cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:04 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
Rick Chauvin wrote:

(about Explorer.exe bogging down after bulk file operations)

If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
- get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
- any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
- determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)

..any version of those dll's from 5.5 worked just fine, it was the first
release of IE6 and absolutely irregardless of what others think, even SP1
still has the same exact problem.

I can confirm IE 6 SP1 has the same problem - that's what I have!


Yes I know, but this thread we have flagged is now lost in eternity of posts
and is also as the other one under a different heading.


About the dll's though and most likely it is them, but just because
swapping the dll's do appear on the surface to eliminate the problem
does not mean 100% it is the dll's that's the issue in the first place - it
could be other things closely related.

Sure; it may be a point of fix, though.

BrowseUI.dll is quite large, nearly 1M, so it's likely there's a lot
of action there. BrowseLC.dll is a little 62k wisp of a thing, so
it's interesting that it is cited as a co-defendent - especially as
similar-wildcard-matching BrowseWM.dll was not.

- FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
- see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
- if offset dependencies allow:
- paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
- paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
- zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
- see if a logic error etc. can be found
- fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
- after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate

Okay, sounds good to me

I've started looking for IE 5.5 SP0, SP1 and SP2 versions of those
files, which I'll keep as templates .5S0, .5S1 and .5S2 along with my
regular .6S1 copy. I'll write a .BAT that will copy these into place
over the active ones after testing it's in DOS mode (they are
otherwise "in use"). Then I'll play, renaming each pair, and then
individual ones, into place for long enough to test-to-fix (about a
week per pass before I'd say it's OK).

Okay that's great, thanks much.
In the end others will thank you too.

Chris, would you do me a favor, there is the other thread in this group
that has two conversations going on within it, if you want to please read
it and reply to your other fellow MVP's as to any pertinent facts that you
can help let them know there is a problem, because as it stands
surprisingly to me they do not think there is a problem at all and that it
was already fixed - which I am baffled at why they think that.

Please look for this header:

From: "Jerry Bryant [MSFT]"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion............. ...
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: MS05-002 on 9x and ME

I'm not on least-significant-byte terms with .kb articles or patch
numbers, but AFAIK what's happening is that this discussion we are in
now, is in fact in the middle of a thread on an unrelated and far more
recent patch (the one that runs as a resident process).

Yes I realize that, but so is this one!

I suppose a new thread can be started, but I don't choose to be that leader
and it's not my own personal cross to bear although I do care and want to
make it right and I'm only trying to help others out to actually get the
problem fixed for a change. I sincerely think now though that those in
position didn't realize they had a problem with this, but I feel it warrants
just as much attention as that KB891711 post Jerry made and is why I tagged
onto it; although I wish some of the others that have jumped into that
thread would just kept it to a more professionally dialogue of helping
instead of some of the unhelpful sputterings that detracts from the positive
goal I'd like to see come about.

Both are problems, but different ones. Certainly the one that Jerry
is chasing up for MS is the new one, and it's good that this is being
pursued. What we are talking about - unless I'm badly confused - is a
far older issue that was raised as e.g. of previous patch gone wrong

Yes I agree, just like this thread is though.
Jerry's made his post, and I took the opportunity at that moment to bring up
the other subject just to get his attention, perhaps it should of been in a
different thread and I'm sorry about that now, but I can't change that. You
can start a new thread if you want - You have more hands on qualifications
than I do to effect change and to properly technically discuss the situation.
I will always help where I can.

I have to amend something in that other thread now though.

Thank you,
Rick




---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -