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. 


Platinum Sponsor
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dave-H last won the day on September 18

Dave-H had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

384 Excellent


About Dave-H

  • Birthday 03/31/1953

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x86
  • Country


  • Country Flag

Recent Profile Visitors

17,170 profile views
  1. Yes but they probably couldn't easily remove all the other updates and just leave those two Office ones! I suppose it's good to know that the update archive is still there and hasn't been trashed (yet) and it's just the automatic accessing of it that's been disabled. I'm assuming that Microsoft Update doesn't just get its updates straight from the Update Catalogue, which is still manually accessible of course. As Vistapocalypse says, maybe it was just a mistake!
  2. I do wonder if the system was just re-enabled temporarily to deliver those two Office 2010 updates, as has be speculated, although it has been pointed out that the two updates concerned had actually already been released back in August (although not through MS Update). It will be interesting to see if it comes back to life again for Patch Tuesday on October 13th, to deliver what are expected to be the last updates for Office 2010.
  3. Microsoft Update seems to have died again, just showing Error 0x80244019 at the moment as soon as it starts to scan.
  4. It's probably been like it for a while, but I've just noticed that on XP Oracle's Java test page now redirects to an uninstall page, saying that the operating system is not supported and Java should be removed. It works in Firefox, but in Internet Explorer 8 even this doesn't seem to work, I'm just getting a progress indicator followed by a black white page!
  5. So they were! And I installed them both then as well, manually from the catalogue files. When I checked the files after yesterday's updates, the only file that had changed was PPCORE.DLL, which had apparently updated from 14.0.7248.5000 to 14.0.7257.5000. The former was date stamped 25/03/20, the latter is 24/07/20. So the "new" version is not in fact particularly new! The "Outlook" update didn't seem to change anything, but that could well be because I don't have Outlook actually installed as part of the Office suite. Back in April, my PPCORE.DLL was updated from version 14.0.7243.5000 to 14.0.7248.5000, and that was the last time until yesterday. So, it looks as if when I manually installed KB4092435 in August, it didn't actually update it, although I've checked the logs and it supposedly installed successfully, on August 14th! Very strange, but if nothing else it shows that MS Update isn't quite dead yet!
  6. Amazingly, two updates today! KB4092435 (PowerPoint) KB4484497 (Outlook) Both offered and installed through Microsoft Update, which I was pretty convinced would never work again! No MSO.DLL replacement. Why these were suddenly rolled out a couple of weeks before the next Patch Tuesday, when I was expecting the very last set of updates for Office 2010, I have no idea!
  7. Believe it or not, I've just been offered two updates for Office 2010 through Automatic Updates, with a yellow shield in the system tray, after weeks of it repeatedly saying in the Event Log that it can't connect! I immediately went to the Microsoft Update website, and it successfully scanned for them and installed them, so it's not quite dead yet!
  8. This is true, but I like to see the file update information in the older version. It doesn't do that on Windows versions newer than XP though, so the later version would probably be better on later operating systems.
  9. Just as an off-topic aside, if you want to still see your update history, get the wonderful Mr. Nir Sofer's free WinUpdatesList program from here. That will show you all the updates you have made, including (on XP) what files they replaced! As long as your update history files remain intact, that should always work.
  10. Plenty of other people thought exactly the same! https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-windows_install/windows-10-2004-optimizationdefrag-bug/4c5498b9-04fe-41c9-8535-ed10313b6f33 This is off-topic of course, in this forum section, letalone this thread, but what was really bad is that they apparently acknowledged and fixed the issue in an insider build, but then still let the fault get through to the release version of Windows 10 2004! What was really bad was not so much that the automatic optimisation of drives was not having its status remembered so it was running unnecessarily, but it was that it was also misidentifying drive types, resulting in it trying to TRIM conventional hard drives (impossible) and actually defragmenting SSD drives, which is definitely a no-no! It's fixed now anyway, but I do wonder how many people had the lives of their SSD drives unnecessarily shortened by this.
  11. @UCyborg I've just tried your re-package on my installation of Chrome 49 and it works perfectly. However, the author of the extension has asked that you now take the file down. This was his response on Facebook when I made him aware of the original problem, and that it had been solved - "Thanks for that, interesting info, I did not know about that. technically I don't approve as it's unauthorised distribution, and outside of my control, I wouldn't want unauthorised people making unauthorised copies of my software and then introducing malware, which has happened in the past for example, so I prefer to keep the code "in house" so to speak. The other issue is it won't receive any updates, I update my extensions quite frequently with fixes and improvements. TBH I would prefer it if he took that file down. Tell him thanks for the info though."
  12. Ah, that explains it, I'm not a "Chrome Person" so I was unaware of that. Thank you very much indeed!
  13. Yes, I'm seeing the same thing on my installation of Google Chrome 49. I'll message the author and see what he says. It appears as if the necessary file is missing, but it could still be a compatibility issue I suppose.
  14. Assuming that there is a version for Chrome, which I'm pretty sure there is, I don't see why not. Edit: It's here.
  15. That would of course involve admitting that XP still exists, and that would never do!
  • Create New...