ThankYou Mac page at WinUP site?

How many here are (still) seeing the error message quoted in MEB's post?

Some of us are discussing this "elsewhere" [that's a hint, GAry] and need a
body count. Win ME users have been seeing the same thing, too. Nothing
definitive to tell you at this point.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)

MEB wrote:
Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.

This website is designed to work with Microsoft Windows operating systems
only.
To find updates for Microsoft products that are designed for Macintosh
operating systems, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/mac/.
snip
"Lee" wrote in message
ups.com...
I can't be the only one looking at the Thank You for showing an
interest in Windows you Macintosh user page can I? Anybody seen
RoBear lately? We need an insider to tell them that they broke Win98
access on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 3:17:02 PM when they changed
to the new redirect.js file at the WinUp sites. Catalog site too.
Hmm...what's a 'ThanksVistaV4Catalog' from inside the new redirect.js
file?

Can anybody get in or is it a total lockout? I can't believe it's
almost midnight and nobody else has posted on the subject. Am I
really that lucky - all afternoon chasing my tail all alone? Since
about 3:17:02 as well...

PA Bear wrote:
| How many here are (still) seeing the error message quoted in MEB's
| post?

Today it was busted again. Then, it worked again, as I posted to myself
above. When it doesn't work, nothing shows up in ""Windows Update.log"".
After that, believe it or not, it failed AGAIN to work... but turns out
the NetZero connection went bad, looks like. After a reboot &
re-establishing the connection all is well again, even with OEQuotefix
running...

........Quote..............
Welcome to Windows Update

Get the latest updates available for your computer's operating system,
software, and hardware.

Windows Update scans your computer and provides you with a selection of
updates tailored just for you.
........EOQ................

But I hesitate to try again! There no new updates for me, anyhow.

| Some of us are discussing this "elsewhere" [that's a hint, GAry] and
| need a body count. Win ME users have been seeing the same thing,
| too. Nothing definitive to tell you at this point.
| --
| ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
| MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
|
| MEB wrote:
| Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.
|
| This website is designed to work with Microsoft Windows operating
| systems only.
| To find updates for Microsoft products that are designed for
| Macintosh operating systems, please visit
| http://www.microsoft.com/mac/. snip
| "Lee" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| I can't be the only one looking at the Thank You for showing an
| interest in Windows you Macintosh user page can I? Anybody seen
| RoBear lately? We need an insider to tell them that they broke
| Win98 access on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 3:17:02 PM when they
| changed to the new redirect.js file at the WinUp sites. Catalog
| site too. Hmm...what's a 'ThanksVistaV4Catalog' from inside the new
| redirect.js file?
|
| Can anybody get in or is it a total lockout? I can't believe it's
| almost midnight and nobody else has posted on the subject. Am I
| really that lucky - all afternoon chasing my tail all alone? Since
| about 3:17:02 as well...

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

"Lee" wrote in message
oups.com

http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=winup3wv7.png

Hi Lee, yes I did see your png screenshot you uploaded to imageshack and
gave us the link, and I posted back that I did see it. Is that what you
meant?

I wanted to tell you though to give us the bottom imageshack link so that
we don't see the extra bottom add stuff, iow, after you upload an image and
they give you many different links to choose from, please copy the very
bottom link that's called "Direct link to image" and copy it and that's the
one to always use so that's it's just your picture and nothing else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your screenshots information is clear and a picture tells a thousand words,
but I've never seen that particular webpage look like that and I cannot
tell you why it did for you.

Now as PCR says for him, and today for me too, no matter which link I click
I see this webpage:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5015/mac2dp3.gif

I just see PCR just made a new post saying that his is now working 30
minutes later, but fwiw, I still get what I show in my link above..
Yesterday when you all said it wouldn't work for you - it did for me ...go
figure. It must be from where were are accessing the website directs us
differently at any one time.

Rick

Rick Chauvin wrote:
| "Lee" wrote in message
| oups.com
|
| http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=winup3wv7.png
|
| Hi Lee, yes I did see your png screenshot you uploaded to imageshack
| and gave us the link, and I posted back that I did see it. Is that
| what you meant?
|
| I wanted to tell you though to give us the bottom imageshack link so
| that we don't see the extra bottom add stuff, iow, after you upload
| an image and they give you many different links to choose from,
| please copy the very bottom link that's called "Direct link to image"
| and copy it and that's the one to always use so that's it's just your
| picture and nothing else. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| Your screenshots information is clear and a picture tells a thousand
| words, but I've never seen that particular webpage look like that and
| I cannot tell you why it did for you.
|
| Now as PCR says for him, and today for me too, no matter which link I
| click I see this webpage:
| http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5015/mac2dp3.gif
|
| I just see PCR just made a new post saying that his is now working 30
| minutes later, but fwiw, I still get what I show in my link above..
| Yesterday when you all said it wouldn't work for you - it did for me
| ...go figure. It must be from where were are accessing the website
| directs us differently at any one time.

And it's still working right now-- at 4:19 PM -- twice in a row, even!
Could be as you suggest & as I've heard before that some kind of
sub-server is responsible. That is, we don't necessarily get to the same
place the same way each time we click the same URL, if I've understood
that correctly.

But, clearly it is an MS server problem or something on their end, as PA
Bear reports it is happening to ME folk too-- not just to Win98! Also,
the situation is intermittent in nature for the same people.

| Rick

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

"Lee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| On Feb 26, 8:30 am, "MEB" meb@not wrote:
| "Lee" wrote in message
|
| Huh, abuse USENET? What the heck are you talking about?
|
| That mile long repost of another message which is kinda like one of
| PCR's master posts for which he just gets kidded about but really
| should be snipped out of some of the messages in a thread at least
| SOME.
| Come on you guys, this stuff is being saved for posterity by Google
| and you are too lazy to care or snip/use links? Especially when
| messages in a thread devolve into trading one liners...

Debated whether I should even respond to this. but yeah I will. Read it all
before you get peeved.

We, and in particular myself, know full well these things are saved upon
Google's vast data base. Tell me something I don't know.
However, you apparently fail to consider, that the same style of questions
are constantly repeated in all of the Forums and News groups, over and over
again.
What is generally found across the Forums/News Groups is, eventually,
common questions and corresponding answers are collected by the standard
posters, or the originator of the posting, and these are used and posted
upon occassion to negate constantly re-typing the same old answers to the
same old questions. To provide the relevance, a basis HAS to be included.
That requires a foundation, e.g., the relationship to potential questions.
OTOH, there are those who do constantly re-type the information, though that
brings the problem of a potential failure/error. One generally spends more
time creating/supplying the original answer, whereas, redundant questions
may get less attention.
AHHA, you say, that's my [your] point, use Google's referencing.

Of course, you personally, may actually do the proper googling/searching
for your answers, good for you. Others, however, come to the respective
Forum/answer group for their Q&A. Go ahead, search generally or specifically
in any forum or on Google, this is what you'll find. Certain People, at
times, want or need personalized "hand holding" or guidance, or may come up
with something they think is unique. Does it matter that the issues are
constantly rehashed? Not really; don't want to read them, then don't. That
happens to be one of the few things you can still control in your own life.

Better yet, search for ANY type of information or answer, and you'll likely
find several hundred thousand hits for any given question and several
thousand more search results for the various search variables associated
with ANY GIVEN question. Then check the other lesser, or private search
engines for those same answers and information.

So here's your new job: since you've apparently assigned yourself as the
net's nanny:
You will need to personally go to all the sites and tell them the question
answered upon their site has already been answered by "suchandsuch" at
"whatever" address. Tell them to pull down their redundant information. When
you've done with those several million sites, then go to all the various
Forums and discussion groups and tell them the same thing. While your at it,
advise all those parties of the copyright infringements that they are in
violation of.
That's your new job as the self-assigned Internet Guru on proper
information/net cleanup and the supposed USENET abuse, that you think this
is or was.

When you get that done, you will then need to create the master
informational pages with all the proper links to the exact answers with all
the infinate search terms that might be used, so Google, MSN/Microsoft,
Yahoo, and the dozens of other search engines, can use their servers for
more poignant information. Let me know when your done so I can add your
master informational site to my site's search page.
I think you'll likely have some difficulty with that beyond the sheer
impossibility; these search engines will be losing money, so you'll likely
be semi-politely informed to stop. Moreover, your master site will be filled
with nothing of value beyond links to information; one the several hundred
thousand of those types of sites now on the net.

I appreciate though, your right to make your statement. But it fails to
address other users rights and needs.

|
| Glad you have the files, hope everyone does; and has some plan for
future
| updates, whatever they are.
|
| As for order of installation: whatever seems to work for you. My
routine is
| quite different, and comes from years of trial and error usage, and
| servicing other's computers and networks.
|
| Me too, sans the network stuff. I was all set to release a
| methodology on how to save to disk all the MS updates from the old V3
| WinUP site when MS changed their feathers completely and allowed that
| very thing for the first time EVER in history via the V4 Catalog. I
| had a complete, up to date collection of MS updates for Win98 saved to
| disk BEFORE the V4 WinUP site ever launched!! If I might have had 6
| months lead time, my bottom line might still have shown a difference
| to this day.
|
| So I believe the difference in stance comes from basic philosophy
| differences. You are out to quantify all aspects possible at all
| times and I'm out to do that only when it's actually neccessary.

Yep, I've got the files for: 95 A, B, and C; 98 and 98SE; XP PRO; MSDOS
thru 6.22; CP/M; Red Hat Linux [one specific version with all the RPMs I
thought were the best]; Xenix [Harris/Lanier], and several other OS/systems
and files. WHY I have them is the unanswerable question.

Therefore it becomes a "Perhaps, perhaps not". My suggestions came as the
results of several years of servicing computers and networks. But as usual
YMMV.

|
| |
| | As I type this, MS keeps swapping out redirect.js files at the WinUP
| | sites. About three this PM it was still not working for me, but at 7
| | it did. At that time the redirect.js had a modified date of october
| | last, and since then I get Thursday, February 22, 2007, 4:56 PM which
| | is the one that wasn't working for me yesterday either. I did get
| | through using IE 5.50 SP2 with the latest WSH using this url which I
| | never seen before.
| |http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu....aspx?ln=en-us
|
| That one is interesting, as that was never Win98.
|
| |
| | Seems a bit bizarre to use a V6 url when that's the very Kiss off one
| | I am trying to avoid but I got to V4 WinUP site first try using it
| | about 7 PM. Things went from better to worse until I finally got this
| | text based WinUP site for to show Rick Chauvin:
| |http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=winup3wv7.png
| |
| | So I'm about done with all this - thanks for all the suggestions guys
| | but as long as MS is still working on it, I can't complain too loud.
| | And they are so I won't.
| |
|
| Complain? Likely the complaints that got this fixed, came from people
using
| authorized and supported versions of other Microsoft products. I doubt
| seriously that if just 98 users complained it would have much effect at
all.
| However, that's just my opine.
|
| --
| MEBhttp://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
| _______________
|
| I don't believe _any_ complaints got MS up and working on this issue,
| it's just a matter of keeping house as per usual I'm sure. My first
| post mentioned a V4 Vista Catalog which is likely what MS is trying to
| bring online with the new script file 'redirect.js' at the WinUP
| site.

As we both noted.

| As in the past, MS will try this script and then that one until
| they all work for all the platforms that they are supposed to without
| any input from us at all. I was hoping to put a bug into RoBear's ear
| that there was something amiss at the sight so that he might do the
| same for the (echo) Keepers of the WinUP Script (/echo). He has been
| able to do that before on rare occasion as unlike me, he won't get
| ignored by them so completely as you or I would. But silly me, I
| jumped the gun after just 8 hours of WTF?, a lesson we could all
| learn.

That's true, Robear does have connections we don't have. Moreover, is
leavaging his weight around to get it fixed, ONE MORE TIME. But then even
that will likely end sometime.

So you came here to complain about an unsupported OS hoping to find Robear
so he could apply preasure.
Okay, that's your right, maybe it worked.

The question is, why would Microsoft be screwing with V4?
If it is only for Win98/ME users or to continue to supply files to those
users, there never needs to be a change, as any change would have to be
designed around the last official Microsoft activities and how the OSs were
left at support end, which means V4 is static. That will never officially
change, ever.
Now, OTOH, if the base server coding was changed and the Microsoft
supported OSs have no issue with that change; Microsoft has no present
responsibility to modify that code to work with the unsupported OSs. So
again, this is a repeated complaint concerning an unsupported OS, which,
under your terms, would be an abuse of the USENET.
Time to pull your head from the clouds and realize what that actually
means.
Then ask yourself these questions:
Why are you still using WINUPDATE for your systems if [as you have
presented] you supposedly no longer need it? and,
Why would you think you should have the ability to complain when anything
on Microsoft doesn't work with your unsupported OS?

Then realize: WE, the users of the OSs, are now the unofficial support, and
the ONLY reliable support.

So whether you like it or not, I'll continue to place my attempts to inform
the users of the 98 OS what works for me, what I have found through
research, and otherwise answer their questions individually (in short answer
or long) if that's what is required. I presume everyone else on this forum
will as well. You think its abuse; submit the complaint to the proper
parties.

|
| I'll assume since Rick Chauvin didn't mention that he couldn't see my
| post at imageshack that in fact he DID, which means that it's probably
| there for everybody else too. I wouldn't know that for sure because
| I'm the one that put it there and I might have special access to it as
| I have run into that before. Glad to know posting that wasn't a waste
| of time, but I sure wish I could have saved the one where I had empty
| Add boxes as it was way freaky to see. I'm also very glad it's not an
| IE 6 vs IE 5.50 SP2 issue as I'm still not ready to give up on IE 5.50
| SP2 just yet.
|

Yeah, suppose that would have been interesting to someone.

Use whatever suits your purposes, though realize that IE6 and IE5 have
exploitable holes and flaws, so using them for anything OTHER THAN contact
with Microsoft/MSN is not very smart IMO.

Well, if you've read all this BEFORE responding, I'm sure you may see that
the point is made. No reply is necessary, as each of us chooses our own
method of use on the Internet.

Good luck with your continued usage.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

Don't know if this will help out or not, but worth a shot for comparison.
This is what I find on the 98SE in VPC for the date/time frame just before I
responded in this thread after running MSUDs. Today is the first day running the VPC
98SE since that date.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/inq4.htm


--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375



"PA Bear" wrote in message
...
How many here are (still) seeing the error message quoted in MEB's post?

Some of us are discussing this "elsewhere" [that's a hint, GAry] and need a body
count. Win ME users have been seeing the same thing, too. Nothing definitive to
tell you at this point.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)

MEB wrote:
Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.

This website is designed to work with Microsoft Windows operating systems
only.
To find updates for Microsoft products that are designed for Macintosh
operating systems, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/mac/.
snip
"Lee" wrote in message
ups.com...
I can't be the only one looking at the Thank You for showing an
interest in Windows you Macintosh user page can I? Anybody seen
RoBear lately? We need an insider to tell them that they broke Win98
access on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 3:17:02 PM when they changed
to the new redirect.js file at the WinUp sites. Catalog site too.
Hmm...what's a 'ThanksVistaV4Catalog' from inside the new redirect.js
file?

Can anybody get in or is it a total lockout? I can't believe it's
almost midnight and nobody else has posted on the subject. Am I
really that lucky - all afternoon chasing my tail all alone? Since
about 3:17:02 as well...

I am just curious:
did anybody realy found a solution for that problem? Or what is causing it?
It looks like som escripting is not accepted, but all seems to be enabled on
my side.
I had the problem on one recent installation, but it did cure itself after
some updates were installed manually.
However noe only ver few updates seem to be avaiable from the download site
manualy and the relevant might not be there.

Is there any clear results? The key described in the KB is not on my machine
anyway, nothing to delet therefore.

Several MVPs discussed this problem with the WU team during the Global
Summit earlier this month so rest assured MS is aware of the problem.
Whether they'll do anything about it remains to be seen.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org

Otto Sykora wrote:
I am just curious:
did anybody realy found a solution for that problem? Or what is causing
it?
It looks like som escripting is not accepted, but all seems to be enabled
on
my side.
I had the problem on one recent installation, but it did cure itself after
some updates were installed manually.
However noe only ver few updates seem to be avaiable from the download
site
manualy and the relevant might not be there.

Is there any clear results? The key described in the KB is not on my
machine
anyway, nothing to delet therefore.

It took TWO tries, but did just work for me. Here is what I see for
Win98 at...

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...en/default.asp
.......Quote..........
Your search returned 171 results
Select from the list below to see updates found in each category.

Critical Updates and Service Packs (78)
Additional Windows Downloads (1)
Internet and Multimedia Updates (1)
Multi-Language Features (75)
Recommended Updates (15)
Windows Tools (1)
Advanced Security Updates (0)
.........EOQ................

So, try it twice in a row-- or until Bear & the other MVPs storm the
castle with sharpened claws!


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

"Otto Sykora" wrote in message
...
|
|
| I am just curious:
| did anybody realy found a solution for that problem? Or what is
causing it?
| It looks like som escripting is not accepted, but all seems to be
enabled on
| my side.
| I had the problem on one recent installation, but it did cure itself
after
| some updates were installed manually.
| However noe only ver few updates seem to be avaiable from the download
site
| manualy and the relevant might not be there.
|
| Is there any clear results? The key described in the KB is not on my
machine
| anyway, nothing to delet therefore.
|