Chaining updates in W98

KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1 restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

asur wrote:
KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1 restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

Windows Update does NOT chain updates for 98, what it does instead is
not offer prior updates but only the latest one (of any possible
series) that applies to your machine. Viv le scan!

QCheck tool actually reads file versions and modifies a registry key of
NT only machines to insure that same named files that are pending
replacement into the system have the highest version number no matter
what order the updates were applied. Even then IIRC, some of the older
updates for Win2K couldn't be used with QCheck because they weren't
written with the tool in mind at the time of their release.
only for reference to NT only reg key - not related to topic per se.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312995

I'm thinking you are a bit optimistic with one reboot at WinUP site.
Ie 6.00 SP1 requires a reboot of it's own (and can't be downloaded with
any other update) so that would make at least two reboots to start
with? Doing multiple updates at WinUp site, especially big ones like 5
meg MS Java build 3810 leave a lot of users with machines that don't
boot, you'll never get me to recommend more than two updates at a time
for online users.

1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
and get those two straight in your mind.

2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...corporate=true as a
place to start learning more about this topic.

3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
of tech knowledge and responsibility.

4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
why, I'm not a programmer.

5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
one.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of QChain
and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now, thanks.
The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one restart (and
preferably without each update asking for restart)?

Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh W98 SE.
I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the ~24
critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24 updates
take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of those
updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and put on
CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one. So,
it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
and get those two straight in your mind.

2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...corporate=true as a
place to start learning more about this topic.

3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
of tech knowledge and responsibility.

4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
why, I'm not a programmer.

5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
one.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

Sorry, there is no straight answer to that. You can always install them
in date order, refusing to restart when prompted, or guessing when it
would be a good time to restart...

But a *lot* of work goes into Windows Updates (I know because I help
test the new versions--not the updates, the mechanisms.) It's a real
chore just to make it properly detect what's missing, what needs to be
installed, in what order they need to be installed, etc. No, the
associated KB number isn't a good way to decide order--the updates are
often updated without changing the actual designator. And no, without a
seriously deep knowledge of the individual updates, well beyond anything
you'll find in the simple KB articles, you can't really be sure when a
restart is critically necessary in order to not screw up.

I used to install updates manually from a CD, but these days Windows
Updates is so much more certain to do it right that I would call an hour
downloading from WinUp time well spent. And, as I said, I'm fairly
certain that there are methods for chaining, but they're rather obsolete
these days and I'm not sure I'd trust them.

Just as an appropriate example, do you have any *idea* how long it took
PSS to create and test that Windows Security Updates CD? By the time it
was released, the most recent update contained within was over three
months old. And that was just the cut-off date (Oct. 03). They'd been
working on it for months before that.

So, yes, there are ways to update from locally stored copies, without
rebooting after each one, but I can't recommend anything. In fact, I
would strongly recommend *against* any such techniques as they apply to
Win9x systems.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of
QChain
and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now,
thanks.
The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one
restart (and
preferably without each update asking for restart)?

Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh
W98 SE.
I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the
~24
critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24
updates
take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of
those
updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and
put on
CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one.
So,
it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more
research
and get those two straight in your mind.

2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does
it
use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...corporate=true as
a
place to start learning more about this topic.

3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE,
are
not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the
article
you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator
level
of tech knowledge and responsibility.

4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of
the
Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
why, I'm not a programmer.

5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it
to
someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer
that
one.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates.
It
is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does
because
on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and
installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed
as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as pointed
out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an update of that CD
offered :-|

If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your system), it
does have a function that shows the updates that are installed and whether
they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you are current when used on 98
though it does have that function for XP). I tried installing the more
recent updates in KB order after using the above CD first and Belarc had
several of them show up as failing verification and it took reapplying those
specific updates and better yet using Windows Update to get things squared
away.




"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Sorry, there is no straight answer to that. You can always install them in
date order, refusing to restart when prompted, or guessing when it would
be a good time to restart...

But a *lot* of work goes into Windows Updates (I know because I help test
the new versions--not the updates, the mechanisms.) It's a real chore just
to make it properly detect what's missing, what needs to be installed, in
what order they need to be installed, etc. No, the associated KB number
isn't a good way to decide order--the updates are often updated without
changing the actual designator. And no, without a seriously deep knowledge
of the individual updates, well beyond anything you'll find in the simple
KB articles, you can't really be sure when a restart is critically
necessary in order to not screw up.

I used to install updates manually from a CD, but these days Windows
Updates is so much more certain to do it right that I would call an hour
downloading from WinUp time well spent. And, as I said, I'm fairly certain
that there are methods for chaining, but they're rather obsolete these
days and I'm not sure I'd trust them.

Just as an appropriate example, do you have any *idea* how long it took
PSS to create and test that Windows Security Updates CD? By the time it
was released, the most recent update contained within was over three
months old. And that was just the cut-off date (Oct. 03). They'd been
working on it for months before that.

So, yes, there are ways to update from locally stored copies, without
rebooting after each one, but I can't recommend anything. In fact, I would
strongly recommend *against* any such techniques as they apply to Win9x
systems.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
Gary, you're absolutely right. What a Sreudian flip! I took a part of
QChain
and Qfecheck and put them together. I think I've got it straight now,
thanks.
The question is, then, how does one accomplish what Windows Update
accomplishes, viz, installing all the critical updates with one restart
(and
preferably without each update asking for restart)?

Lee, you're right, too. The PC I described wasn't a *totally* fresh W98
SE.
I did install IE 6 SP1 from CD before going to Windows Update! So, the
~24
critical updates include a security update to IE 6 SP1. The some 24
updates
take about an hour to download at 56K. Since a significant number of
those
updates require restart, even if the updates were predownloaded and put
on
CD, it'd probably take an hour to install all of the them one-by-one. So,
it'd be extremely nice to know how Windows Update does what it does.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

1. You're confusing QCHAIN.EXE and QFECHECK.EXE. Do some more research
and get those two straight in your mind.

2. No, Windows Updates doesn't use QCHAIN.EXE. Nor, I believe, does it
use QFECHECK. It uses Internet Explorer and Active-X technology to do
much more complicated analysis and delivery. See
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...corporate=true as a
place to start learning more about this topic.

3. QCCHAIN, and the related apps called UPDATE.EXE and HOTFIX.EXE, are
not universally applicable to all Updates, as explained in the article
you cite. Nor are they free of myriad potential pitfalls. They aren't
tools to be used by anyone with less than a systems administrator level
of tech knowledge and responsibility.

4. I may be wrong on this one, but I believe that most if not all of the
Updates for Win9x systems are implemented using CSETUP.EXE, not
UPDATE.EXE or HOTFIX.EXE. Thus QCHAIN isn't compatible. Don't ask me
why, I'm not a programmer.

5. I believe there are ways to chain Updates for 9x systems, and I'm
fairly certain I've seen articles describing such. But I'll leave it to
someone who is actually familiar with the possibilities to answer that
one.

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

"asur" wrote in message
...
KB815062 explains the usage of QCheck.exe, a tool to chain updates. It
is
listed as being applicable to W2000 Pro, as well as XP Pro/Home and
others.
It is not listed as being applicable to W98 or W98 SE. The question
is, does
Windows Update chain updates for W98? (It would appear it does because
on a
fresh install of Windows 98 SE, Windows Update downloads and installs
approximately 24 critical updates, and it does so with only 1
restart.) And
if it does chain updates, shouldn't the QCheck.exe tool be listed as
applicable to W98 (SE)?

"Scott" wrote in message
news:OLJve.6685$ro.3636@fed1read02...
Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as
pointed out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an
update of that CD offered :-|

They *did* update it--with WindowsXP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP3 (or was it
SP4?) That CD was a response to an overwhelming need to catch as many
people up to date as possible in view of some rather serious security
issues that applied across the board and were becoming nigh overwhelming
in '03. It was as serious a concern for WinXP and Win2K users as it was
for users of older platforms, hence the extraordinary effort.

Win9x Support is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Yes, they'll
probably issue a few more Critical Updates before dooms day (almost
exactly a year from now), but none of the future versions of "Optional"
components, including IE, DirectX, WMP etc., are even likely to be
installable to Win9x platforms. What I'm hoping *won't* happen is that
Windows Updates for those platforms will disappear any time soon. But I
suspect they will, long before the decade is out. Perhaps when support
for 9x platforms is truly over, we can harrass them into one last
"Updates CD". But don't hold your breath.

If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your
system), it does have a function that shows the updates that are
installed and whether they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you
are current when used on 98 though it does have that function for XP).
I tried installing the more recent updates in KB order after using the
above CD first and Belarc had several of them show up as failing
verification and it took reapplying those specific updates and better
yet using Windows Update to get things squared away.

'Zactly what I was tellin' you, s.

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

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
news:OLJve.6685$ro.3636@fed1read02...
Applying the Security Update CD dated Feb 2004 (actually Oct 2003 as
pointed out here) first saves some time...too bad there wasn't an update
of that CD offered :-|

They *did* update it--with WindowsXP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP3 (or was it
SP4?) That CD was a response to an overwhelming need to catch as many
people up to date as possible in view of some rather serious security
issues that applied across the board and were becoming nigh overwhelming
in '03. It was as serious a concern for WinXP and Win2K users as it was
for users of older platforms, hence the extraordinary effort.

Of course...I just wish there was another CD for the Win98/98SE OS, though I
am an XP user for the most part. I help out a few friends who use 98 who
more often than not (but not always) have dial-up connections, where the CDs
are great to use...sometimes I convince them to let me take the PC home
where I can put it on my high speed connection for repair :-)
Resisting the urge to patch up a lot of applications, add goodies, etc. so I
can have a life of my own, I usually restrict myself to doing:

-Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1 isn't
on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
-AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
-Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
-CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave that on
their system )
-ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some people
tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I still do it if
it doesn't conflict
-"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes set swap
file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted one is after
loading up many programs)... never set a maximum
-Recommend putting Firefox in
-Belarc Advisor
-Defrag

Any other security or tweaks they are just going to have to learn on their
own :-|
If they are capable of imaging their drive at this point, I encourage them
to do so.

Win9x Support is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Yes, they'll
probably issue a few more Critical Updates before dooms day (almost
exactly a year from now), but none of the future versions of "Optional"
components, including IE, DirectX, WMP etc., are even likely to be
installable to Win9x platforms. What I'm hoping *won't* happen is that
Windows Updates for those platforms will disappear any time soon. But I
suspect they will, long before the decade is out. Perhaps when support for
9x platforms is truly over, we can harrass them into one last "Updates
CD". But don't hold your breath.

I'm hoping too, especially for a final Update CD...maybe they can make that
into a downloadable file/service pack, though that would strain the servers
probably. I'm not holding my breath either.

If anyone uses the program Belarc Advisor (nice profiler of your system),
it does have a function that shows the updates that are installed and
whether they are verified. It doesn't tell you if you are current when
used on 98 though it does have that function for XP). I tried installing
the more recent updates in KB order after using the above CD first and
Belarc had several of them show up as failing verification and it took
reapplying those specific updates and better yet using Windows Update to
get things squared away.

'Zactly what I was tellin' you, s.

Some people just have to learn the hard way :-/

I do like that Belarc Advisor program though...very handy, and I keep a
separate copy of results in case of future problems.

Thanks for the comments.


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

"Scott" wrote in message
news:rXMve.6695$ro.6642@fed1read02...
-Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1
isn't on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
I got six copies of the SecUp CD and made many more. It's an approved
use. Run it whenever it seems likely that it's needed, I slap that thing
in and go. Sent copies to friends, most of whom live farther away than a
day's drive.

-AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
I generally recommend EZ Armor, but at least EZAV.

-Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
I recommend againt immunizing w/ Spybot. It's just too liable to cause
problems. And I add George Geyde's HOSTS File Manager to the list.

-CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave
that on their system )
I leave HJT on the system, but rather well buried. That way if they call
with what sounds like an HJT chore, I can tell them to run it and send
me the results.

-ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some
people tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I
still do it if it doesn't conflict
As I said, I recommend EZ Armor, which uses a version of ZA as it's
firewall. And I recommend firewall for all types of connections as long
as the system can handle it.

-"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes
set swap file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted
one is after loading up many programs)... never set a maximum
-Recommend putting Firefox in
I figure if they're the kind of folk to want Firefox features, they
already know about it. I don't agree with the notion that it's any more
"safe" than IE, and I certainly don't hold with any disabling of IE,
other than to set rather stricter security settings than defaults, and
to insist on IE6's Advanced Cookie Handling--Prompt for 1st-party,
Bloock 3rd-party and allow Per-Session.

-Belarc Advisor
I've used it on occasion, but it's not something I'd leave on most
systems. Just too tempting for people who don't know how to judge the
results.

-Defrag
I routinely go through the steps described in my "Clean Boot" article.
My "Security" article that accompanies it repeats the stuff above,
including links, though I suspect they're getting long in the tooth.
Need to check up on that. Article links in my sig.

I also check up on Device Manager in Safe Mode, to see if any garbage
needs to be cleaned out of the Hardware Profile. I also take a close
look at the software installations, both to get rid of junk that isn't
being used or is prone to spyware infection, etc.--and to suggest as
many ways as possible to *not* have things loading automatically at
startup. It's amazing what improvement can be had from these simple
cleanup procedures.

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

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
news:rXMve.6695$ro.6642@fed1read02...
-Windows Update routine...predominantly Crtitcal Updates...if IE 6 SP1
isn't on their PC, I have that on CD and put that in first
I got six copies of the SecUp CD and made many more. It's an approved use.
Run it whenever it seems likely that it's needed, I slap that thing in and
go. Sent copies to friends, most of whom live farther away than a day's
drive.

-AVG (set to look for update when an online connection is made)
I generally recommend EZ Armor, but at least EZAV.

-Ad-Aware, SpyBot (w/immunize), SpywareBlaster...all updated
I recommend againt immunizing w/ Spybot. It's just too liable to cause
problems. And I add George Geyde's HOSTS File Manager to the list.

I've used the MVPS hosts file myself, but I haven't put it on others PCs. I
have had to make minor tweaks to it to get my Excite home page to work OK,
but usually that's it.

Do you prefer SpywareBlaster's immunization to SpyBot? Is it that SpyBot can
mess up a person's home page?
By the way, why is SpyBot's HOSTS file they offer so ancient? I avoid it.


-CWSShredder (if needed), HiJack This (if needed, and I don't leave that
on their system )


I leave HJT on the system, but rather well buried. That way if they call
with what sounds like an HJT chore, I can tell them to run it and send me
the results.

Good point...I should have just hid it.

-ZoneAlarm (with some training of it ahead of time)...I've had some
people tell me that I shouldn't bother with this on a dial-up, but I
still do it if it doesn't conflict
As I said, I recommend EZ Armor, which uses a version of ZA as it's
firewall. And I recommend firewall for all types of connections as long as
the system can handle it.

-"Network Server" role, DMA on on drives when applicable, sometimes set
swap file to some fixed minimum (see how big the Windows adjusted one is
after loading up many programs)... never set a maximum


-Recommend putting Firefox in
I figure if they're the kind of folk to want Firefox features, they
already know about it. I don't agree with the notion that it's any more
"safe" than IE, and I certainly don't hold with any disabling of IE, other
than to set rather stricter security settings than defaults, and to insist
on IE6's Advanced Cookie Handling--Prompt for 1st-party, Bloock 3rd-party
and allow Per-Session.

I've done the cookies adjustment before on my PC but forgot about this tip!
I've had good results with Firefox, but I inadvertently found another reason
to have it installed (even if you don't want it as the default browser)...on
one PC I was working on, Firefox would display pages, programs would update
through the internet connection, but IE wouldn't display pages. Helped me
troubleshoot, and it ended up being fixed by HiJackThis (BHO issues).

-Belarc Advisor
I've used it on occasion, but it's not something I'd leave on most
systems. Just too tempting for people who don't know how to judge the
results.

As it was more for my benefit, I could keep it on a USB thumbdrive instead.


-Defrag
I routinely go through the steps described in my "Clean Boot" article. My
"Security" article that accompanies it repeats the stuff above, including
links, though I suspect they're getting long in the tooth. Need to check
up on that. Article links in my sig.

I'll check those out. Thanks.


I also check up on Device Manager in Safe Mode, to see if any garbage
needs to be cleaned out of the Hardware Profile. I also take a close look
at the software installations, both to get rid of junk that isn't being
used or is prone to spyware infection, etc.--and to suggest as many ways
as possible to *not* have things loading automatically at startup. It's
amazing what improvement can be had from these simple cleanup procedures.

Do you find duplicate stuff in the Device Manager in Safe Mode? That rings
a bell with me.

I do go in the startup folder, and mostly in MSCONFIG to root stuff out.
It's almost second nature to do this in Windows now after I install a
program (or look at another person's computer), to see what litter they put
in there. Quicktime seems to keep reintalling itself in the tray though.


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