Can't access WME help
 

The first attempt (after a reboot) to access Help says the "Help failed to
initialize." It gives an error number of about 10 digits and says to report
it to Microsoft.

Subesquent attempts hang with a busy cursor, but WinTop reports no activity.
Attempting to close the pgm by clicking on the X gets a message something
like, "This program is busy; do you want to close it anyway?"

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

THE 911562 PATCH FOR MDAC2.8RTM DOES NOT WORK!!!
It breaks Help & Support, amongst other things.

Best advice is upgrade to MDAC2.8SP1 from here
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
then visit WU again for the new patch - which works properly with the SP1
files.

If that doesn't fix our problem, then look here ofr more suggestions.

Look here for help with Help
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/HSfails.htm



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Walterius" wrote in message
...
The first attempt (after a reboot) to access Help says the "Help failed to
initialize." It gives an error number of about 10 digits and says to
report
it to Microsoft.

Subesquent attempts hang with a busy cursor, but WinTop reports no
activity.
Attempting to close the pgm by clicking on the X gets a message something
like, "This program is busy; do you want to close it anyway?"

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

MDAC 2.8 SP1 did the trick. Thank you very much. :)

FYI (don't flame me, please), I do not update WME and I have not used any
security pgms. There has been no need for those things, since I never let
WME access the Internet, and I mainly use it for old games and fast defrags
of my W2K partitions (no flames on that one. either, it works).

So I must report that I applied MDAC 2.8 SP1 to an unpatched system and then
did not apply any more patches. My WME has thus *one* patch. And it works
fine.

When I gave it Internet access the other day, mostly for the fun of it, I
did install a firewall, an antivirus pgm, and a spyware guard. I updated
them and they are running now.

My computer's two hard drives contain WME, three versions of W2K, and Ubuntu
Linux. All happily coexist.

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

Hmm - you do realise that System Restore cannot work, if you haven't
installed the 290700 patch?

Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a large
difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K partition, and
the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and that's the way it should
be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency for the
W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files together at the
start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the defrag is so quick, as
it's not changing anything. When the W2K defragger comes along, it has to
change the location of just about every file to get it near the optimum for
the system - which is why it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K
defragger for a while (WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd
likely find that subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if
you delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other drives)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Walterius" wrote in message
...
MDAC 2.8 SP1 did the trick. Thank you very much. :)

FYI (don't flame me, please), I do not update WME and I have not used any
security pgms. There has been no need for those things, since I never let
WME access the Internet, and I mainly use it for old games and fast
defrags
of my W2K partitions (no flames on that one. either, it works).

So I must report that I applied MDAC 2.8 SP1 to an unpatched system and
then
did not apply any more patches. My WME has thus *one* patch. And it works
fine.

When I gave it Internet access the other day, mostly for the fun of it, I
did install a firewall, an antivirus pgm, and a spyware guard. I updated
them and they are running now.

My computer's two hard drives contain WME, three versions of W2K, and
Ubuntu
Linux. All happily coexist.

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

(a) I don't care about, and don't use, System Restore. If WME crashes, I
just reformat and rebuild. It's not a sophisticated or important system. As
stated, I mainly use it for old games and fast defrags.

(b) quoting you:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a large
difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K partition, and
the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and that's the way it should
be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency for the
W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files together at the
start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the defrag is so quick, as
it's not changing anything. When the W2K defragger comes along, it has to
change the location of just about every file to get it near the optimum for
the system - which is why it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K
defragger for a while (WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd
likely find that subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if
you delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other drives).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
I found your reply interesting, but I haven't really found any improvement
over WME's defrag. (I run both, for comparison.) The Win2K defrag--like any
other--does get shorted the more one uses it.

Yep, all things considered, I'll stick with what I'm doing. But thanks for
your input. I always value it, even if I don't always use it. :-)

My next project would be, if I could afford it, Microsoft Virtual PC. Then
all my toys could run at once, and quite safely. (See the current LangaList
article thereon.)

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

crashes, I just reformat and rebuild.

What a waste of time and resources!
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius wrote:

(a) I don't care about, and don't use, System Restore. If WME
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild. It's not a sophisticated or
important system. As stated, I mainly use it for old games and fast
defrags.

(b) quoting you:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a
large difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K
partition, and the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and
that's the way it should be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency
for the W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files
together at the start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the
defrag is so quick, as it's not changing anything. When the W2K
defragger comes along, it has to change the location of just about
every file to get it near the optimum for the system - which is why
it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K defragger for a while
(WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd likely find that
subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if you
delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other
drives).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
I found your reply interesting, but I haven't really found any
improvement over WME's defrag. (I run both, for comparison.) The
Win2K defrag--like any other--does get shorted the more one uses it.

Yep, all things considered, I'll stick with what I'm doing. But
thanks for your input. I always value it, even if I don't always use
it. :-)

My next project would be, if I could afford it, Microsoft Virtual PC.
Then all my toys could run at once, and quite safely. (See the
current LangaList article thereon.)

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

I'm retired. I've got plenty of time. Resources???
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild.

What a waste of time and resources!
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius wrote:

(a) I don't care about, and don't use, System Restore. If WME
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild. It's not a sophisticated or
important system. As stated, I mainly use it for old games and fast
defrags.

(b) quoting you:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-----------
Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a
large difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K
partition, and the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and
that's the way it should be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency
for the W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files
together at the start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the
defrag is so quick, as it's not changing anything. When the W2K
defragger comes along, it has to change the location of just about
every file to get it near the optimum for the system - which is why
it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K defragger for a while
(WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd likely find that
subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if you
delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other
drives).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------
I found your reply interesting, but I haven't really found any
improvement over WME's defrag. (I run both, for comparison.) The
Win2K defrag--like any other--does get shorted the more one uses it.

Yep, all things considered, I'll stick with what I'm doing. But
thanks for your input. I always value it, even if I don't always use
it. :-)

My next project would be, if I could afford it, Microsoft Virtual PC.
Then all my toys could run at once, and quite safely. (See the
current LangaList article thereon.)

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

I'm retired. I've got plenty of time. Resources???
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild.

What a waste of time and resources!
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius wrote:

(a) I don't care about, and don't use, System Restore. If WME
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild. It's not a sophisticated or
important system. As stated, I mainly use it for old games and fast
defrags.

(b) quoting you:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-----------
Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a
large difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K
partition, and the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and
that's the way it should be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency
for the W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files
together at the start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the
defrag is so quick, as it's not changing anything. When the W2K
defragger comes along, it has to change the location of just about
every file to get it near the optimum for the system - which is why
it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K defragger for a while
(WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd likely find that
subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if you
delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other
drives).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------
I found your reply interesting, but I haven't really found any
improvement over WME's defrag. (I run both, for comparison.) The
Win2K defrag--like any other--does get shorted the more one uses it.

Yep, all things considered, I'll stick with what I'm doing. But
thanks for your input. I always value it, even if I don't always use
it. :-)

My next project would be, if I could afford it, Microsoft Virtual PC.
Then all my toys could run at once, and quite safely. (See the
current LangaList article thereon.)

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

I forgot to add: it never crashes. I demand so little of it that it behaves
itself.

Dear Mike: suggest you back off on the judgments. You don't know what you
are talking about. And you never will when you judge others. :)

Walterius.
"Walterius" wrote in message
...
I'm retired. I've got plenty of time. Resources???
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild.

What a waste of time and resources!
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius wrote:

(a) I don't care about, and don't use, System Restore. If WME
crashes, I just reformat and rebuild. It's not a sophisticated or
important system. As stated, I mainly use it for old games and fast
defrags.

(b) quoting you:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-----------
Whatever works - but I really would suggest using the OS's own proper
defragger rather than one that is doing the wrong work! There is a
large difference between the order in which ME will lay down a W2K
partition, and the way that W2K's own defragger will do so - and
that's the way it should be!

The ME defragger knows nothing about the startup order or frequency
for the W2K partition, and as a result just dumps all the files
together at the start of the drive (pretty much) - which is why the
defrag is so quick, as it's not changing anything. When the W2K
defragger comes along, it has to change the location of just about
every file to get it near the optimum for the system - which is why
it's so apparently slow. If you run the W2K defragger for a while
(WITHOUT using the ME one on that partition) you'd likely find that
subsequent defrags are shorter and shorter (particularly if you
delete the TEMP and TIF content first - or move them to other
drives).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------
I found your reply interesting, but I haven't really found any
improvement over WME's defrag. (I run both, for comparison.) The
Win2K defrag--like any other--does get shorted the more one uses it.

Yep, all things considered, I'll stick with what I'm doing. But
thanks for your input. I always value it, even if I don't always use
it. :-)

My next project would be, if I could afford it, Microsoft Virtual PC.
Then all my toys could run at once, and quite safely. (See the
current LangaList article thereon.)

Walterius

Can't access WME help
 

"Walterius" wrote in message
...
I forgot to add: it never crashes. I demand so little of it that it behaves
itself.

Dear Mike: suggest you back off on the judgments. You don't know what you
are talking about. And you never will when you judge others. :)
snip

Isn't "You don't know what you are talking about" judging others ?