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

bphlpt

Patron
  • Content Count

    2,300
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bphlpt

  1. RyanVM is up for me. Cheers and Regards
  2. I'm neither an admin or mod, but I'm afraid that I can't replicate your problem. My situation is the same as Jumper/NoelC. I can't imagine that it's your MSFN account, and it doesn't appear to be a fault, surprisingly this time, of IPS, so it is most likely some setting or issue on your end. I know that you have said that you have tried both IE and Firefox, but have you also tried any of the various Chrome browsers? How about creating a new user account and trying the different browsers from there? If all of those have the same behavior, then it doesn't seem to be a browser setting, but must be a system setting or issue. The only way to verify that is see if you can log into MSFN using a different computer and see if the behavior is still the same. A few months back I had some very weird behavior that only affected certain versions of certain browsers and only when trying to access very particular pages - the settings pages. I was convinced that it was a browser issue, but it wasn't. The problem only went away by doing an OS reinstall. Then, using the exact same browsers and settings I had no more problems. Sometimes there are just weird problems. Good luck! Cheers and Regards
  3. Hello indeed Kiki! It has been quite awhile, my friend. I hope you are doing well. Cheers and Regards
  4. Well, besides thinking that RT7 is the problem if you did any tweaks or removals with it whatsoever, unless you were absolutely positive that you knew from personal experience exactly what each one did and it has worked successfully for you in the recent past, you could try the following: Download a portable version of yet another browser, maybe either one of the Chrome variants or Pale Moon, or whatever, completely stock with absolutely no extensions installed. Make sure you don't have any other browser open at all and see if you can get to SourceForge using the portable browser. If you can, then the problem is a browser setting or extension. If not, then it has nothing to do with the browser, but instead it's an OS issue. This is assuming that your Win98 machine is on the same home network, which should eliminate a router or external problem. If all systems use the same DNS provider, then it's not that. If you have all extensions disabled in both IE and FF, then it's not those. Do you use the same AV for both OS with the same settings and both updated the same? If so then it's not that. That pretty much narrows it down to a HOST or maybe a service setting? That's what comes to mind to test. If you still have a problem, then I'm probably missing something simple to tell you which someone else will immediately think of. [Or it's something that RT7 did. ] Good Luck! Cheers and Regards
  5. Since you run all these tests in a VM of each OS, I wonder if there would be any differences if the host OS was different. I mean since your tests seem to favor 8.1, with a host of 8.1 running a VM of 8.1, I wonder if the overall results would be the same if the host was 7, or 10? Maybe it would be the most fair if Linux was used as the host? I realize that ideally the host OS shouldn't matter, but this has been nagging at me so I figured I'd throw it out there for consideration. Another option would be if the three OS were separately installed on their own SSD that could be swapped out to run the tests. No method would be absolutely perfect, and I really do appreciate that you are trying to compare apples-to-apples the best you can. I also very much realize that the setups and tests for each system take time that take away from your real work, and I thank you for putting forth the effort and sharing the results. Cheers and Regards
  6. Something to consider as a way to get around the buggy KB3172605 is this. abbodi1406 has made a possible fix: And if you're not comfortable using someone else's file, in the next post in that thread he explains how he created the file from the KB3172605 so you can download the file from MS yourself and make your own version. Just a thought. Cheers and Regards
  7. Dibya, we all like you, we really do, and we really admire that someone as young as you are has such an interest in modifying computer software and not just playing computer games and chatting on Facebook. But please, please, please NEVER use the term "Dude" here ever again -- EVER. You are really irritating some of our members to the point that some of them are probably tempted to ban you for the use of this somewhat disrespectful term in this environment when they have repeatedly asked you nicely over and over again not to use it. So please STOP IT! Cheers and Regards my friend
  8. WHAT!!! $595 in 1992!!! According to this, that's the equivalent to over $!000 today! Well, that answers that, then. Especially since they also said: And again, that was back in 1992. I think I'll pass. Then again, looking at page 93, I see that in 1992 a 33MHz 486 EISA Gateway2000 [ 80486, 8 MB RAM, 5.25" and 3.5" floppy, 340 MB HDD, 16-Bit VGA, a 14" monitor, and Windows 3.0 ] sold for $3895 (almost $6700 today), so I guess value is relative. But I still think I'll pass. Cheers and Regards
  9. Out of curiosity, could you please share how/where you got an install-able version of Fifth Generation Systems Direct Access 5.1? I'm not familiar with the app and don't know if it's still available or not, or whether it's a free, share, or commercial app. Cheers and Regards
  10. I think you meant Panasonic, not Toshiba. Three of them are available used on Amazon today from ~$400 to $1000 US. Cheers and Regards
  11. We're all good, Jody. I'm glad you understood my little joke about the "abomination". We'll all just continue trying to keep everyone happy with whatever OS that works best for them. To each their own and that's the way it should be. Cheers and Regards my friend, John
  12. Jody I mean you no disrespect, and you and I have had enough interactions that I know you know that. But in my mind your current stance is just an evolution of what you have been expressing for years. When XP was just starting to approach End of Support, your stance was repeatedly that of (paraphrased by me and exaggerated to make a point): "What are we going to do? Once XP gets to EOS the OS will instantly be overrun by every exploit known to man! What are we going to do?" And though you were repeatedly told over and over and over that just because the OS is not officially supported or updated does not mean that it cannot be used safely and reliably, that did not matter. Your stance remained the same, focusing on what bad things might happen, rather than taking the approach of figuring out what you needed to do to continue to use your "beloved" XP64. So you switched to Win 8.0, (after a brief run with Vista?), and you seem happy. That is absolutely wonderful. That is really one of the main goals of this forum - to help everyone use the version of Windows that they choose, on the hardware that works for them, with the applications that they need or want to use, safely and reliably. We will even help you continue to use Win 8.0 as long as you'd like, even though many of us cannot understand why anyone would possibly want to use any of the abominations that Win 8.x+ have become. heheh (NoelC obviously feels differently and that's great for him.) So now you have progressed in your stance from worrying about what might happen to your OS of choice, to almost kind of indirectly deriding others about their choice of OS. Sort of taking the attitude that since you were able to move on successfully that they should too. That would be all well and good if they were asking about whether they should move on or not, but that is not appropriate if they are trying to figure out how to stay where they are. If someone asks for an opinion then by all means express yours honestly and completely, but otherwise please be positive rather than negative. You are better than that kind of behavior. But, then, the above is just my opinion. Cheers and Regards my friend
  13. I guess we'll know when they release 11.0.18 and see if the "mistake" is "corrected", or not. Cheers and Regards
  14. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, somehow. I hope the issues are not drastic enough to require this, but... Cheers and Regards
  15. I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of the Indexing Service, so I could be completely wrong, but I don't see this as an issue, especially since you're having problems with the Indexing Service anyway. If you really feel that using the MS Indexing Service is necessary for you, I'd be tempted to completely remove the Indexing Service, then be sure you have cleaned out any remnants of IIS, then reinstall the Indexing Service and let it re-Index everything. But I'd probably look at 3rd party alternatives to the MS Indexing Service instead of reinstalling the MS service. What aspects of the Indexing Service do you actually use? Many people look at the MS Indexing Service as something that takes up both space and CPU cycles that could be better used elsewhere and do not use it at all. Something to consider, but I would definitely get advice from someone who knows more about this than I do, such as jaclaz. Cheers and Regards
  16. But Powershell is not exactly a workstation only feature. Power user, yes, but not workstation, IMO. Powershell is just MS's next generation CMD language, and it isn't new by any definition. Cheers and Regards
  17. @Jody, click Dencorso's link above for KB3170735 to see what Woody says about it. Cheers and Regards
  18. Yes, there used to be a "Sent" box until very, very recently. Now, all conversations that are not drafts are put in the "Inbox", whether they have been responded to or not, In a way I guess that's actually more convenient. But now the name "Inbox" is no longer valid. Progress? As to why there are no longer pages 2, 3, etc, but just dynamically loaded "more", the pages are still there, which you will see if you let "more" load and then scroll through what is loaded. The "Page 2", etc, headings are still there. For the majority of folks this will not be an issue, but if you have a lot of messages, (such as xper?), I think this will be inconvenient. There is no reason I can think of why the ability to go directly to "Page 4" or whatever was removed. I think they tried to change the forum threads to this same navigation method , which would be totally unworkable for longer threads, so maybe the "Page" ability is still there and could be reinstated? Overall, it seems the IPB folks thought that the "Facebook" type model is appropriate for all forums? (I don't think that it is.) Cheers and Regards
  19. By the way, here is a complete list of all Windows 7 updates that should be excluded that i think would satisfy even the most paranoid. KB971033 KB2882822 KB2902907 KB2922324 KB2952664 KB2976978 KB2977759 KB2990214 KB2999226 KB3012973 KB3014460 KB3015249 KB3021917 KB3022345 KB3035583 KB3042058 KB3044374 KB3046480 KB3050265 KB3058168 KB3064683 KB3065987 KB3065988 KB3068708 KB3072318 KB3074677 KB3075249 KB3075851 KB3075853 KB3080149 KB3081437 KB3081454 KB3081954 KB3083324 KB3083325 KB3083710 KB3083711 KB3086255 KB3088195 KB3090045 KB3093983 KB3102810 KB3102812 KB3112336 KB3112343 KB3118401 KB3123862 KB3135445 KB3135449 KB3138612 KB3138615 KB3139929 KB3146449 KB3150513 This includes everything in Dencorso's current list of what to exclude to prevent being updated to Windows 10 against your will, along with additional updates that Yzowl feels are important to prevent sharing anything with MS. This list is current as of the May updates. I don't know for sure if either of them thought that there are any updates from the June list that should also be excluded or not. The update that fixes the MU/WU delay, KB3161608, comes to mind. Some might not want it, I don't know. Cheers and Regards
  20. If you're trying to install Windows 7, then no. Leave everything where it is. If you use abbodi1406's installer script, which you can find here - http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/44645-WHDownloader-Support-and-chat/page259?p=1169513#post1169513 - it will get what it needs from the correct folder. You have two methods you can choose: A) Use the convenience update, (which I didn't think you wanted to do), in which case use "WHD-W7UI.cmd" which will ignore everything in the "Extra\WithoutKB3125574" folder. B) Install the classic way, (which was what I thought the whole purpose of this project was), and use "WHD-W7UI_WithoutKB3125574.cmd" which will pull from "Extra\WithoutKB3125574" as it needs to. You can read both scripts to see exactly what they do, they're just batch commands. Basically, you are correct that without KB3125574 it will use the updates in both "Windows7-x64\Security" plus "Windows7-x64\Extra\WithoutKB3125574\#Security" etc. Everything in "Extra\WithoutKB3125574" is what is included in KB3125574, but since you're not going to use KB3125574 then you'll have to include those updates. Remember, there are still various telemetry updates scattered about which you might or might not want to include in your project. Whatever you don't want to include, simply move that update out of the regular location into somewhere that the install script won't pick it up. On my last install I left everything where it was and just did not select the option to install WAT and Windows 10 related updates, only about 7 in total if I remember right. Your project might appeal to more people and be more flexible if you also remove the telemetry updates. They can always be installed later if they are wanted/needed. I thought your project's intention was to basically do the same thing as the installer script, but instead of installing the updates, they would be combined into a single "rollup" that could be more easily installed by the end user. In any case, I thought the installer script would be a good staring point for you. You will also have to discover any additional updates that WUI/MU finds after you boot your installed system. I was surprised how many updates were found, but it was nowhere near the number that would have been found without the help of WHDownloader and the install script. Remember, using WHDownloader includes most of the "request only" hotfixes that you would have had to search for manually otherwise. I'm glad you have had good success downloading the updates using WHDownloader. It was quick and easy, wasn't it? Cheers and Regards
  21. We can't do it that way here. Using WHDownloader is fine because the user ends up downloading all of the updates themselves directly from Microsoft. I'm curious how far along you have gotten downloading the updates with your described method over the last two and a half weeks? And why you have not tried actually using WHDownloader yet? I ask because I just downloaded a fresh copy of WHDownloader, put it in an empty folder, D:\WHD, downloaded a fresh copy of the download lists, selected the Windows 7 x64 list. selected all available updates, and clicked download. Downloading all of the updates was completely automated and took about a half an hour. I then selected the Windows 7 x86 list, selected all available updates, and clicked download. Downloading all of the updates took less than half an hour. The end result is D:\WHD having 1281 files in it, taking up 5,841,899,614 bytes. The updates are all named correctly (ending in either -x64 or -x86), the files are stored in x64 and x84 folders, and within those folders the updates are sorted into various categories such as General. Hotfix, Security, Extra, Additional, etc, along with text files that explain what some of the different categories are for. What took the longest to download was the convenience updates because of their size, and maybe because of the demand for them, I don't know. I don't plan on using them, but I went ahead and downloaded them just to have a complete set of updates. If you don't want any particular updates then don't select them and downloading will be quicker and will take less space. Once you have downloaded the updates one month, when the lists are updated the next month the only things that are downloaded are what is new or missing, taking much, much less time. You can download updates en mass like I did or one at a time if you prefer. It all depends on what you select before you click download. If, like me, you couldn't figure out where to get the download lists, here's the trick. When you run WHDownloader.exe, click the little box in the upper left corner. That's it, it will download all of the available lists and you can select the one you want to use in the pull-down. TRY IT! Let us know if you have any problems. If you are unwilling to use WHDownloader, or one of the other available download tools, then I'm really curious as to why. And if you haven't gotten very far in downloading updates over the last two and a half weeks, then I'm concerned about your true intentions. I can understand that you're busy with other things, but ... I have no problem at all in helping you, but besides being against MSFN policies, it would take far longer to zip and upload the updates and you to download them, than for you to just download them yourself using my above described method. Good luck with your project and I truly hope you are able to complete it. Cheers and Regards
  22. The problem is that KB3161647 is not available by itself, but only as part of KB3161608, which from all reports does fix the endless wait times to update Windows 7 - at least this month. There are no GWX components to KB3161608, but there might be some minor telemetry aspects in it ( I have heard that it includes KB3138612 but I'm not sure if that's true). So you have to decide if it's worth it, or maybe wait until next month and see if it still fixes the issue or if there is another "solution". Cheers and Regards
  23. I know it's a little OT, but how much of this is also applicable to Windows 7, or is there a current Windows 7 version of this guide? Cheers and Regards
  24. bphlpt

    No Updates!

    Are there any things in KB3161608 that those of us who are choosing to hide updates might not want? ie, is it "safe" tp install KB3161608 as is, or do we need to extract only the Windows Update Agent pieces of it? Cheers and Regards
×
×
  • Create New...