MS05-002 on 9x and ME

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

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:35:54 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
glee wrote:

This is what I have been wondering about, as all the machines I support
(including my own) with Win98SE have IE6 SP1 installed, and I have *never*
seen this problem......and I quite often perform the procedures mentioned
as being the cause. --

Interesting. Do you:
- run with "View As Web Page"? (I don't)
No

- run with Active Desktop? (I don't)
No

- show full path in title bar? (I do)
Yes

- show all files and .ext? (I do)
Yes

- use multiple HD volumes? (I do)
Yes


Specifically, I favor large HDs (this PC has a 120G) set up with FAT32
C: around 7.9G, and the rest as an extended with 2G FAT16 D:, large
FAT32 E: and 2G FAT16 (or lately, 7.9G FAT32) F:

This system has a 20GB and a 10GB physical drives, partitioned into C: through K:.
All FAT32 except FAT I: at 2GB. C: and D: are ~2GB (there is a second C: hidden
with another OS on it, for dual-boot), E: is 6GB, F: is ~1GB, G: is 2.5GB, H: and J
are1.8GB, K: is 7.8GB


I hear you and have always respected what you have to say Glen.
I just don't have an explanation why you have not seen it? ..and I'm
interested.

Me2. It's patchy, in fact for a while I never saw it on this PC
either. Once it started, it happens quite often if I ever have to
delete or shunt a few thousand files around. By that time I
recognised it from other "in the field" experiences; it's been going
on for some years now. It's come up in newsgroups from time to time,
and I always "troll for clue", but no answers until now; the consensus
seemed to be "yes, known bug, no /kb article on it, no fix coming".

That sounds like a fair assessment at the moment, though not really "fair". So,
Chris, you are saying it requires a mass copy or delete of "a few thousand" files to
trigger the problem? I don't know that I have done a few thousand at one shot,
though I have easily deleted or moved a thousand at once with no problem. Perhaps I
should test with a much larger amount of files.


Maybe the MVP programmer in charge can get with cquirke since he has the
depth of experience to carry out. I will help out where I can.

I'd be happy to help too. I've not done any bulk ops since the last
patching (this week, I wanted to test the resident new problem patch,
but that's working fine here!). If I can figure out which IE 5.5 .CAB
contain BrowseUI.dll and BrowseLC.dll, I'd extract those and test the
reported fix. Surely if it can be pinned down to 2 .DLLs, we must be
close to finding the fix? Bwaaahahahaha!! ;-)

You would think! Unfortunately, at this point, I wonder if there is anyone left in
the IE6 SP1 development office, besides the mice and the cobwebs.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

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.

....and installing all post-SP1 critical updates.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (Shell, IE/OE) & Security

Mastering Newsgroups in Outlook Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...ewsgroups.mspx

Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] wrote:
Sources that I'm reading is that sp1 fixed it?

That makes me wonder if it isn't a GDI resource problem, and not
the file system. And the fact that the DOS VM isn't affected and
eventually does use the same underlying file system.

IIRC browseui is (for one thing) the handler for the "file progress bar".


"Bill in Co." wrote in message ...
Actually, if you want to get right down to it, I believe the problem is
primarily, if not exclusively, in browseui.dll. The other one
(browselc.dll) is more incidental.

But the recommendation was to switch both as a pair, and I think that makes
sense logically, since they're both "browse DLLs", and it's probably better
to keep the versions more consistent there.

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

[.....]

but that's working fine here!). If I can figure out which IE 5.5 .CAB
contain BrowseUI.dll and BrowseLC.dll, I'd extract those and test the
reported fix. Surely if it can be pinned down to 2 .DLLs, we must be
close to finding the fix? Bwaaahahahaha!! ;-)

I've just reproduced the problem here, with a mass delete. The copy process did not
cause the problem for me....only the delete. I had to delete a rather large number
of files (3348 files; 100 folders; 312MB) to get the issue to occur. The deletion
was moving along nicely....the progress bar went along for a while, and then
suddenly at "10 seconds left" on the progress bar, Windows Explorer went mostly
blank (at least the right pane did, and remnants of the progress dialog box remained
in that pane. Explorer was frozen, though I could still open folder windows. It
never did unfreeze, and I was finally able to get the Close Program box to respond,
and kill the Windows Explorer process, which also seemed to restart Explorer, the
shell, as the System Tray refreshed and lost some icons. The display remnants and
the occurrence during the progress bar dialog seems to go along with your idea that
it is a GDI resource problem and not the file system.

This is a nasty bug, now that I have seen it.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill Blanton" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder if it isn't a GDI resource problem, and not
the file system. And the fact that the DOS VM isn't affected and
eventually does use the same underlying file system.

IIRC browseui is (for one thing) the handler for the "file progress bar".


"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Actually, if you want to get right down to it, I believe the problem is
primarily, if not exclusively, in browseui.dll. The other one
(browselc.dll) is more incidental.

But the recommendation was to switch both as a pair, and I think that makes
sense logically, since they're both "browse DLLs", and it's probably better
to keep the versions more consistent there.

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

[.....]

but that's working fine here!). If I can figure out which IE 5.5 .CAB
contain BrowseUI.dll and BrowseLC.dll, I'd extract those and test the
reported fix. Surely if it can be pinned down to 2 .DLLs, we must be
close to finding the fix? Bwaaahahahaha!! ;-)

I have just reproduced the problem here (see my reply to Bill Blanton in this
thread) by doing a mass deletion of 3348 files and 100 folders. The copy process
did *not* cause any issues here. This is a PITA bug.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:35:54 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
glee wrote:

This is what I have been wondering about, as all the machines I support
(including my own) with Win98SE have IE6 SP1 installed, and I have *never*
seen this problem......and I quite often perform the procedures mentioned
as being the cause. --

Interesting. Do you:
- run with "View As Web Page"? (I don't)
- run with Active Desktop? (I don't)
- show full path in title bar? (I do)
- show all files and .ext? (I do)
- use multiple HD volumes? (I do)

Specifically, I favor large HDs (this PC has a 120G) set up with FAT32
C: around 7.9G, and the rest as an extended with 2G FAT16 D:, large
FAT32 E: and 2G FAT16 (or lately, 7.9G FAT32) F:

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

I hear you and have always respected what you have to say Glen.
I just don't have an explanation why you have not seen it? ..and I'm
interested.

Me2. It's patchy, in fact for a while I never saw it on this PC
either. Once it started, it happens quite often if I ever have to
delete or shunt a few thousand files around. By that time I
recognised it from other "in the field" experiences; it's been going
on for some years now. It's come up in newsgroups from time to time,
and I always "troll for clue", but no answers until now; the consensus
seemed to be "yes, known bug, no /kb article on it, no fix coming".

Maybe the MVP programmer in charge can get with cquirke since he has the
depth of experience to carry out. I will help out where I can.

I'd be happy to help too. I've not done any bulk ops since the last
patching (this week, I wanted to test the resident new problem patch,
but that's working fine here!). If I can figure out which IE 5.5 .CAB
contain BrowseUI.dll and BrowseLC.dll, I'd extract those and test the
reported fix. Surely if it can be pinned down to 2 .DLLs, we must be
close to finding the fix? Bwaaahahahaha!! ;-)

Naturally I have IE6SP1 with all the latest updates installed with Nothing
else running in the background and can reproduce this at will.

The only difference that I have that others may not is that on my boxes I
triple boot between 9x, W2K, & WXP but where each is specifically Fat32 for
my own requirements. What that may mean to a programmer is that I'm open
across partitions where normally it's recommend to hide partitions or have
2K or XP NTFS at the same time. I also prefer to use the simplicity of
pqboot as my preferred booter. I also run a controller cards on all
computers for the many advantages that gives me. That's the only uniqueness
of my setups that I have used forever, otherwise all is normal. If any of
those things are an issue - which if any - it could only be that having the
three particular OS combinations on unhidden FAT32 partitions ..then so be
it; However, if cquirke says he does not do that - then that eliminates that
and then it's clear then that with IE6SP1 there is Still a problem.

I run multiple HD volumes, but no other OSs, boot managers or multiple
primary partitions. The installation is fresh Win98SE a few years
ago; the IE upgrade path was likely IE 6 then IE 6 SP1, both times
with Full as the selection, then the following renamed away...
- MSHTA.EXE
- WScript.exe
- CScript.exe
- SHSCrap.dll
...in the interests of risk management. This PC has a LAN card
connected to ADSL router, no other PCs on LAN right now, and there has
never been a server OS, domain controller, or ICS in effect. The PC's
IP is fixed, and the router doesn't assign IP addresses to it.

Hopefully Chris will jump in here with his explanations of his setup

As above

My only goal is for results and I never care who is right or wrong even if
it's me who is wrong - that's fine, I just want to focus on the truth and get
results.

IKWYM - frankly, I wish I was wrong more often, when being right has
meant problems that have taken thier toll (e.g. when malware catches
up with risks that were clearly apparent at the theory level).



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

I have repro'd the issue here, Rick, but only occurred with a mass deletion, not a
mass copy. See my reply to Bill Blanton in this thread.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
This is what I have been wondering about, as all the machines I support
(including my own) with Win98SE have IE6 SP1 installed, and I have *never*
seen this problem......and I quite often perform the procedures mentioned
as being the cause. --
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

I hear you and have always respected what you have to say Glen.

I just don't have an explanation why you have not seen it? ..and I'm
interested.

My experience has been the opposite. I know you've been around a
long time and so I'm sure you've seen all the posts about it last year and
before when it kept coming up? Anyway I can reproduce it at any moment.
Maybe the MVP programmer in charge can get with cquirke since he has the
depth of experience to carry out. I will help out where I can.

Naturally I have IE6SP1 with all the latest updates installed with Nothing
else running in the background and can reproduce this at will.

The only difference that I have that others may not is that on my boxes I
triple boot between 9x, W2K, & WXP but where each is specifically Fat32 for
my own requirements. What that may mean to a programmer is that I'm open
across partitions where normally it's recommend to hide partitions or have
2K or XP NTFS at the same time. I also prefer to use the simplicity of
pqboot as my preferred booter. I also run a controller cards on all
computers for the many advantages that gives me. That's the only uniqueness
of my setups that I have used forever, otherwise all is normal. If any of
those things are an issue - which if any - it could only be that having the
three particular OS combinations on unhidden FAT32 partitions ..then so be
it; However, if cquirke says he does not do that - then that eliminates that
and then it's clear then that with IE6SP1 there is Still a problem.

Hopefully Chris will jump in here with his explanations of his setup and more
insight about it as he has much more computer hands on experience than I to
detail this; but I will always help where I can but would only prefer to work
with those who are in charge and who have the power to make changes.
My only goal is for results and I never care who is right or wrong even if
it's me who is wrong - that's fine, I just want to focus on the truth and get
results.

Thank you,

Rick