Jody Thornton

I've frquented this place for quite awhile now, however I've never formally introduced myself. My name is Jody and I hail from Stoney Creek, Ontario (a suburb of Hamilton, er that's 40 minutes or so south of Toronto) So anyone else here from Southern Ontario?

Doesn't matter, I figured it all out.

Wow; not a single response. Thank goodness I figured things out myself.

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but I'd like to know in more detail what issues you've experienced. What's happened with me is that I'm running vLite using a Windows Vista x64 Ultimate disc with SP2 built in. I'm trying to integrate as many post-SP2 updates as I can, in addition to IE 9. I have the .msu file for IE9 for Vista. It appears that about 27 of the updates, including IE9 will not integrate. There are no errors, but they do not appear in yellow after I've built the image and restarted vLite. I've downloaded the updates with WSUS Offline. Most are .cab format and I even extracted the IE9 cab from the .msu file I downloaded. It doesn't help.

I will certainly check those out. Thanks!

I've downloaded a crap load of Vista x64 updates from WSUS Offline. 26 of them will not integrate and IE9 will not integrate in MSU format. I even tried extracting the CAB, but no go. What am I doing wrong?

No that's fair. I just want to know if Windows Mail would be as secure as say Outlook 2007. I really don't want to move to Office 2007 (I'm not a ribbon fan). So I've moved to Kingsoft Office 2012, which provides excellent Office 2007 compatibility for Word, Excel and PowerPoint. I thought I would round out the suite with Windows Mail and Calendar. What I would REALLY love is that if there was a way to continue using Office 2003. I really love the suite as is, including Outlook. I just wish I could keep using it. I simply wish there was a way to keep it "reasonably" secure. I think most times that security is down to how the user behaves by not opening the wrong attachments or links.

I really liked the comment from "Nine54" on Paul's site. He made some good points about the outdated notion of "Windows Everywhere" On the thought of his response (which I cannot seem to paste here, so go read it first) why doesn't Microsoft focus on Explorer-based Windows on the desktop and notebook, while placing an RT-based Metro UI on Surface devices or maybe even other ARM devices like Chromebooks?

Yes I realize that Windows Mail is the next "Outlook Express" and has less faetures than Outlook. Is it any less secure though. I figured that using the Windows Calendar and Windows Mail would give me most of the features I need. I haven't tried emClient to my memory, but I HATED Zimbra. Outlook 2003 was MUCH faster.

Can you rate (in a 0 to 10 scale) what is the actual relevance (if any) and/or practical use of such piece of info? If you find any relevance in it. (or practical use) for the info, i.e. you assigned more than 0 to the question, what is the particular aspect that you feel important? I mean, when the *whatever* will come out will actually come out, it will be called in the *whatever* way the good MS guys will see fit, but what's in a name? It can be: Pessimistic: the usual abomination, called 8.2 the usual abomination, called 9 the usual abomination, called "Curtains 1.0"Optimistic: a good OS, called 8.2 a good OS, called 9 a good OS, called "New Panorama"The relevant point seems to me whether it will be a good release or not. , and we might get to know that once it will be available. jaclaz Sigh! (OK Jaclaz, maybe some of us care.) I wanted to know if it means a different vision path perhaps, and maybe the differences in version numbering may mean a different marketing path. I just want to know so I asked, that's all! And yes, I would like to know more importantly what's in the release.

I used T-Bird for years. I halted it's use as of version 3 when they began indexing mail and offering tabs. I've found it slow ever since. I use Seamonkey Mail on my notebook and I tried it on my desktop as a POP client (it reminds me more of version 2x of Thunderbird). But it's just as slow as Thunderbird 3x+. I have also tried Evolution, Opera and maybe fifteen others. I really liked the interface of Windows Mail. What is it that's really wrong with Windows Mail (no one has answered that yet). Is it any worse than Outlook 2003?

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but is this going to be Windows 8.2 or Windows 9? In the Windows 8 Forum, a new Windows 8.2 release is supposed to be ready for March. However, it sounds as if it will be Windows 9. Am I clear on this?

So to be clear, you're saying that Windows 8.2 is going to be Windows 9? What are the new features?

No, IE11 was on my girlfriend's Windows 7 notebook PC. I run Seamonkey at home on my HP Desktop.

So I take it that you're saying Windows Mail is insecure? What is it that's bad about Windows Mail?

Just download a new instance once a week.

actually you could do following, but isn't quite legal yet also not illegal either find yourself Longhorn (Vista) reset build, the client version 5.2.3790.1232 this is XP since it is client version of Server 2003 SP1 RC its EULA makes it illegal, but its out of ANY support makes it legal - by logic it should accept any Server 2003 SP and hotfixes since its kernel is 5.2 (remember this one is 32bit) and is still XP so stiff Servers '03 SP2 init and all hotfixes (or try slipstream) and there you go Can anyone else confirm this? Would it be updated continuously along with Server 2003?

Given that Microsoft Office 2003 extended phase support ends along with XP. I am migrating to Windows Mail and Calandar apps in Vista for now. Is there ANY way at all to convert the Outlook 2003 rules to ones that can be uised by Windows Mail? All directions seem to point to "no", but I wanted to double and triple check with the experts.

I was able to solve my issue. I had installed Ad Block on IE10, and left it intact as I upgraded to IE11. As soon as I disabled the utility, Google Mail starts operating at full speed.

Actually there IS a way to accurately challenge my statements above (but it really should be a separate thread; hmmmm, naw not really). For those who continue to run Windows 2000 Professional as of 2014, that would give a more real life indication as to how life with Windows XP as an unsupported OS would be. They are very similar in many ways.

In your opinion. Now, with all due respect, in my own opinion, I'm good for at least the next 10 years: yesterday I've activated my 6th XP Pro SP3 x86 machine (two of which are also bootable into 98SE). MS will stop supporting XP next April... well, it can do that, all right. Myself, I couldn't care less whether it actually does it, or backs off in the last moment. I don't know. I really don't think that running an unsuported OS sounds safe. And I'll say it again. I think comparing the running of Windows XP with Windows 9x/ME unsupported is foolish. 9x/ME's kernel is way simpler than Windows NT's, which still exists in Vista, 7 and 8. So an attacker of those systems can get to XP as well. So you shouldn't use 9x/ME's security through obscurity as a precedent for how things my go with XP. I sense a lot of folks think that Microsoft is out to screw with people on Windows Updates. Somehow they believe Microsoft is undermining the system. I really don't think Microsoft is out to mess with it's own products.

Welcome to the ranks of Vista users. (A small club, sorry to say.) --JorgeA Well Windows XP x64 users made up a small user base as well so no loss.

We need to be careful not to use Windows 9x/ME support history as a precedent here. That OS line may have achieved security through obsolesecence, being that it's a simpler, flimsier kernel that no attacker targets anymore. However, the Windows NT kernel continues to exist in Vista, 7 and 8 and WIL BE TARGETED. XP doesn't differ nearly as much and will be much more affected. So I don't think XP will eventually be a safe bet based on the likelihood that 9x now seems to be a safer bet after years of non-support status.

Well, in any case I have made the move to Vista x64 Ultimate Edition since I had started this thread, so there's no looking back. I really had wished that Microsoft would have extended Windows XP x64 Edition officially until July 2015 (no patching updates), but that isn't to be I suppose. Besides I've migrated now, so I'm good for three years.

I suppose the status of updates never changed here, eh? I suppose the .INF editing would still be necessary?