SP3 for?
>>
>> Ah, 2.950.000 hits/result in a search engine (tortuerd with unprecise
>> terms) equals 2.950.000 individuals having a problem? While that's not
>> true in my world, it may be in yours. You've checked every search
>> result for sure, have you?
>
> Not in my world either. But what it does mean is lots of people have had
> problems with SP3, something you still deny because you have no
> knowledge of how things works.

You're so wise, really.

>>> Even Microsoft tells you how to remove SP3 as well. Why would they
>>> tell you this if there is no need to ever do this?
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950249
>>
>>> Since I'm you mother:
>>| To continue receiving security updates for Windows, make sure you're
>>| running Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3).
>> [...]
>> | Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) contains important updates for
>> Windows XP.
>> | After you install Windows XP SP3, a hardware device or an installed
>> | program may work differently. Therefore, you may want to uninstall
>> Windows
>> | XP SP3 as a troubleshooting step.
>>
>> Got the idea? Still not? Okay, what's that?
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875350
>
> Microsoft says a lot of things that are pure BS!

Ah, that's why you feel it's legitimate to post your BS anytime.
Anyway, you've asked for and now you don't like the (reasonable) answer,
do you?

>>> Even Leo Notenboom admits so: "Window XP SP3 has had a fairly
>>> reasonable success rate, but it definitely causes some people
>>> problems."
>>>
>>> http://ask-leo.com/how_do_i_block_windows_xp_service_pack_3.html
>>
>> "*Some* people". You've continued reading for sure, did you?
>
> Sure I did!

Really? Surprising.

>>> Windows Secrets has posted the following:
>>
>> Oerks, the same guys that once have stated that MS would deploy
>> updates even with Auto Update beeing disabled. That has never been
>> true, these guys are not trustworthy in my world.
>
> Oh so that means that all of those problems doesn't exist?

"those problems"? You even don't read what you're writing, do you?

>>> Here are the most glaring SP3-related problems:
>>>
>>> * Internet connectivity fails when using black hole routers, which
>>> drop packets (see Susan Bradley's May 1 column in our paid content
>>> and Microsoft's Knowledge Base article 314825).
>>
>> Wow. Do you have any idea, what a black hole router is?
>
> Yup and I use one and most home users use them as well (if they use a
> router) unless they configured it from the default settings.

Aha. Would you mind sharing your wisdom?

>>> * False positives are generated by Norton Internet Security and other
>>> security applications (see my May 2 Top Story).
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
>> | 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.
>
> You are trusting the source isn't effected if you do that. Microsoft's
> computers have been infected before.

ROTFL - You sure are able to proof your statement. There has never been
any update distributed via WU/AU which has been "infected" by anything.

>>> * Device Manager settings go missing, especially in connection with
>>> using Norton Antivirus (see Susan Bradley's column in the May 29
>>> newsletter as well as KB 953791).
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717/en-us
>> | 4. If you are running antivirus software, disable it.
>
> See above.

True.

>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953979/en-us
>> | In some cases, some antivirus applications may not let the
>> Fixccs.exe
>> | process delete these intermediate registry subkeys.

Huhu? Nothing to comment? Well...

>>> * Repeated rebooting occurs on machines using an AMD processor (see
>>> Susan Bradley's May 22 column and KB 953356).
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953356/en-us
>> The update is offered via WU/AU to possibly affected systems *prior*
>> to SP3.
>> http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=953356

Huhu? Nothing to comment? Well...

>>> * You can't install any new updates (see KB 943144).
>>
>> Doesn't happen in case you've installed the updates offered via WU/AU.
>> ("regsvr32 wups2.dll" isn't even new for SP3.

Huhu? Nothing to comment? Well...

>>> * Third-party visual styles encounter problems (see the Support Alert
>>> Newsletter of June 19).
>>
>> Nothing new for SP3: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327101
>> | APPLIES TO
>> | * Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3
>> | * Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition SP1

Huhu? Nothing to comment? Well...

>>> And of course, you can find probably millions of reports from a
>>> search engine of people having problems with SP3.
>>
>> Sure, those who can't read nor think about what happend and what may
>> have caused a possible problem. You may have some difficulties in
>> finding the hundreds of millions that did and do not have any problem
>> with SP3 for Windows XP. Guess what? They just don't write their
>> success messages.
>
> Nor do most of the ones who has uninstalled SP3 successfully either.

Ah, I see, you're thinking uninstalling a SP is done unreasonably.
Okay, that contradicts your "arguments", but if you think you could
live with that logic, go on.

>>> It is all there if you ever bothered to look.
>>
>> Well, how do you feel know? You're looking like a crying lamer - at
>> least for now.
>> end
>
> Oddly enough, no!

Of course you do.

HAND,
Freudi

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8e4sncFg7hU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:8e3hl0FbmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> OE is no longer supported and has been replaced by MSoft with Windows
>>>> Live
>>>> Mail.
>>>
>>> That's not correct. OE6 is still supported as it's a component included
>>> in Windows XP (SP3) - the same applies even for IE6 in Windows XP (SP3)
>>> <shrug>.
>>>
>>
>> (JS) -- you said the same thing twice here, then followed it with a
>> <shrug>,
>> I'm not sure what you meant to say.
>
> Well, you may find the difference between I and O sooner oder later
>

IE and OE. I completely missed that.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
>news:8e4sncFg7hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8e3hl0FbmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> OE is no longer supported and has been replaced by MSoft with Windows
>>>>> Live
>>>>> Mail.
>>>>
>>>> That's not correct. OE6 is still supported as it's a component included
>>>> in Windows XP (SP3) - the same applies even for IE6 in Windows XP (SP3)
>>>> <shrug>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> (JS) -- you said the same thing twice here, then followed it with a
>>> <shrug>,
>>> I'm not sure what you meant to say.
>>
>> Well, you may find the difference between I and O sooner oder later
>>
>
>IE and OE. I completely missed that.

Side issues aside, thanks to all for the helpful replies. Currently
investigating Thunderbird. Up until now, apart from occasional use of OE,
I've been using Forte's Agent. It's an excellent newsgroup application,
but an email dinosaur, with no IMAP support.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

 

[BillW50]

In news:12uv76d0dd90m6qiujqp32ihecig97fi9f@4ax.com,
Terry Pinnell typed on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:20:03 +0100:
> Side issues aside, thanks to all for the helpful replies. Currently
> investigating Thunderbird. Up until now, apart from occasional use of
> OE, I've been using Forte's Agent. It's an excellent newsgroup
> application, but an email dinosaur, with no IMAP support.

Hi Terry! Well I don't know about you, but I have used Thunderbird 1.5,
2.0, and 3.0 and I have used one version or another for many years. And
even today, I find it still very awkward to use. For IMAP email I find
it ok, but for newsgroups I find it a nightmare! Especially in very busy
newsgroups.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (no room for Windows Updates)

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:12uv76d0dd90m6qiujqp32ihecig97fi9f@4ax.com...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>news:8e4sncFg7hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>>> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:8e3hl0FbmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OE is no longer supported and has been replaced by MSoft with Windows
>>>>>> Live
>>>>>> Mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not correct. OE6 is still supported as it's a component
>>>>> included
>>>>> in Windows XP (SP3) - the same applies even for IE6 in Windows XP
>>>>> (SP3)
>>>>> <shrug>.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (JS) -- you said the same thing twice here, then followed it with a
>>>> <shrug>,
>>>> I'm not sure what you meant to say.
>>>
>>> Well, you may find the difference between I and O sooner oder later
>>>
>>
>>IE and OE. I completely missed that.
>
> Side issues aside, thanks to all for the helpful replies. Currently
> investigating Thunderbird. Up until now, apart from occasional use of OE,
> I've been using Forte's Agent. It's an excellent newsgroup application,
> but an email dinosaur, with no IMAP support.
>
> --
> Terry, East Grinstead, UK

What are you trying to accomplish? Outlook Express6 works fine with IE8.
There are those among us that feel that OE6 works better than the products
that MSoft has brought out to replace it, and therefore there is no
compelling need to "upgrade" away from something that works fine.

You won't like Thunderbird ...

 

[Daave]

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> Outlook Express6 works fine with IE8.

Why wouldn't it?

OE is an e-mail client. IE is a Web browser. They are separate, for the
most part. You can easily run one without the other or both at the same
time.

It's like saying Excel works fine with Skype.

 

[BillW50]

In news:i5thug$5kb$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Daave typed on Sat, 4 Sep 2010 095:06 -0400:
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Outlook Express6 works fine with IE8.
>
> Why wouldn't it?
>
> OE is an e-mail client. IE is a Web browser. They are separate, for
> the most part. You can easily run one without the other or both at
> the same time.
>
> It's like saying Excel works fine with Skype.

Because in the past, there was no mismatching of versions of IE and OE
allowed. As IE4, IE5, IE5.5, and IE6, you needed the same version of OE
or it didn't work. And IE security settings also affected OE security
settings too. And back in the days before IE was integrated into
Windows, you could not install OE without also installing IE as well. As
OE depends on in part to have IE there.

Oddly enough today, OE6 works great with IE6, IE7, and IE8. Also oddly
enough, OE6 AFAIK can't be installed under Vista or Windows 7. I even
tried a portable version of OE6 which works fine on an XP system, but
won't run under Vista or Windows 7 either.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Bob Lucas]

"Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in message
news:i5thug$5kb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Outlook Express6 works fine with IE8.
>
> Why wouldn't it?
>
> OE is an e-mail client. IE is a Web browser. They are separate,
> for the most part. You can easily run one without the other or
> both at the same time.
>
> It's like saying Excel works fine with Skype.
>

Although it is generally correct to say that 'Outlook Express 6
works fine with IE8', Outlook Express does depend upon the
Internet Explorer print engine for printing messages. The shared
print engine causes occasional problems, which appear to be
related to a minor bug that affects the 'Shrink to Fit' function
of IE8 When you print multi-page messages with graphics, you
might lose approximately one inch from the right margin of the
first page. It does not affect subsequent pages.

Most emails print OK, because the problem only seems to affect
multi-page messages that contain graphics. Significantly, the
bug also occurs with Windows Live Mail (which is Microsoft's
recommended successor to Outlook Express).

 

[Rob]

Daave <daave@example.com> wrote:
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Outlook Express6 works fine with IE8.
>
> Why wouldn't it?
>
> OE is an e-mail client. IE is a Web browser. They are separate, for the
> most part. You can easily run one without the other or both at the same
> time.
>
> It's like saying Excel works fine with Skype.

At the same time you would expect that both are just applications.
You would install such an application (like IE) and you could install
as many different versions as you like.

Just like you can install Office 97, 2000, 2003 and 2007 on the same
computer.

But not so with IE. It could have been a separate application but it
was coded to be part of the operating system. Bad bad bad...

So don't expect too much logic from Microsoft. They do what they
like, and that does not necessarily mean it is sensible.

 

[BillW50]

In news:slrni84q4f.ieb.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl,
Rob typed on 04 Sep 2010 15:41:03 GMT:
> But not so with IE. It could have been a separate application but it
> was coded to be part of the operating system. Bad bad bad...

I disagree! All modern OS needs the Internet integrated into the OS. As
all OS have the file system integrated. And the Internet is just a file
system on remote servers. So it is only a natural evolution.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2