Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


bphlpt

Patron
  • Content Count

    2,263
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bphlpt

  1. Thanks Trip, but KB3118401 didn't help. I agree with your thought process, but I can't for the life of me think what is special about the settings page of the later versions of Chrome to cause a Windows error. Hopefully someone will chime in with knowledge of an error log that might be generated, (and know how to read it), that might help identify the culprit, or point to what Windows thinks is missing, or whatever. At least the problem is reliably repeatable so I can make it occur on command. Cheers and Regards
  2. Just thought I'd throw this out there on the off chance that maybe it's related to one of the updates I've hidden. [Den, if you feel this should be moved to a different or new thread, feel free to relocate it, but since I think the root cause is a Window's issue, maybe you'll agree it should be here, at least until the root cause is found.] I typically stick with programs, and OS, that work for me and only update things occasionally or when I really have to. I had to reinstall my OS which prompted me to update my programs while I was at it. I've noticed that on my Windows 7 x64 Ultimate system, where I have hidden all of the Windows 7 updates listed in the first post but is otherwise up to date, that I have a peculiar situation when trying to use any of the Chrome variant browsers, ie Chrome, Chromium, COMODO Dragon, SRWare Iron, Yandex, etc. All "older", ie older than about 3 or 4 months ago or so, versions of all of those browsers work perfectly fine. But when I use one of the newer versions, and some of them update automatically so I don't have a choice, they also seem to work fine, EXCEPT the browser crashes when I open the browser's "settings" page. Actually, the browser doesn't "crash", but rather it immediately opens a Windows generated error box saying, (with Yandex for example), "Yandex has stopped working" with the following details: ---------------------------------------------------- Problem signature: Problem Event Name: BEX Application Name: browser.exe Application Version: 50.0.2661.6376 Application Timestamp: 57213418 Fault Module Name: browser.dll Fault Module Version: 50.0.2661.6376 Fault Module Timestamp: 5721274e Exception Offset: 00eaaf56 Exception Code: c0000409 Exception Data: 00000000 OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: c5e6 Additional Information 2: c5e64b3b479b160ea66cecb9ccafe654 Additional Information 3: 4b11 Additional Information 4: 4b11d7ebaa978fc34a59f011dc3a763f Read our privacy statement online: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409 If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline: C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt ----------------------------------------------------- No error log is created by the various browsers. To them, when you try to reopen them, it is just as if they were shut down improperly, that's all they know. And no other running process is effected, that I've been able to tell. So it's Windows that is shutting things down, but it is ONLY for recent versions of Chrome, and ONLY when opening the settings page, which seems to point to a Chrome problem, at least to me. I've submitted the bug to Yandex, where I first saw it, but no luck so far. In Yandex's case, something changed between version 16.2.0.2586 beta and version 16.6.0.6376 beta. More info that might help is that in testing SRWare Iron, I found that: These versions all work fine with no crashes: v46.0.2450.0 v47.0.2500.0 v48.0.2550.0 v48.0.2550.2 These versions all work fine everywhere EXCEPT they crash when opening the settings page: v49.0.2600.0 v50.0.2650.0 And for all browsers that offer both x86 and x64 versions, the problem is exactly the same for both. I have noticed no other mysterious errors in any other programs I have run, so far, and yes, I could use Opera, or a Firefox related browser, or even "shudder" IE, but Chrome is my preferred browser and I'd like to fix this since I'm afraid it's just a symptom of a deeper problem. I'm not an expert on evaluating Windows OS errors, so I could use some help. Has anyone seen this behavior or do you have any suggestions of what I can try to fix, or at least better evaluate, this issue? I would be most appreciative. Cheers and Regards
  3. Thanks for the info. I typically use either batch or vbs if I need to script, so I guess I'll stay with that approach. Cheers and Regards
  4. I'm curious what you mean by this. I don't use powershell, but what did MS do to screw it up? Cheers and Regards
  5. @Octopuss, it might help if you at least thanked those that try to help you. On this page alone there have been four different people that have provided solutions to the various questions you have asked. Even if the answers provided haven't been exactly what you were looking for, you haven't said "Thank you" even once. Something to think about. Cheers and Regards
  6. So, will you share or are you keeping the results to yourself? Cheers and Regards
  7. I knew the duration limit was true for "new" variables, but wasn't sure when changing a built-in system variable like USERPROFILE. I've also only had to mess with a single user system. I guess I was thinking about the ability to change the value of things like PATH, which would stick after a job was done, but that might be a special case? No, I'm wrong. Looking at http://ss64.com/nt/path.html, I see that even changes to PATH via SET are only valid for the session. Permanent changes require use of the the control panel or AUTOEXEC.BAT. Oh well, my mistake. Never mind. Cheers and Regards
  8. I imagine that this wouldn't affect your situation, but in general I assume it would be better in Windows 8.1 to save the current value of USERPROFILE first, and then restore it after you were done? Just thinking of situations where more than one user would be involved? I don't know for sure since it originally had the value in your situation of C:\Users\Default, but just playing devil's advocate. Cheers and Regards
  9. And jaclaz pointed you to some posts that could help you do that, since you want to use vLite. Yes, the posts are old, but nothing has changed since then in either vLite or Windows 7, so those posts are still valid. If you want to use a newer tool, then you could look into ntLite, made by the same guy that made nLite and vLite. But regardless of what tool you end up using, you're going to have to change your attitude. AFAIK, no one is going to just give you a script or INI file and say "use this and you will have a 600 MB ISO." We don't work that way. We are here to HELP you accomplish a goal, not do it for you. You have to read on your own, do the work and try things, and not just one try but several trys. Then come and tell us exactly what you want to accomplish as your final goal, what you tried, what you expected, and what you actually got instead. If you keep saying " I want to use ____ tool to get to ____ goal and I want you to give me ____ to accomplish that" you will be quickly ignored. Good Luck! Cheers and Regards
  10. this also works: ... which anyway more people will "get", being a short, simple word (though behind the green glass door). ... which will definitely allow for a larger group to see and use it: which actually makes sense. (Don't worry, I got the joke. ) Cheers and Regards
  11. Thanks, I missed that somehow. FYI That option isn't available when editing a topic. And since I can't get to the BBCode/HTML code to manually edit it, ... By the way, it's nice to see I can edit a post immediately after posting without the "edited by ..." being displayed. Cheers and Regards
  12. CharlotteTheHarlot would be having a total conniption fit at the statements, in this thread and others, from the staff regarding these megathreads. While I understand the reasoning that such threads make it very difficult to link posts to the news and the FrontPage portion of the site, like jaclaz and others, I do not consider MSFN to be a news site, as such. While I acknowledge that many folks might enter the site through the FrontPage, I never do, so I never look at any of the articles posted there. I also acknowledge that when the news articles were only updated very infrequently, there were comments made by the general public, both here and elsewhere, that MSFN was a joke and wasn't current, since the "news" was outdated. Personally, I would take the approach of ditching the FrontPage and news section completely and focus only on the forum. The information I come to MSFN for is gotten through the interaction with knowledgeable, experienced technical people, and it gives me a chance to share what little knowledge I have with those that need it. But apparently MSFN is trying to be all things to all people, (maybe driven by the advertising revenue produced?). I don't have a problem with that at all, and I think that xper totally deserves whatever income he can derive from his tireless efforts to support all of our interactions here. But I disagree with having the structure of the forum dictated by the requirements of the news portion of the site. As in most things, I fully support the rights of others to do what they want, even if they want to use Windows 10, as long as they don't hurt or interfere with the rights of others to do what they want, such as use older OS all the way back to Windows 95 or older, or even Mac or Linux. Back to the subject at hand, this of course applies to these megathreads. I considered these megathreads in the same category as the Funny Farm or games sections that some other boards have - throw-away topics for idle chit-chat, casual reading, etc, and not the main purpose of the forum. I mean look at the main page of the forum - (www msfn.org/board/) and see how many topics are available besides the General Discussion. So I think it's a shame that the forum and the news section of the site can't act more independently, satisfying everyone. But I guess if the board traffic has been declining, which I believe is true in many/most technical forums, and not as many folks are visiting and posting in all of those other technical areas, and revenue is decreasing as a result, and more activity is happening in the General Discussion topics, then I can understand the recent attention by the staff in trying to shape it up. I also know that while many might say that the rules are new, I think they are in line with the Forum Rules, and it's just the enforcement which is new. That doesn't matter to the member, if it's new there will be some that complain, even if that someone is me. In a way, this also applies to the board software. I think most of the complainers, including me, complain about changes that have been made that effect the part of the site that I use, the forum. While I believe that the newer versions of IPB have mostly benefited the FrontPage and news portions of the site. (We'll ignore the "wonderful" support "provided" by the good IPB folks, but that's between them and xper.) And if the board software has problems with long threads, (and doesn't with a vast number of little threads?), then maybe IPB isn't the best board software to use. Again, I take the argument of it's fine to make changes that you need in other areas as long as it doesn't detrimentally affect what I need to do in my area. Which, of course, goes right back to the decisions MS made when they created Windows 8 and after. Add the store and apps if you want, but leave the friggin' desktop alone! OK, end of rant. Anyway, if the irreversible decision has been made as to the board's future direction and the software that has been chosen to take us there, then we'll either have to figure out how to deal with the problems that come up, or go elsewhere, again like Windows 10. It will be a shame to lose the faithful Windows 9X group that have been stalwart members here as their ranks have dwindled. All of the above is just my opinion. Cheers and Regards
  13. Interesting. Just shows that a bot can post a legitimate question on the board, with several valid free solutions which our valuable members are happy to supply, without a a companion bot posting a commercial solution -- yet. Cheers and Regards
  14. I tried to get to a thread that showed up in my "unread" stream - "You'll soon be able to run Ubuntu on Windows 10" (www msfn.org/board/news/microsoft/youll-soon-be-able-to-run-ubuntu-on-windows-10-r11/) - apparently posted by xper since it says "xper posted an article in Microsoft". But regardless if I click the 'Go to first unread post' link, the thread title, or the 'Microsoft' category, (www msfn.org/board/news/microsoft/), all I get is an error message: Sorry, there is a problem You do not have permission to view this page Error code: 2T187/3 So, then it also continues to stay in my unread stream, since I can't read it. Any ideas? [NOTE - I removed the "." between www and msfn in the above links so the stupid board software wouldn't try to make a stupid preview.] I guess this is another situation like - [OT] HOW CAN I TURN OFF THE FRIGGING PREVIEWS!!!! [/OT] :sheesh: Cheers and Regards
  15. I also saw it, repeatedly. I had a couple of board pages open in different tabs. I had to shut down the browser for an unrelated reason, and when I reopened it I had to approve the privacy terms on each tab. Seems to be gone or resolved now. Cheers and Regards
  16. Dibya, you are probably too young to remember Bob. Cheers and Regards
  17. Did you happen to notice over on windows2000.tk the section near the top of the page labeled "HFSLIP 2000"? And in that section did you see the link "Download HFSLIP 2000"? Did you try that? If you did, did you then see the link for "HFSLIP2000-1.0.1.7z" on tomasz86's Google Drive? That download still works for me. Where were you looking? Cheers and Regards
  18. [ OT ] Hey jaclaz, did you know that your "Search ... Click here" link in your signature no longer works? [ /OT ] Cheers and Regards
  19. My experience is different. I un-check the "fast download" option, I click "Download" and immediately get redirected to a page with a "Download Now" button which downloads the correct file. That is while using a Chrome variant browser with ad-blockers installed on Windows 7 x64. At other times in the past I have run into similar behavior to what you reported where I also got a page saying that my PC is suspicious, but never for u_h's update pack. In those cases it opened a separate tab or window with that attempt to get me to "clean" my PC, another attempt by those free hosting services to make their money, but if I closed that tab, which was sometimes more annoyingly difficult to do than it should be with persistent "Are you sure?" pop-ups that had to be gotten rid of, the correct download page was back on the original tab. I definitely sympathize with your frustrations, but while you might have better success if u_h was using a different host, it is possible to get the correct file with this host, as I and others have proved and no one else is currently complaining of difficulties. So let's try to help you make changes to your system so that you can get the requested file. The necessary changes might help make your overall web browsing experience more pleasant. I assume you are using XP x64, but which exact browsers have you tried and do you have any ad-blocker installed? And just curious, but which real-time AV do you use? Cheers and Regards
  20. Not a big deal at all, but since we're trying to call attention to bugs that xper might either be able to fix, or report to IPB as a bug, this morning when I logged on an opened my "Unread" stream, I was surprised to see this post - http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175367-xp-post-sp3-qfe-tampered-by-code-injection-i-pmed-one-of-the-folks-at-ryan-vm/?do=findComment&comment=1121027 - in my "Unread" stream. I was surprised to see that the board thought that was unread since I wrote that post. A very small glitch, but a glitch nonetheless. Cheers and Regards
  21. You are over-reacting. The post-SP3 QFE package has NOT been compromised. You have just been a victim of one of the tactics that many of the free file hosting services uses. That's one way these free file hosting services make their money. In this case you just need to UN-check the "Fast Download" box that is pre-selected, as 5eraph told you over at RyanVM. When using this type of service, NEVER use the "fast" or "helper" type of link, that they try to get you to use if you're not careful. I assume that using the service will probably deluge you with ads, best case. I don't know for sure and I'm not going to use their "service" to find out. All of these services will have at least one way to download the desired file directly and cleanly, you just have to make sure you only download that way. Always have your browser download setting such that it always asks you where to store the file before downloading it so that you can be sure you are download the correct file you are looking for with the correct extension. For any of the files that are linked to by anyone here, WinCert, RyanVM, or any of the "good" sites, if the service changes so that it does not have a clean download method, then if it is reported then I'm sure the file host will be changed. Cheers and Regards
  22. I assume you meant the comment at Woody's that said: I was curious about that as well, but I didn't see any link in that thread to what it referred to. I didn't look further, but I assume that you, or jaclaz, can find more info. I also saw mention that at least the search portion of the task might be sped up by using the setting "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them", but at this point I'd rather decide when and if my system contacts MS. Cheers and Regards
  23. OK, I went ahead and installed the updates. I went through the list and hid all of the updates listed on decorso's list. Then I selected all remaining updates, including the optional ones, and let them all install, which took quite awhile. How long exactly I don't know because it did it in the background while I did other things for a couple of hours including eating dinner so I didn't care. Then I restarted the system, twice, and ran CCleaner after each reboot including the registry cleaner. Then I re-scanned for updates. This time the scan only took a few minutes and it came up with one IE update for me to install and one optional update on "the list" which I hid. Installation just took a couple of minutes. Then I restarted the system, twice, and ran CCleaner after each reboot including the registry cleaner. Then I re-scanned for updates again. The scan only took a few minutes and it came up clean. So I'm not sure what the rhyme or reason is for the long time that scanning for and installing updates takes some of the time, but it doesn't seem that hiding any or all of the updates on decorso's list has anything directly to do with it, including KB3083710 and KB3102810. At least that is my experience on my Windows 7 x64 system where I have it set to never check for updates and I have the "recommended" box un-checked. Cheers and Regards
  24. It finally loaded the list of updates available. (I hadn't installed any updates since January) So it does "work" but just very, very, very slowly. [Interesting post at Woody's Noel. I'm glad (?) to see some documentation of the problem. Which occurs even on your stupid fast system.] So I'll go ahead and update in a bit, staying with my approach of hiding all the updates in dencorso's list, then rerun the update search and see if it's any faster. I'm in no hurry, but I'll do it later today, or tomorrow. Hey, when the only downside is that I haven't added something that MS says I should install, then that doesn't make me feel a sense of urgency. Cheers and Regards
  25. It seems to be something more/else. My system is x64 and I still seem to get "stuck" when I search for updtes. I only let it look for updates for 30 minutes or so last time I tried, then I killed the process. And it doesn't seem to be doing stuff in the background because it can shut down/restart without any "applying ..." type of message. I haven't been concerned since things are running well otherwise and I figured that being unable to apply updates might not really be a "problem". But I'll try again and let it run for a few hours and see if it ever either finds any updates or says I'm up to date. I'll report back later. Cheers and Regards
×
×
  • Create New...