MS05-002 on 9x and ME

Have you, Bradley, or Terhune gotten someone at MS to consider the
issue, someone like Jerry Bryant [MSFT], though, understandably, that
particular personage is busy (with Kb891711)? Can you get someone at
least to deposit a message & run?

Your write-up here fairly well matches my experience with it. But I
never did have a pleasant experience killing Explorer.exe, & prefer to
reboot instead. Also, you know, I did get a low resources warning toward
the end of my last two massive-delete tests, despite Resource Meter
continued to show plenty.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote
in message ...
| On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:00:06 -0700, "Bill in Co."
| Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] wrote:
|
| Then call PSS.
|
| I cannot replicate the issue, you can. If you have a system that
can
| replicate this you do others a service by calling in.
|
| As this is not a malware issue, there are cost implications for most
| folks, over and above the effort of logging the bug in detail :-)
|
| It 'cannot' be handled in a newsgroup.
| Doesn't look like it can be handled by MS, either.
|
| I don't see this as an adverse reflection on PSS, but with one notable
| exception, Ive always found usenet solved by problems before the first
| PSS post-back. The exception was the Prescott-vs.-SP2 problem, where
| PSS delivered the heavy lifting needed to pin down and address the bug
|
| The stand-out features of this problem a
| - it's intermittent, though usually associated with bulk file ops
| - it's not a hard lockup; if left for several minutes, it clears
| - once it starts, it persists for the runtime of Explorer.exe
| - yes, it affects IE 6 SP1 as well as IE 6 original
|
| It occurs when "View As Web Page" is disabled, BTW. What I mean by
| "if left for several minutes, it clears" plus "once it starts, it
| persists" is that after the problem arises the first time, it will do
| so whenever any rename, delete or new folder operation is done. Each
| time, the apparent hang (affecting Explorer only; other apps OK) will
| clear if Explorer is left along long enough - but as soon as one of
| the trigger operations are done, it happens all over again.
|
| It usually takes a bulk operation (number of files, not file size) to
| trigger the problem, but once triggered, any of the ops I mentioned
| will trigger the problem - delete or rename one file, or rt-click,
| New, folder (which involves an implicit rename). If these tasks are
| done from Command.com (Del somename.ext, Ren Blah.txt Blee.txt, MD
| NewFol etc.) then no problem.
|
| If you kill Explorer.exe as a task, so that the shell restarts, then
| you're fine until the next bulk operation starts it over.
|
|
|
| ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
| ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

I can wait that long; Colorado, too. I'm hoping, really, cquirke might
get an MSFT person involved.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Rick T" wrote in message
...
| PCR wrote:
| Bútora, Rick T-- Let me know what happens after you call; for
instance,
| any spittle in your ears? I will make my final decision afterwards.
For
| now, Colorado has hypnotized me against it!
|
| Won't be anytime soon... I like the 2 file replace fix if/when I go
back
| to WinME though ChrisQ brings up a good point that some security fixes
| may be lost.
|
|
|
| Rick T
|
|
| from a couple of my posts on the issue in 2004....
| ********************************
|
| I came at it from the other side; I installed litepc after (because) I
| installed IE6. Two behaviours I remember:
|
| - system was slow in that app A would wait for app B's diskwrite to
| finish before I could even move the mouse
|
| - Windows Explorer multiple file deletes slowed far past a crawl;
| anything over 10-15 (normal sized) files just stopped Explorer cold
for
| literally minutes, if not crashing Explorer completely.
|
| If you run without the ie-html engine, your Explorer will be
light-years
| faster than with it(as I'm sure you know), as I found when I subbed in
| the W95 browser thru the litepc - 'don't blink' sort of thing. With
the
| 98/ME browser but ie-html engine removed, a little slower, with the
| 98/ME browser and ie-html engine but no IE, a little slower than
that...
|
| Changing the HD to 'always on' fixed the multitasking problem (but I
do
| *not* recall having that problem previous to IE6 install), but the
only
| thing to fix the WE hanging/crashing was to uninstall IE6 (I tried it,
| it worked then I reinstalled the OS).
|
| I don't recall it being any more slower than usual loading programs
| (which isn't saying much).
|
| Barring further research, etc. I'm just taking the tack that IE6 was
| written for NTx and shoehorned rather poorly into 9X.
|
| Rick
| p3-667, 512MB
|
|
|
|
| and another...
| *********************************
|
| Sorta like (personal gripe) the IE6 explorer files, which from what
I
| can tell on my system is optimized for multithreading and just
plain old
| crappy without it.
|
| Don't know about that particular instance, but I've had a suspicion
ever
| since the release of XP that such is/was the general trend.
|
| The OS started acting like it had never heard of "multitasking" much
| less "multithreading"; formerly you could count on the hd-cache acting
| independently with write-behind enabled, but after the upgrade: mouse
| freezes while waiting for disk access on another window, WExplorer
| taking forever to delete 20ish files... thought it was my own
| configuration bunging things up, but I saw a few others on these
| newsgroups/googling. Will try it again when/if the CD gets here, but
| I've been warning people off IE6 upgrade when relevant.
|
| Just seemed like the industry standard push to upgrade by
"accidentally"
| screwing over older products.

Why are you even waiting? Just switch the DLLs, and join us here in the
21st Century, with a *working* Explorer.

PCR wrote:
I can wait that long; Colorado, too. I'm hoping, really, cquirke might
get an MSFT person involved.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Rick T" wrote in message
...
PCR wrote:
Bútora, Rick T-- Let me know what happens after you call; for instance,
any spittle in your ears? I will make my final decision afterwards. For
now, Colorado has hypnotized me against it!

Won't be anytime soon... I like the 2 file replace fix if/when I go back
to WinME though ChrisQ brings up a good point that some security fixes
may be lost.



Rick T


from a couple of my posts on the issue in 2004....
********************************

I came at it from the other side; I installed litepc after (because) I
installed IE6. Two behaviours I remember:

- system was slow in that app A would wait for app B's diskwrite to
finish before I could even move the mouse

- Windows Explorer multiple file deletes slowed far past a crawl;
anything over 10-15 (normal sized) files just stopped Explorer cold for
literally minutes, if not crashing Explorer completely.

If you run without the ie-html engine, your Explorer will be light-years
faster than with it(as I'm sure you know), as I found when I subbed in
the W95 browser thru the litepc - 'don't blink' sort of thing. With the
98/ME browser but ie-html engine removed, a little slower, with the
98/ME browser and ie-html engine but no IE, a little slower than that...

Changing the HD to 'always on' fixed the multitasking problem (but I do
*not* recall having that problem previous to IE6 install), but the only
thing to fix the WE hanging/crashing was to uninstall IE6 (I tried it,
it worked then I reinstalled the OS).

I don't recall it being any more slower than usual loading programs
(which isn't saying much).

Barring further research, etc. I'm just taking the tack that IE6 was
written for NTx and shoehorned rather poorly into 9X.

Rick
p3-667, 512MB




and another...
*********************************

Sorta like (personal gripe) the IE6 explorer files, which from what I
can tell on my system is optimized for multithreading and just plain
old
crappy without it.

Don't know about that particular instance, but I've had a suspicion
ever
since the release of XP that such is/was the general trend.

The OS started acting like it had never heard of "multitasking" much
less "multithreading"; formerly you could count on the hd-cache acting
independently with write-behind enabled, but after the upgrade: mouse
freezes while waiting for disk access on another window, WExplorer
taking forever to delete 20ish files... thought it was my own
configuration bunging things up, but I saw a few others on these
newsgroups/googling. Will try it again when/if the CD gets here, but
I've been warning people off IE6 upgrade when relevant.

Just seemed like the industry standard push to upgrade by "accidentally"
screwing over older products.

Dell, Compaq, H-P
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Rick T" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
Reports from others that had the problem with IE6 and no longer had it with SP1,
including computers where I work.

The "WE hangs/crashes when deleting large numbers of files" ?

What kind of computers are at your work ?


thanks

Rick

Thanks Susan, I'll give that a shot.

"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
wrote in message ...
The site I'm guessing they offered you is a 'email support site' not a
wish list.

Here's how this process works... you call, you may have to give them a
credit card number, they then determine it's a security patch issue,
they refund the money.

Call back, specifically say this is an issue with a security patch.

I've called in the PSS system many times.

Try the It Pro support number:

Contact Microsoft PSS on your local regional number US (800) 936-4900 or
UK (0870) 60 10 100.

Earl wrote:
Thanks Gary,

This phone number posted by you and Jerry is the generic "catch-all"
number for support. And then I get a non-English speaking person on my
first trip into the voice-jail.... then he routes me into a phone call
where someone wants to "help me fix something" ... then when I'm not a
"Premier" customer, they want me to go to the Microsoft website and put
this issue into a "wish list"... Give me a break, if Microsoft wants to
get serious about fixing this, they need a dedicated number, because I am
not going to jack around with all the b.s.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...

I'll resist commenting on your report (not because I discount it, but
because additional comment isn't required, s.)

...Except to say that, no, MS does not normally monitor these
newsgroups. For such issues to find their way to the people who can do
something about them, it usually requires many calls to PSS by many,
*many* affected users, and/or an MVP or other Partner Level entity to
take up the cause and push hard to get attention for it. This particular
issue, as it relates to Win9x systems, had gone unnoticed by the people
who were in a position to do anything about it until, by happenstance, I
managed to drop a report into the right place from which others who are
in a position to do so managed to get it the attention it needed. And
even then, it took quite a bit of time for the people who actually
answer Support calls to get on board and quit giving erroneous advice
about the update.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Earl" wrote in message
.. .

I will do so Gary, but I'm quite shocked Microsoft decided to release

this

"patch" to the WinME community in March after I had already posted

about it

several times on the microsoft.public.win2000.windows_update forum

since

they first released the patch for Win2k -- back in January (doesn't

anyone

"upstairs" read the update forums???). All of my users have long ago
uninstalled KB891711 on their malfunctioning Win2k systems.

But releasing 891711 to WinME after it had known issues with Win2k ...

well,

that was just throwing grease on the fire.

Read the following threads:

"Catastrophic OS failures with latest security updates" posted on

2/8/2005

"Strange spontanious reseting", posted on 2/8/2005
"Win2k and KB891711 a disaster", posted on 3/7/2005
"Which Updates to Install?", posted on 3/8/2005



"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
.. .

Please call the number below and share your experience with MS

Support.

I'm not sure they have sufficient data on this issue as it affects

Win2K

systems. (Wait until Monday, OK?)

1-866-PCSafety (1-866-727-2338)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Earl" wrote in message
. ..

Jerry,

This issue absolutely affects Windows 2000 also.


"Jerry Bryant [MSFT]" wrote in

message

...

Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on

Windows

98,

Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. At this point, we have been able

to

confirm

these reports and are currently working on a resolution.

Please note that by uninstalling the current update, the machine

will

return to a vulnerable state. At this point, we are currently

not

aware

of customer's being exploited by way of the vulnerability fixed

in

MS05-002 on Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. If you

need

additional assistance regarding this update, please contact +1

(866)

PCSAFETY. When calling, please indicate that you are having

issues

with a

security update.
--
Regards,

Jerry Bryant - MCSE, MCDBA
Microsoft IT Communities

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers

no

rights.

Thanks Gary, will do.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Earl,

If you want to email me with your real email addy, I can pass that to
the folks I've been dealing with. I use my real email addy for this NG,


--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Earl" wrote in message
...
Thanks Gary,

This phone number posted by you and Jerry is the generic "catch-all"
number
for support. And then I get a non-English speaking person on my first
trip
into the voice-jail.... then he routes me into a phone call where
someone
wants to "help me fix something" ... then when I'm not a "Premier"
customer,
they want me to go to the Microsoft website and put this issue into a
"wish
list"... Give me a break, if Microsoft wants to get serious about
fixing
this, they need a dedicated number, because I am not going to jack
around
with all the b.s.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
I'll resist commenting on your report (not because I discount it,
but
because additional comment isn't required, s.)

...Except to say that, no, MS does not normally monitor these
newsgroups. For such issues to find their way to the people who can
do
something about them, it usually requires many calls to PSS by many,
*many* affected users, and/or an MVP or other Partner Level entity
to
take up the cause and push hard to get attention for it. This
particular
issue, as it relates to Win9x systems, had gone unnoticed by the
people
who were in a position to do anything about it until, by
happenstance, I
managed to drop a report into the right place from which others who
are
in a position to do so managed to get it the attention it needed.
And
even then, it took quite a bit of time for the people who actually
answer Support calls to get on board and quit giving erroneous
advice
about the update.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Earl" wrote in message
...
I will do so Gary, but I'm quite shocked Microsoft decided to
release
this
"patch" to the WinME community in March after I had already posted
about it
several times on the microsoft.public.win2000.windows_update forum
since
they first released the patch for Win2k -- back in January (doesn't
anyone
"upstairs" read the update forums???). All of my users have long
ago
uninstalled KB891711 on their malfunctioning Win2k systems.

But releasing 891711 to WinME after it had known issues with Win2k
...
well,
that was just throwing grease on the fire.

Read the following threads:

"Catastrophic OS failures with latest security updates" posted on
2/8/2005
"Strange spontanious reseting", posted on 2/8/2005
"Win2k and KB891711 a disaster", posted on 3/7/2005
"Which Updates to Install?", posted on 3/8/2005



"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Please call the number below and share your experience with MS
Support.
I'm not sure they have sufficient data on this issue as it
affects
Win2K
systems. (Wait until Monday, OK?)

1-866-PCSafety (1-866-727-2338)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Earl" wrote in message
...
Jerry,

This issue absolutely affects Windows 2000 also.


"Jerry Bryant [MSFT]" wrote in
message
...
Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on
Windows
98,
Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. At this point, we have been
able
to
confirm
these reports and are currently working on a resolution.

Please note that by uninstalling the current update, the
machine
will
return to a vulnerable state. At this point, we are currently
not
aware
of customer's being exploited by way of the vulnerability
fixed
in
MS05-002 on Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. If you
need
additional assistance regarding this update, please contact +1
(866)
PCSAFETY. When calling, please indicate that you are having
issues
with a
security update.
--
Regards,

Jerry Bryant - MCSE, MCDBA
Microsoft IT Communities

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
no
rights.

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message ...

Yes, this problem has been often raised, and until the reference to
BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll, no solution has ever been apparent.

Just wondering...could shdocvw.dll have anything at all to do with the issue also? (Probably not since doing the browseui.dll and browselc.dll swap "fixes" the problem?)


There's a similar sort of problem where a fake (null-properties) W:
drive letter appears in the left pane of Explorer, sometimes with all
other drive letters vanishing. That was attributed to WinZip and
(AFAICR) some IE 5.xx versions, though I didn't find such a solid link
(i.e. I think I saw it in the absence of WinZip).

Then there's general flakiness of Windows Explorer, such that renames
or deletions often don't appear in the left pane until an explicit F5
to refresh. Happens especially in Start Menu.

Then there's the slowdown in Start Menu that started with Win98 (may
be related to IE 4's "Desktop Integration"). Whereas in pre-IE4
Win95xx, the Start Menu appears as fast as delay setting allows, and
appears in a single flash, in Win98+ it dribbles from top downwards;
you can feel the slowness as each icon gets painted in.

This may be hidden by the artificially-added slowness of Win98's
"animation" feature. It's pretty obvious once that feature's
disabled; one wonders if the "feature" was added to cover it up!

I have one more quirk, although I'm not sure it has to do with Windows Explorer. When you start up the computer, go to Start - Settings - Control Panel IMMEDIATELY afer Windows loads, i.e. as soon as you can. You'll experience a delay of a couple of seconds before the control panel comes up. I've seen this on all Windows 98 SE machines I've dealt with. But arguably it's a very small problem, especially when compared to the other thing we're discussing!


Now I know some see shuffling those .DLLs as a definitive fix; I would
too, as long as I don't have to fall below IE 5.5 SP2 (and thus run
the risk or regressing to the point that MIME-spoofing attacks are
once again facilitated by the OS).

The latest version of IE 5.5 SP2 browseui.dll is found in the MS05-014 patch for Windows Me, KB867282.



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

I DON'T DO that kind of Deleting all that often, I once said!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| Why are you even waiting? Just switch the DLLs, and join us here in
the
| 21st Century, with a *working* Explorer.
|
| PCR wrote:
| I can wait that long; Colorado, too. I'm hoping, really, cquirke
might
| get an MSFT person involved.
....snip

CQuirke! Am I correct that the Windows 95 explorer does not depend on any of these browse*.dll files? What would happen if you replaced Windows 98 SE explorer.exe with the Windows 95 SR 2.1 version of explorer.exe? I know there would be some functionality lost, such as view as web page, or the address bar. I wonder whether someone could give me a *complete* account of how explorer is integrated with IE, including files, registry entries, functionality, etc.
Thanks,
Ivan


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:00:39 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
PA Bear wrote:

Rick, I don't think MS05-002/KB891711 has anything to do with the issue
about which you post.

Of course we all knowMS05-002/KB891711 has nothing to do with the link I
gave. http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

As I said I took this extra opportunity to tag onto Jerry Bryant MCSE,
MCDBA post to express to the MS coders about another issue that is
of great importance for 9x to get fixed - besides what the OP is about.
I apologize for tagging onto it, but felt it was important enough.

I'm inclined to agree with Rick on this; this is IMO the biggest
hassle with Win9x, and a poor show that it's remained unfixed.

(As you know, my position is that IE6 with SP1 installed has
fixed your issue for the vast majority of Win98 users.)

Nope. It's a difficult issue to pin down, as it is intermittent but
"sticky" - I suspect it latches into problem mode once tripped there
by some sort of race condition (mis-timed, ?simultaneous events).

So it's been hard to pin it down to particular versions of anything.
I'm not even that sure it affects only IE 6 xx or Win98xx, for example

But it's significant, given that it makes it extremely tedious to do
real, bread-and-butter file management. That's why it's such an
embarrasment; an OS that can't copy files from one place to another is
like a car that can't turn its wheels around.

I can tell you this, though; IE 6 SP1 doesn't fix the issue in
Win98SE. I know, because that's the hardware I live with, and I see
this issue on a regular basis! Once the issue starts - classically
after doing a bulk erase or copy, whether Recycle Bin is bypassed or
not - then every attempt to rename or delete files or create new
folders will fail in the same way. The problem stops when
Explorer.exe is restarted, either by killing it as a task in the
Ctl+Alt+Del list, or by shutting down and restarting Windows.

Again here too Robert I have no idea what you are referring to, but surely
you are mistaken here of what we are talking about which has been well
confirmed in this 9x newsgroup a hundred times over the last 2 years;
thousands of times elsewhere. The issue that the link
http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm speaks about was never
fixed and I can guarantee it's 100% immutable that the problem does exist for
W98x. I would of not stuck my neck out to make my post if it wasn't.

Yes, this problem has been often raised, and until the reference to
BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll, no solution has ever been apparent.

There's a similar sort of problem where a fake (null-properties) W:
drive letter appears in the left pane of Explorer, sometimes with all
other drive letters vanishing. That was attributed to WinZip and
(AFAICR) some IE 5.xx versions, though I didn't find such a solid link
(i.e. I think I saw it in the absence of WinZip).

Then there's general flakiness of Windows Explorer, such that renames
or deletions often don't appear in the left pane until an explicit F5
to refresh. Happens especially in Start Menu.

Then there's the slowdown in Start Menu that started with Win98 (may
be related to IE 4's "Desktop Integration"). Whereas in pre-IE4
Win95xx, the Start Menu appears as fast as delay setting allows, and
appears in a single flash, in Win98+ it dribbles from top downwards;
you can feel the slowness as each icon gets painted in.

This may be hidden by the artificially-added slowness of Win98's
"animation" feature. It's pretty obvious once that feature's
disabled; one wonders if the "feature" was added to cover it up!


Now I know some see shuffling those .DLLs as a definitive fix; I would
too, as long as I don't have to fall below IE 5.5 SP2 (and thus run
the risk or regressing to the point that MIME-spoofing attacks are
once again facilitated by the OS).



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

www.litepc.com


Rick

Ivan Bútora wrote:
CQuirke! Am I correct that the Windows 95 explorer does not depend on any of these browse*.dll files? What would happen if you replaced Windows 98 SE explorer.exe with the Windows 95 SR 2.1 version of explorer.exe? I know there would be some functionality lost, such as view as web page, or the address bar. I wonder whether someone could give me a *complete* account of how explorer is integrated with IE, including files, registry entries, functionality, etc.
Thanks,
Ivan


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:00:39 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"

PA Bear wrote:

Rick, I don't think MS05-002/KB891711 has anything to do with the issue
about which you post.

Of course we all knowMS05-002/KB891711 has nothing to do with the link I
gave. http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

As I said I took this extra opportunity to tag onto Jerry Bryant MCSE,
MCDBA post to express to the MS coders about another issue that is
of great importance for 9x to get fixed - besides what the OP is about.
I apologize for tagging onto it, but felt it was important enough.

I'm inclined to agree with Rick on this; this is IMO the biggest
hassle with Win9x, and a poor show that it's remained unfixed.


(As you know, my position is that IE6 with SP1 installed has
fixed your issue for the vast majority of Win98 users.)

Nope. It's a difficult issue to pin down, as it is intermittent but
"sticky" - I suspect it latches into problem mode once tripped there
by some sort of race condition (mis-timed, ?simultaneous events).

So it's been hard to pin it down to particular versions of anything.
I'm not even that sure it affects only IE 6 xx or Win98xx, for example

But it's significant, given that it makes it extremely tedious to do
real, bread-and-butter file management. That's why it's such an
embarrasment; an OS that can't copy files from one place to another is
like a car that can't turn its wheels around.

I can tell you this, though; IE 6 SP1 doesn't fix the issue in
Win98SE. I know, because that's the hardware I live with, and I see
this issue on a regular basis! Once the issue starts - classically
after doing a bulk erase or copy, whether Recycle Bin is bypassed or
not - then every attempt to rename or delete files or create new
folders will fail in the same way. The problem stops when
Explorer.exe is restarted, either by killing it as a task in the
Ctl+Alt+Del list, or by shutting down and restarting Windows.


Again here too Robert I have no idea what you are referring to, but surely
you are mistaken here of what we are talking about which has been well
confirmed in this 9x newsgroup a hundred times over the last 2 years;
thousands of times elsewhere. The issue that the link
http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm speaks about was never
fixed and I can guarantee it's 100% immutable that the problem does exist for
W98x. I would of not stuck my neck out to make my post if it wasn't.

Yes, this problem has been often raised, and until the reference to
BrowseLC.dll and BrowseUI.dll, no solution has ever been apparent.

There's a similar sort of problem where a fake (null-properties) W:
drive letter appears in the left pane of Explorer, sometimes with all
other drive letters vanishing. That was attributed to WinZip and
(AFAICR) some IE 5.xx versions, though I didn't find such a solid link
(i.e. I think I saw it in the absence of WinZip).

Then there's general flakiness of Windows Explorer, such that renames
or deletions often don't appear in the left pane until an explicit F5
to refresh. Happens especially in Start Menu.

Then there's the slowdown in Start Menu that started with Win98 (may
be related to IE 4's "Desktop Integration"). Whereas in pre-IE4
Win95xx, the Start Menu appears as fast as delay setting allows, and
appears in a single flash, in Win98+ it dribbles from top downwards;
you can feel the slowness as each icon gets painted in.

This may be hidden by the artificially-added slowness of Win98's
"animation" feature. It's pretty obvious once that feature's
disabled; one wonders if the "feature" was added to cover it up!


Now I know some see shuffling those .DLLs as a definitive fix; I would
too, as long as I don't have to fall below IE 5.5 SP2 (and thus run
the risk or regressing to the point that MIME-spoofing attacks are
once again facilitated by the OS).




---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

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

---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -