Does Microsoft realize they have a major flaw in Windows XP?

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:09:16 -0400, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You are wrong. If Microsoft says they are working on the issue you can bet
>your bottom dollar it has been forgotten. Would you like to see a Knowledge
>Base article that discusses an issue in MS-DOS or in Internet Information
>Services 2.0 or Windows NT 3.51 that says the exact same thing? No you
>wouldn't because you think I am making it all up. Well so you say.

I have NEVER said, or even implied, that you could be lying.'
There are millions of KB articles in the Microsoft databases.

Just because there is a past KB article which may or may not be
concering the same thing, doesn't mean that Microsoft either stopped
working on it, or failed to continue working on it.

There are thousands of Microsoft employees all around the world in
Microsoft's various support and software engineering positions, some
working on "this" and some working on "that". We never truly know
what they are or are not working on at any one time, since they seldom
tell the public (after all, they are working with Microsoft's source
code, which is not available to the general public.)

How do we really know they aren't working on this issue, unless they
themselves announce that they have stopped? No one (and many within
Microsoft's rank and file) knows what Microsoft engineers are working
on and what they are not working on.

Until you can document your proclamation that Microsoft is no longer
working on the issue from Microsoft sources, I will continue to point
out such foolishness on yours and others parts.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
from my email address before sending.
=======================================================

 

[Guest]

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

Do you HAVE a life?

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Jayso

Please reply to this email so I know if i'm right

Good in Home Networking, XP Home based problems, and Pro based Problems
Add my email to MSN Messenger if u wish
jayso_chinnery@spamfreehotmail.com.au (remove spamfree)


"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows XP
> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
> this
> problem and will post more information in this article when the
> information
> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
> Knowledge
> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>
> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
> the
> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article closely
> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error messages..."
> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other - maybe
> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>
> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
> been
> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
> the
> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
> computer name."
>
> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>
> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
> "method."
> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
> "You
> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name." And
> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
> XP.
> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain Controller
> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>
> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
> don't
> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network. Or
> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now. And
> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
> ever
> will.
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
>

 

[Guest]

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

No. Feel better now?

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jayso" <jayso_chinnery@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#GeXQstsFHA.1788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Do you HAVE a life?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Jayso
>
> Please reply to this email so I know if i'm right
>
> Good in Home Networking, XP Home based problems, and Pro based Problems
> Add my email to MSN Messenger if u wish
> jayso_chinnery@spamfreehotmail.com.au (remove spamfree)
>
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
> > Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows
XP
> > existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
> > articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
> > this
> > problem and will post more information in this article when the
> > information
> > becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
> > forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
> > Knowledge
> > Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
> >
> > Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
> > the
> > story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
closely
> > you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
messages..."
> > The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
maybe
> > both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
> >
> > Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
> > computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
> > addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
> > been
> > completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
> > the
> > other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
> > computer name."
> >
> > So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
> > "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
> >
> > Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
> > "method."
> > It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
> > during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
> > dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
> > Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
> > Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
> > "You
> > do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
And
> > that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
> > Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
> > Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
> > XP.
> > Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
Controller
> > but no longer from Windows XP itself.
> >
> > Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
> > don't
> > experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
Or
> > maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
And
> > what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
> > ever
> > will.
> >
> > --
> > George Hester
> > _________________________________
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Another one from tonight and a couple out of many from past postings. And on top of this you are not using XP or W2K3. Doubt that even W2K
__________________________________________________________
Tonight in this group

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304514'

Does this work for you?

--
George Hester
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from past postings


So there goes all my disks Microsoft. Thanks bunch. May in Windows 2000?
No IS Windows 2000. Be Honest might start a whole new escapade Microsoft.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;328520

Also the hardware wizard leaves a lot to be desired. You forgot to include
no more support for ISA cards in the Documentation. No support for
Hardrives used in Windows 2000. What next you got up your sleeves? It's
been real.

--
George Hester
_______________________________

I am finding that the password is NOT being saved. Hence when I open OEX
the connection to the email account is being denied and I am getting errors.
When I bring up the Properties of the account I find the option to Save the
password is enabled but it does not work. I am queried to enter a passowrd
for the email account upon its connect failure. I do that and all is well
until I open OEX again at some later time. When that happens the option to
Save password there is greyed out not available and there is no passord
***** there. It is empty.

--
George Hester
____________________________

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uJmrtrusFHA.2592@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Well how am I suppose to know that? I really do not care if you don't like
> my life. It's the only one I have and I am going to stick with it
> regardless. I never said anything about whether I was the only one that
> "hit on it." You say it's been talked about before "not the first time?"
> Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#YvUChusFHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Picking up on another thing George. You seem to pick up on articles and
> continue to show that you hit on it yourself. This is not the first time.
> Get a life.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows XP
>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
> this
>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
> information
>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
> Knowledge
>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>
>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
> the
>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article closely
>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error messages..."
>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other - maybe
>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>
>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
> been
>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
> the
>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
>> computer name."
>>
>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>
>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
> "method."
>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
> "You
>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name." And
>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
> XP.
>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain Controller
>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>
>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
> don't
>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network. Or
>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now. And
>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
> ever
>> will.
>>
>> --
>> George Hester
>> _________________________________
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.


Bob,

Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I will
address it.
We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM channels -
one that includes Service Pack 2.
This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
important security releases we have ever done.
Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily with
Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest security
fixes etc.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround provided.
>>
>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>> forthcoming in the future.
>>
>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the workaround
>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you think
>> is related to this one ?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights
>>
>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> newsgroups
>>
>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows
>>> XP
>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
>>> this
>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>>> information
>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>>> Knowledge
>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>>>
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>>
>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
>>> the
>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>>> closely
>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>>> messages..."
>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>>> maybe
>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>>
>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
>>> been
>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
>>> the
>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
>>> computer name."
>>>
>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>>
>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>>> "method."
>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
>>> "You
>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>>> And
>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
>>> XP.
>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>>> Controller
>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>>
>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
>>> don't
>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
>>> Or
>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>>> And
>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
>>> ever
>>> will.
>>>
>>> --
>>> George Hester
>>> _________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set" somewhere
other than under Tools/Security tab.

So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I will
> address it.
> We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM
> channels - one that includes Service Pack 2.
> This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
> important security releases we have ever done.
> Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily
> with Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest
> security fixes etc.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>>
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround
>>> provided.
>>>
>>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>>> forthcoming in the future.
>>>
>>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the workaround
>>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you think
>>> is related to this one ?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights
>>>
>>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>>> newsgroups
>>>
>>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows
>>>> XP
>>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
>>>> this
>>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>>>> information
>>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be
>>>> addressed -
>>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>>>> Knowledge
>>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>>>>
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>>>
>>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
>>>> the
>>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>>>> closely
>>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>>>> messages..."
>>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>>>> maybe
>>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
>>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
>>>> been
>>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
>>>> the
>>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
>>>> computer name."
>>>>
>>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>>>
>>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>>>> "method."
>>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
>>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE?
>>>> Hmmm...
>>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
>>>> "You
>>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>>>> And
>>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
>>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer
>>>> access
>>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from
>>>> Windows XP.
>>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>>>> Controller
>>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>>>
>>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
>>>> don't
>>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
>>>> Or
>>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>>>> And
>>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
>>>> ever
>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> George Hester
>>>> _________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:58:03 GMT, "pjp"
<pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
>actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
>figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set" somewhere
>other than under Tools/Security tab.
>
>So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here

It is also possible that you are using an earlier beta of Netscape 8.0
or AOL's new browser, which ostensibly contained the ability to
properly use Windows Update, but both of which actually handled
ActiveX very poorly.

I too experienced the improper working of Windows Update when I first
installed either of these products. However, after starting Windows
Update from within Internet Explorer, I had no problems updating.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
from my email address before sending.
=======================================================

 

[Guest]

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

"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
> somewhere other than under Tools/Security tab.
>
> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here

The Update web sites needs to install an Active X control to allow us to
work. Ensure you are using Internet Explorer and check your Active X
security settings. A default install does not have a problem (you see the
bar at the top of IE telling you to accept the install of the control etc) -
so it is likely that some setting you have changed is the cause of your
problem.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
> somewhere other than under Tools/Security tab.
>
> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I will
>> address it.
>> We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM
>> channels - one that includes Service Pack 2.
>> This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
>> important security releases we have ever done.
>> Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily
>> with Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest
>> security fixes etc.
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights
>>
>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> newsgroups
>>
>> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>>>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround
>>>> provided.
>>>>
>>>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>>>> forthcoming in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the workaround
>>>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you
>>>> think is related to this one ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>>
>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>> rights
>>>>
>>>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>>>> newsgroups
>>>>
>>>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>>>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows
>>>>> XP
>>>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>>>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
>>>>> this
>>>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>>>>> information
>>>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be
>>>>> addressed -
>>>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the
>>>>> KB:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only
>>>>> half the
>>>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>>>>> closely
>>>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>>>>> messages..."
>>>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in
>>>>> the
>>>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>>>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either"
>>>>> has been
>>>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either
>>>>> NOT the
>>>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager
>>>>> on
>>>>> computer name."
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>>>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>>>>> "method."
>>>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>>>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine
>>>>> and
>>>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE?
>>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>>>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
>>>>> "You
>>>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>>>>> And
>>>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the
>>>>> Network
>>>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer
>>>>> access
>>>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from
>>>>> Windows XP.
>>>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>>>>> Controller
>>>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
>>>>> Or
>>>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>>>>> And
>>>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and
>>>>> likely ever
>>>>> will.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> George Hester
>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Well all it takes is a little bit of reasoning. To assume a statement in a
KB article that says they are working on an issue from a no longer supported
product implies it is being supported. No come on. If it is not supported
why then do anymore work on it? It is no longer supported end of story.
Now in this case the product IS still supported and so my reasoning may be
flawed. That is why I asked you to give me one example where such a
statement as this in a KB article ever saw the light of day again. One
example is all I ask. I know of none.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Donald L McDaniel" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:blhsh1hur1ual4obgkg32vl6lf11r4a0oo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:09:16 -0400, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You are wrong. If Microsoft says they are working on the issue you can
bet
> >your bottom dollar it has been forgotten. Would you like to see a
Knowledge
> >Base article that discusses an issue in MS-DOS or in Internet Information
> >Services 2.0 or Windows NT 3.51 that says the exact same thing? No you
> >wouldn't because you think I am making it all up. Well so you say.
>
> I have NEVER said, or even implied, that you could be lying.'
> There are millions of KB articles in the Microsoft databases.
>
> Just because there is a past KB article which may or may not be
> concering the same thing, doesn't mean that Microsoft either stopped
> working on it, or failed to continue working on it.
>
> There are thousands of Microsoft employees all around the world in
> Microsoft's various support and software engineering positions, some
> working on "this" and some working on "that". We never truly know
> what they are or are not working on at any one time, since they seldom
> tell the public (after all, they are working with Microsoft's source
> code, which is not available to the general public.)
>
> How do we really know they aren't working on this issue, unless they
> themselves announce that they have stopped? No one (and many within
> Microsoft's rank and file) knows what Microsoft engineers are working
> on and what they are not working on.
>
> Until you can document your proclamation that Microsoft is no longer
> working on the issue from Microsoft sources, I will continue to point
> out such foolishness on yours and others parts.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread.
> If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
> from my email address before sending.
> =======================================================

 

[Guest]

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

What's your point?

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egV#J21sFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Another one from tonight and a couple out of many from past postings. And on
top of this you are not using XP or W2K3. Doubt that even W2K
__________________________________________________________
Tonight in this group

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304514'

Does this work for you?

--
George Hester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
A couple from past postings


So there goes all my disks Microsoft. Thanks bunch. May in Windows 2000?
No IS Windows 2000. Be Honest might start a whole new escapade Microsoft.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;328520

Also the hardware wizard leaves a lot to be desired. You forgot to include
no more support for ISA cards in the Documentation. No support for
Hardrives used in Windows 2000. What next you got up your sleeves? It's
been real.

--
George Hester
_______________________________

I am finding that the password is NOT being saved. Hence when I open OEX
the connection to the email account is being denied and I am getting errors.
When I bring up the Properties of the account I find the option to Save the
password is enabled but it does not work. I am queried to enter a passowrd
for the email account upon its connect failure. I do that and all is well
until I open OEX again at some later time. When that happens the option to
Save password there is greyed out not available and there is no passord
***** there. It is empty.

--
George Hester
____________________________

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJmrtrusFHA.2592@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Well how am I suppose to know that? I really do not care if you don't
like
> my life. It's the only one I have and I am going to stick with it
> regardless. I never said anything about whether I was the only one that
> "hit on it." You say it's been talked about before "not the first time?"
> Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#YvUChusFHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Picking up on another thing George. You seem to pick up on articles and
> continue to show that you hit on it yourself. This is not the first time.
> Get a life.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows XP
>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
> this
>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
> information
>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
> Knowledge
>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>
>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
> the
>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
closely
>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
messages..."
>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other - maybe
>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>
>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
> been
>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
> the
>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
>> computer name."
>>
>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>
>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
> "method."
>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
> "You
>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name." And
>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
> XP.
>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
Controller
>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>
>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
> don't
>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network. Or
>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now. And
>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
> ever
>> will.
>>
>> --
>> George Hester
>> _________________________________
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

It is not an applet but a ActiveX. You need to enable all the signed
ActiveX in IE Security. Why don't you just try enabling everything there
for the life of the Windows Update site? Reboot. Then go to Windows Update
from the Help and Support. If there is something you are missing it should
tell you that. It was easy as cake for Windows XP SP2.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
somewhere
> other than under Tools/Security tab.
>
> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
> > news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> >> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> >> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> >> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> >> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> >> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I
will
> > address it.
> > We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM
> > channels - one that includes Service Pack 2.
> > This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
> > important security releases we have ever done.
> > Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily
> > with Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest
> > security fixes etc.
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike
> > --
> > Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights
> >
> > Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> > newsgroups
> >
> > "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
> > news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> >> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> >> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> >> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> >> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> >> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
> >>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround
> >>> provided.
> >>>
> >>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
> >>> forthcoming in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the
workaround
> >>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you
think
> >>> is related to this one ?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>> --
> >>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
> >>>
> >>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >>> rights
> >>>
> >>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> >>> newsgroups
> >>>
> >>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have
a
> >>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has
Windows
> >>>> XP
> >>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
> >>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is
researching
> >>>> this
> >>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
> >>>> information
> >>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be
> >>>> addressed -
> >>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
> >>>> Knowledge
> >>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the
KB:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only
half
> >>>> the
> >>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
> >>>> closely
> >>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
> >>>> messages..."
> >>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
> >>>> maybe
> >>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in
the
> >>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
> >>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either"
has
> >>>> been
> >>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either
NOT
> >>>> the
> >>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager
on
> >>>> computer name."
> >>>>
> >>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do
say
> >>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
> >>>> "method."
> >>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network
cable
> >>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine
and
> >>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE?
> >>>> Hmmm...
> >>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without
a
> >>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the
future,
> >>>> "You
> >>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
> >>>> And
> >>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the
Network
> >>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer
> >>>> access
> >>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from
> >>>> Windows XP.
> >>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
> >>>> Controller
> >>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
> >>>> don't
> >>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
> >>>> Or
> >>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
> >>>> And
> >>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and
likely
> >>>> ever
> >>>> will.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> George Hester
> >>>> _________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

'Well how am I suppose to know that? I really do not care if you don't like
my life. It's the only one I have and I am going to stick with it
regardless. I never said anything about whether I was the only one that
"hit on it."


> You say it's been talked about before "not the first time?"
>Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.





>Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.

i just did and Point finale.



--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u8yJWj9sFHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What's your point?
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:egV#J21sFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Another one from tonight and a couple out of many from past postings. And on
> top of this you are not using XP or W2K3. Doubt that even W2K

 

[Guest]

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

What's your point? You are a troll - end of story.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eoril2$sFHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
'Well how am I suppose to know that? I really do not care if you don't like
my life. It's the only one I have and I am going to stick with it
regardless. I never said anything about whether I was the only one that
"hit on it."


> You say it's been talked about before "not the first time?"
>Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.





>Well instead of just words prove it. I'm all ears.

i just did and Point finale.



--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u8yJWj9sFHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What's your point?
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:egV#J21sFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Another one from tonight and a couple out of many from past postings. And
on
> top of this you are not using XP or W2K3. Doubt that even W2K

 

[Guest]

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

Have reset all security options to "default" and when that didn't work, also
added "*.microsoft.om" to trusted sites list. I've been thru every "item"
under Computer Management etc. to no avail.

What I get is the little pop-bar in IE telling me my security settings
"don't allow running active X ...", that's after the prompt to download and
another to install. I'll be damned if I know where it's picking the
restriction up from.

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23p9aMx4sFHA.236@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
>> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
>> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
>> somewhere other than under Tools/Security tab.
>>
>> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>
> The Update web sites needs to install an Active X control to allow us to
> work. Ensure you are using Internet Explorer and check your Active X
> security settings. A default install does not have a problem (you see the
> bar at the top of IE telling you to accept the install of the control
> etc) - so it is likely that some setting you have changed is the cause of
> your problem.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
>> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
>> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
>> somewhere other than under Tools/Security tab.
>>
>> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>>>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>>>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>>>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>>>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>>>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I
>>> will address it.
>>> We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM
>>> channels - one that includes Service Pack 2.
>>> This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
>>> important security releases we have ever done.
>>> Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily
>>> with Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest
>>> security fixes etc.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights
>>>
>>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>>> newsgroups
>>>
>>> "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>>>> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>>>> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>>>> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>>>> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>>>> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>>>>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround
>>>>> provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>>>>> forthcoming in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the
>>>>> workaround not working for you or are you experiencing some other
>>>>> problem you think is related to this one ?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>>>
>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>>> rights
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>>>>> newsgroups
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has
>>>>>> Windows XP
>>>>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>>>>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is
>>>>>> researching this
>>>>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be
>>>>>> addressed -
>>>>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the
>>>>>> KB:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only
>>>>>> half the
>>>>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>>>>>> closely
>>>>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>>>>>> messages..."
>>>>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>>>>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either"
>>>>>> has been
>>>>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either
>>>>>> NOT the
>>>>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> computer name."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>>>>>> "method."
>>>>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network
>>>>>> cable
>>>>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE?
>>>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the
>>>>>> future, "You
>>>>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the
>>>>>> Network
>>>>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer
>>>>>> access
>>>>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from
>>>>>> Windows XP.
>>>>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>>>>>> Controller
>>>>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
>>>>>> Or
>>>>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and
>>>>>> likely ever
>>>>>> will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> George Hester
>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4WKTe.86629$Ph4.2749780@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Have reset all security options to "default" and when that didn't work,
> also added "*.microsoft.om" to trusted sites list. I've been thru every
> "item" under Computer Management etc. to no avail.
>
> What I get is the little pop-bar in IE telling me my security settings
> "don't allow running active X ...", that's after the prompt to download
> and another to install. I'll be damned if I know where it's picking the
> restriction up from.
>
--------SNIP---------

What you have is a situation peculiar to your machine, as others have
rightfully indicated the fix for
the problem you describe. If it fails to correct the problem on *your*
computer, then *your* computer has other issues that need to be fixed.

What you are describing is not *a major flaw* in Windows XP. I have well
over 200 machines in my workplace, and all of them are able to install the
AcitveX app and use WU.

Perhaps you should be pointing the finger somewhere else...

Bobby

 

[Guest]

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

I told him to enable all the ActiveX and see if that helps. That is not the
default. In fact I suggest enabling everything in IE security till he can
get it worked out. Just doing that for the update site in no way puts him
in any harm. But in fact with the Automatic notification we have he doesn't
need to go to the update site at all. But the Automatic Update only gives
us Critical Updates.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OUXfRvAtFHA.236@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4WKTe.86629$Ph4.2749780@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > Have reset all security options to "default" and when that didn't work,
> > also added "*.microsoft.om" to trusted sites list. I've been thru every
> > "item" under Computer Management etc. to no avail.
> >
> > What I get is the little pop-bar in IE telling me my security settings
> > "don't allow running active X ...", that's after the prompt to download
> > and another to install. I'll be damned if I know where it's picking the
> > restriction up from.
> >
> --------SNIP---------
>
> What you have is a situation peculiar to your machine, as others have
> rightfully indicated the fix for
> the problem you describe. If it fails to correct the problem on *your*
> computer, then *your* computer has other issues that need to be fixed.
>
> What you are describing is not *a major flaw* in Windows XP. I have well
> over 200 machines in my workplace, and all of them are able to install the
> AcitveX app and use WU.
>
> Perhaps you should be pointing the finger somewhere else...
>
> Bobby
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Nope

"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAM@skycasters.net> wrote in message
news:q40uh1lje23g0lspsao3se1v2v9io3on0n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:58:03 GMT, "pjp"
> <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
>>actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
>>figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
>>somewhere
>>other than under Tools/Security tab.
>>
>>So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>
> It is also possible that you are using an earlier beta of Netscape 8.0
> or AOL's new browser, which ostensibly contained the ability to
> properly use Windows Update, but both of which actually handled
> ActiveX very poorly.
>
> I too experienced the improper working of Windows Update when I first
> installed either of these products. However, after starting Windows
> Update from within Internet Explorer, I had no problems updating.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread.
> If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
> from my email address before sending.
> =======================================================

 

[Guest]

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

I have, still problem.

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eIlo0l9sFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> It is not an applet but a ActiveX. You need to enable all the signed
> ActiveX in IE Security. Why don't you just try enabling everything there
> for the life of the Windows Update site? Reboot. Then go to Windows
> Update
> from the Help and Support. If there is something you are missing it
> should
> tell you that. It was easy as cake for Windows XP SP2.
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vYxTe.86226$Ph4.2739785@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
>> actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
>> figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set"
> somewhere
>> other than under Tools/Security tab.
>>
>> So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>> > news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>> >> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>> >> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>> >> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>> >> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>> >> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob,
>> >
>> > Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I
> will
>> > address it.
>> > We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM
>> > channels - one that includes Service Pack 2.
>> > This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
>> > important security releases we have ever done.
>> > Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily
>> > with Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest
>> > security fixes etc.
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > --
>> > Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>> >
>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> > rights
>> >
>> > Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> > newsgroups
>> >
>> > "Bob" <robertredferd@tinseltown.hollywood.net> wrote in message
>> > news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
>> >> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
>> >> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
>> >> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
>> >> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
>> >> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>> >>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround
>> >>> provided.
>> >>>
>> >>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>> >>> forthcoming in the future.
>> >>>
>> >>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the
> workaround
>> >>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you
> think
>> >>> is related to this one ?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Mike
>> >>> --
>> >>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>> >>>
>> >>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> >>> rights
>> >>>
>> >>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> >>> newsgroups
>> >>>
>> >>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have
> a
>> >>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has
> Windows
>> >>>> XP
>> >>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge
>> >>>> Base
>> >>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is
> researching
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>> >>>> information
>> >>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be
>> >>>> addressed -
>> >>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>> >>>> Knowledge
>> >>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the
> KB:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only
> half
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>> >>>> closely
>> >>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>> >>>> messages..."
>> >>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>> >>>> maybe
>> >>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in
> the
>> >>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>> >>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either"
> has
>> >>>> been
>> >>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either
> NOT
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager
> on
>> >>>> computer name."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do
> say
>> >>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>> >>>> "method."
>> >>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network
> cable
>> >>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine
> and
>> >>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE?
>> >>>> Hmmm...
>> >>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without
> a
>> >>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the
> future,
>> >>>> "You
>> >>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>> >>>> And
>> >>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the
> Network
>> >>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer
>> >>>> access
>> >>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from
>> >>>> Windows XP.
>> >>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>> >>>> Controller
>> >>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure
>> >>>> I
>> >>>> don't
>> >>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the
>> >>>> Network.
>> >>>> Or
>> >>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>> >>>> And
>> >>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and
> likely
>> >>>> ever
>> >>>> will.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> George Hester
>> >>>> _________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

 

[Ed]

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:43:16 GMT, "pjp"
<pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have, still problem.

I came in on this thread late so forgive me if you already been asked
but..... Are you running a 3rd party firewall? If so, try disabling
it while dealing with the verification scheme and see if it will then
work.

Regards,
Ed

 

[Guest]

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

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OUXfRvAtFHA.236@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4WKTe.86629$Ph4.2749780@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Have reset all security options to "default" and when that didn't work,
>> also added "*.microsoft.om" to trusted sites list. I've been thru every
>> "item" under Computer Management etc. to no avail.
>>
>> What I get is the little pop-bar in IE telling me my security settings
>> "don't allow running active X ...", that's after the prompt to download
>> and another to install. I'll be damned if I know where it's picking the
>> restriction up from.
>>
> --------SNIP---------
>
> What you have is a situation peculiar to your machine, as others have
> rightfully indicated the fix for
> the problem you describe. If it fails to correct the problem on *your*
> computer, then *your* computer has other issues that need to be fixed.
>
> What you are describing is not *a major flaw* in Windows XP. I have well
> over 200 machines in my workplace, and all of them are able to install the
> AcitveX app and use WU.
>
> Perhaps you should be pointing the finger somewhere else...
>
> Bobby
>
>

Geez bud, wasn't pointing any finger anywhere. Simply pointing out that not
everyone seems to fall into the "easy update" scenario mentioned previously.
I've reset to defaults, gone thru admin templates etc. to insure nothing
seems out of the order there etc. etc. PC works fine otherwise, e.g. runs
number of compilers, Autocad, Photoshop and a couple of other "heavy end"
apps as well as all the games I've thrown at it including Doom3 etc. All
hardware works as expected, e.g. DVD burns, hd's and CD/DVD running highest
"UDMA" they support. Surround audio, tv-out/dual-monitor works, plays, rips
and encodes video with np etc. etc. USB works, nic etc. etc.

Personally I couldn't give a damn if Update works or not. It does "po" me
that MS more or less provides no other means of obtaining what one wants,
specifically straight forward old ftp and txt files documenting everything.
It also seems somehow wrong to me that one's "expected" to purchase a known
faulty product and has to spend one's own time and effort to get it fixed.
However, it's more a curiosity at this point in time that I can't seem to
figure out what "setting" is actually causing the behaviour. I'm on dialup
(external modem, can see leds) and pay enough attention that worms, trojans,
dialers, attachments etc. etc. haven't been a problem so far (knock on wood)
having been "stupid" (hurt big time) once 20+ years ago putting a floppy in


I use another pc for everything I consider private and important.

If I get bored enough I might check out what happens if I create another
"admin" user and retry. Seeing as no-one seems to have any other suggestions
to try first.

 

[Guest]

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

Nope.

Specific problem is when IE trys to run the downloaded ActiveX. The
pop-blocker notifier "info bar" pops up saying that running ActiveX controls
has been disabled ...

Security is set to default and even added "*.microsoft.com" to trusted sites
list, no diff.

Trying now ...

First message is "info bar popping up" stating ...

"To help protect your security, Internet Explorer stopped this site from
installing an ActiveX control on your computer. Click here for options ..."

So I click and select "Install ActiveX Control"

Second "info bar ..." stating ...

"Your security settings do not allow web sites to use ActiveX controls
installed on your computer. This page may not display correctly. Click here
for options ..."

So I click and only option is "Information Bar Help".

It does get boring after awhile.

"Ed" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:f82vh1lodr55vdrt2hosj86e1u5mfphcih@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:43:16 GMT, "pjp"
> <pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have, still problem.
>
> I came in on this thread late so forgive me if you already been asked
> but..... Are you running a 3rd party firewall? If so, try disabling
> it while dealing with the verification scheme and see if it will then
> work.
>
> Regards,
> Ed

 

[Guest]

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

In article <sMNTe.86779$Ph4.2753661@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
pjpoirier_is_located@hotmail.com says...
>
> Second "info bar ..." stating ...
>
> "Your security settings do not allow web sites to use ActiveX controls
> installed on your computer. This page may not display correctly. Click here
> for options ..."

I've also seen this when you don't add the proper location to the
Trusted Zone - many sites actually connect to other locations for files
and data - but it's not suppose to be that way with MS.

I've also seen this when you have a Firewall setup to block active-x and
do content filtering.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:19:44 -0400, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well all it takes is a little bit of reasoning. To assume a statement in a
>KB article that says they are working on an issue from a no longer supported
>product implies it is being supported. No come on. If it is not supported
>why then do anymore work on it? It is no longer supported end of story.
>Now in this case the product IS still supported and so my reasoning may be
>flawed. That is why I asked you to give me one example where such a
>statement as this in a KB article ever saw the light of day again. One
>example is all I ask. I know of none.
f
I'll tell you what: YOU first give me ONE documented example
(documented by Microsoft) that they are lying to the public when they
say they are working on something, since YOU are the one making the
accusations.

By the way: Microft's database of technical articles it has on file
goes WAY back, even including articles about unsupported products.

Obviously, common sense says that if the product is no longer
supported, Microsoft engineers are PROBABLY no longer working on the
issues.

But YOU are accusing Microsoft (or giving the impression) that they
are ALWAYS lying when they announce that they are working on an issue.

Maybe you should modify your accusation a little, to reflect the
actual truth: If Microsoft says an issue is being followed up and
worked on when the product is still supported, chances are they ARE
still working on it, but have not yet found a satisfactory solution.

Many programming problems are EXTREMELY hard to fix, especially when
you are trying to insert a patch into millions of lines of code., and
the patch may depend on hundreds or even thousands of other modules
and files.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:29:47 -0400, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"ONE documented example that they are lying to the public when they say they
>are working on something...."
>
>Would you prefer I give you any 'ole example of a lie. You are not
>listening. I did not say Microsoft "lied" about anything what I said here
>is that unsupported means no more work on the software which is unsupported.
>I can provide much documentation that says that. By why should I that is
>easily arrived at? As for a lie well since I never said anything about a
>lie but about "unsuppoprted." I really do not see your point. Finally if I
>said, "lie" well No. You first.

Let me quote you from a previous post in this thread:
(From one of your replies to me on Sept 6, 2005, at 1:09 PM)
"You are wrong. If Microsoft says they are working on the issue you
can bet your bottom dollar it has been forgotten. Would you like to
see a Knowledge Base article that discusses an issue in MS-DOS or in
Internet Information Services 2.0 or Windows NT 3.51 that says the
exact same thing? No you wouldn't because you think I am making it
all up. Well so you say."

This surely looks to me as if you are making a BLANKET statement that
"if Microsoft says they are working on the issue you can bet your
bottom dollar it has been forgotten." Since you do not modify your
statement to only characterize unsupported products, I can only take
you at your own words.

As I said in my last post, it is only common sense that if an article
was entered into the Knowledge Base before a product was declared
"Unsupported", and it is no longer supported, it goes without saying
that they probably stopped working on that issue. Although we don't
really know that they have truly stopped working on even a product
which is no longer supported, since we could only know that if
Microsoft themselves said that the issue was no longer being worked
on.

Also, many older issues are continuing to be worked on in the newer
product lines, because the issues are ones which are universal to
versions of one or more of Microsoft's software products.

Again, you cannot say with any authority that "if Microsoft says they
are working on the issue, they are lying.", since you are not privy to
what goes on in the Microsoft software labs. In addition, such a
statement can easily fit the legal definition of "slander", since you
have made this statement in a public forum with the intention of
causing harm to Microsoft's reputation.

If Microsoft wanted to, they could bring you before a court of law,
and take everything you have if they won the case.

I seriously doubt that Microsoft will do that, since you really do
very little harm with your baseless accusations, other than rile up a
few Microsoft bashers and other weak-minded users. However, you are
spreading "FUD" among new and marginal users, and users with little or
no knowledge of computers and software. This is never good. Instead,
you should be giving them accurate knowledge, so they can come
up-to-speed on XP, and properly maintain their installations.

 

[Guest]

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

You would have known I meant unsupported when I gave you a list of
unsupported software. You need to do some background on Microsoft's
software products over the years. Then you would know that articles that
say they are working on the issue in Knowledgebase articles about
unsupported software puts the onus on Microsoft to make a distinction
between software that is unsupported but they are "still looking into it" or
unsupported and they are no longer "looking into it."

You don't seem to see the ditinction that's OK. When Microsoft puts the
same wording in software that they are currently supporting this loss of
distinction raises questions about the veractiy of what is neing said.

I asked you to give me one example of a Knowledge base article that had the
wording at the end "Microsoft is looking into it" for which a new or same
article came out furthering information on what was previously said. Just
one.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Donald McDaniel" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:glt3i1hvo9q710djg1r0506aq6u27b5a5k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:29:47 -0400, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"ONE documented example that they are lying to the public when they say
they
> >are working on something...."
> >
> >Would you prefer I give you any 'ole example of a lie. You are not
> >listening. I did not say Microsoft "lied" about anything what I said
here
> >is that unsupported means no more work on the software which is
unsupported.
> >I can provide much documentation that says that. By why should I that is
> >easily arrived at? As for a lie well since I never said anything about a
> >lie but about "unsuppoprted." I really do not see your point. Finally
if I
> >said, "lie" well No. You first.
>
> Let me quote you from a previous post in this thread:
> (From one of your replies to me on Sept 6, 2005, at 1:09 PM)
> "You are wrong. If Microsoft says they are working on the issue you
> can bet your bottom dollar it has been forgotten. Would you like to
> see a Knowledge Base article that discusses an issue in MS-DOS or in
> Internet Information Services 2.0 or Windows NT 3.51 that says the
> exact same thing? No you wouldn't because you think I am making it
> all up. Well so you say."
>
> This surely looks to me as if you are making a BLANKET statement that
> "if Microsoft says they are working on the issue you can bet your
> bottom dollar it has been forgotten." Since you do not modify your
> statement to only characterize unsupported products, I can only take
> you at your own words.
>
> As I said in my last post, it is only common sense that if an article
> was entered into the Knowledge Base before a product was declared
> "Unsupported", and it is no longer supported, it goes without saying
> that they probably stopped working on that issue. Although we don't
> really know that they have truly stopped working on even a product
> which is no longer supported, since we could only know that if
> Microsoft themselves said that the issue was no longer being worked
> on.
>
> Also, many older issues are continuing to be worked on in the newer
> product lines, because the issues are ones which are universal to
> versions of one or more of Microsoft's software products.
>
> Again, you cannot say with any authority that "if Microsoft says they
> are working on the issue, they are lying.", since you are not privy to
> what goes on in the Microsoft software labs. In addition, such a
> statement can easily fit the legal definition of "slander", since you
> have made this statement in a public forum with the intention of
> causing harm to Microsoft's reputation.
>
> If Microsoft wanted to, they could bring you before a court of law,
> and take everything you have if they won the case.
>
> I seriously doubt that Microsoft will do that, since you really do
> very little harm with your baseless accusations, other than rile up a
> few Microsoft bashers and other weak-minded users. However, you are
> spreading "FUD" among new and marginal users, and users with little or
> no knowledge of computers and software. This is never good. Instead,
> you should be giving them accurate knowledge, so they can come
> up-to-speed on XP, and properly maintain their installations.
>