Mastertech
02-07-2005, 07:02 PM
Optimize XP - A Windows XP Optimization Guide (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html)
"Clean Spyware and Viruses + Optimize Windows XP"
"Clean Spyware and Viruses + Optimize Windows XP"
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Optimize XP
Rocketmech
02-07-2005, 07:15 PM
Nice work. :cool:
_Mystical_Night
02-09-2005, 09:08 PM
it says your soposed to do the steps top to bottum there but I already had some of the steps in the bottum done prior to reading this ... and i didnt know about this part of the guide
MSJVM Removal Tool - Download - Home Page
CoolWebSearch infection occurs due to exploits in Microsoft's discontinued Java Virtual Machine v1.1.4 (Build 5.0.3810). There are no patches from Microsoft to fix this. To protect yourself uninstall MSJVM using this tool and install Sun's Java J2SE 5.x JRE (v1.5.x) instead. If you have any problems use Sun's Java Upgrade Guide and then Sun's Java Test Page to confirm it is installed properly.
does it still work if you have windows XP SP2 ? (it says to install sp2 under that) ... oh and i already have java sun installed
MSJVM Removal Tool - Download - Home Page
CoolWebSearch infection occurs due to exploits in Microsoft's discontinued Java Virtual Machine v1.1.4 (Build 5.0.3810). There are no patches from Microsoft to fix this. To protect yourself uninstall MSJVM using this tool and install Sun's Java J2SE 5.x JRE (v1.5.x) instead. If you have any problems use Sun's Java Upgrade Guide and then Sun's Java Test Page to confirm it is installed properly.
does it still work if you have windows XP SP2 ? (it says to install sp2 under that) ... oh and i already have java sun installed
Mastertech
02-09-2005, 10:05 PM
That is there so you make sure to do things such as defragment your drive last after you remove any useless files (spyware, virsus, temporary) ect... If you did some of the steps out of order it will hurt anything, it just might require you to do a step a second time. Another example is programs like XP-Antispy will detect different features after SP2 is installed. SP2 is supposed to removed MSJVM but to make sure it is gone you can run the MSJVM removal tool, it will not hurt anything. It is listed there before windows update for systems that are pre SP1a.
_Mystical_Night
02-09-2005, 10:53 PM
ah okay thx :)
fancyf
02-10-2005, 11:01 AM
Well done, I've had this url for a while but hadn't seen all of it yet, great info. :)
But what about info on HOSTS file and Maxthon?! :cool:
I'm curious as to why you say " (Do not install the Teatimer) " ?
But what about info on HOSTS file and Maxthon?! :cool:
I'm curious as to why you say " (Do not install the Teatimer) " ?
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 12:48 PM
Host files are the same regarless of browsers. Maxthon is similiar to Avant as it is a shell on IE but I feel Avant has a nicer interface. The tea timer can interfere with applications trying to connect to the internet, with MSJVM removed, SpywareBlaster and an AntiVirus program the teatimer is unnecessary and I have found it to be a nuisance.
fancyf
02-10-2005, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Host files are the same regarless of browsers.
Right...... but it's a good additional protection (Spybot does provide a small list but..) a topic still worth covering IMHO. :)
The tea timer can interfere with applications trying to connect to the internet, with MSJVM removed, SpywareBlaster and an AntiVirus program the teatimer is unnecessary and I have found it to be a nuisance.
Yea..... I've tried at 2 different occasion to enable it and when kerio popped up at the same time, it became either unstable and VERY SLOW or locked up the pc. I haven't re-enabled it since.
:t
Host files are the same regarless of browsers.
Right...... but it's a good additional protection (Spybot does provide a small list but..) a topic still worth covering IMHO. :)
The tea timer can interfere with applications trying to connect to the internet, with MSJVM removed, SpywareBlaster and an AntiVirus program the teatimer is unnecessary and I have found it to be a nuisance.
Yea..... I've tried at 2 different occasion to enable it and when kerio popped up at the same time, it became either unstable and VERY SLOW or locked up the pc. I haven't re-enabled it since.
:t
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 01:29 PM
Spybot and SpywareBlaster give a very comprehensive list without the need for a hosts file.
Here: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html (XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP)
Here: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html (XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP)
fancyf
02-10-2005, 01:43 PM
:)
well to each his own... with the quantity of BAD pages out there additional protection is always welcomed here. It might not be able to be updated to catch them ALL and there's no one security apps that does all so using it in conjunction with other programs still serves a purpose.
Even tho I haven't had any slow down before, I did indeed disabled the DNS client server and unless there's a need to re-enable it then I problably never will.
Hey whatever works for you!
well to each his own... with the quantity of BAD pages out there additional protection is always welcomed here. It might not be able to be updated to catch them ALL and there's no one security apps that does all so using it in conjunction with other programs still serves a purpose.
Even tho I haven't had any slow down before, I did indeed disabled the DNS client server and unless there's a need to re-enable it then I problably never will.
Hey whatever works for you!
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 01:47 PM
Which means you are probably losing performance due to disabling it then: K318803 (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318803)
fancyf
02-10-2005, 02:32 PM
Ok... (tho I haven't seen a slight change) so you would disagree with: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm, then.
Could you explain why once set to manual the service is always stopped and not Started? :confused:
Could you explain why once set to manual the service is always stopped and not Started? :confused:
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 02:57 PM
Yes I disagree with MVPS.org, some services will not be invoked set as manual, you have to set these to automatic if you need them. I don't have a list of which ones these are, it requires trial and error.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 02:58 PM
I think your link is broken f@ncy! I get a 404 error.
I believe a service that is set to manual will only start if requested by a: the user or b: another service that requires the service to be run in order to complete its own task.
but I'm not 100% certain on that, so I too would like this clarified.
I believe a service that is set to manual will only start if requested by a: the user or b: another service that requires the service to be run in order to complete its own task.
but I'm not 100% certain on that, so I too would like this clarified.
fancyf
02-10-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Strawbs
I think your link is broken f@ncy! I get a 404 error.
here: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (no comma this time :p)
I think your link is broken f@ncy! I get a 404 error.
here: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (no comma this time :p)
fancyf
02-10-2005, 03:07 PM
Thanks Mastertech.
I'll do my own research and see... I might email that MVP guy :)
I'll do my own research and see... I might email that MVP guy :)
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 03:10 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if emailing them did no good.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by fancyf
here: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (no comma this time :p) Thanks! I already got there by editing it myself. :t
here's what took my interest most.Editors Note: ....
You can see that the above "Service" is not needed (after a little browsing) by opening the Services Editor again, scroll down to DNS Client and check the "Status" column. It should be blank, if it was needed it would show "Started" in that column.it seems that if the DNS Client service is needed it will start by itself when in "manual" setting, once the computer has been restarted.
here: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (no comma this time :p) Thanks! I already got there by editing it myself. :t
here's what took my interest most.Editors Note: ....
You can see that the above "Service" is not needed (after a little browsing) by opening the Services Editor again, scroll down to DNS Client and check the "Status" column. It should be blank, if it was needed it would show "Started" in that column.it seems that if the DNS Client service is needed it will start by itself when in "manual" setting, once the computer has been restarted.
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 03:17 PM
If you connect to the internet the DNS Client should be on automatic. You should never disable this.
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 03:18 PM
I am not sure why these sites are giving this bad advice to disable this service.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 03:58 PM
The advice is not to "Disable" the service, Only to set it to "Manual"!
f@ncy's link also goes on to say that it may or may not be required by an ISP for a successful internet connection - ISP's differ in their required settings.
It appears the only service that relies on the running of the DNS Client is the IPSEC driver - which is in the list of "common" services that may be disabled in your link to the optimization guide.
I have since set the DNS Client to manual and rebooted this machine, the service has not restarted & I am able to surf without issue so far! The IPSEC driver is still set to "Auto" and has restarted non-the-less ( :confused: ).
It is possible that the DNS Client has an effect on Dialup connections and this will be my next realm of experimentation.
[edit] both my dialup connections are in good working order!
Next on my list will be LAN & Remote Desktop operation. [this edit made during dialup connection] :t
f@ncy's link also goes on to say that it may or may not be required by an ISP for a successful internet connection - ISP's differ in their required settings.
It appears the only service that relies on the running of the DNS Client is the IPSEC driver - which is in the list of "common" services that may be disabled in your link to the optimization guide.
I have since set the DNS Client to manual and rebooted this machine, the service has not restarted & I am able to surf without issue so far! The IPSEC driver is still set to "Auto" and has restarted non-the-less ( :confused: ).
It is possible that the DNS Client has an effect on Dialup connections and this will be my next realm of experimentation.
[edit] both my dialup connections are in good working order!
Next on my list will be LAN & Remote Desktop operation. [this edit made during dialup connection] :t
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 05:22 PM
No it affects all connections since it puts additional unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS server(s). The DNS Client is specifically NOT listed as a common services to be disable. Disabling it reduces network performance, sure it "works" (alot of bad advice works) but at the sacrifice of browsing speed and slowing down your ISP.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 05:37 PM
so even though it is listed - in f@ncy's link - as a fix for machine slowdown because of a larger hosts file, you say it actually slows down connection\browsing speeds?
this is easily tested!
BTW - my LAN is also working fine.
[edit] Ironically, I seem to be seeing pages refresh at a faster pace than normal. :confused:
this is easily tested!
BTW - my LAN is also working fine.
[edit] Ironically, I seem to be seeing pages refresh at a faster pace than normal. :confused:
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 06:33 PM
You can not accurately test something by "looking" at it. Anyway read Microsoft's article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318803
Note The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated.
The DNS Client service optimizes the performance of DNS name resolution by storing previously resolved names in memory. If the DNS Client service is turned off, the computer can still resolve DNS names by using the network's DNS servers.I think Microsoft knows a little bit more about this then you.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318803
Note The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated.
The DNS Client service optimizes the performance of DNS name resolution by storing previously resolved names in memory. If the DNS Client service is turned off, the computer can still resolve DNS names by using the network's DNS servers.I think Microsoft knows a little bit more about this then you.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Mastertech
You can not accurately test something by "looking" at it.
...if you care to re-read my previous post, you may make out a word spelled "S E E M", this is a key part of the statement and is not mis-spelled in any way! For now I will assume you know it's meaning.
Just in case my assumption is wrong, here it is: I would not be so stupid as to experiment by "looking" alone. :rolleyes:
Maybe no one has told you that there are many internet broadband speed testers out there that can measure connection speeds. Haven't you heard?
Didn't you earlier mention "trial & error"? or is that only to be used when you say it is OK to do so? Do you believe everything Microsoft puts in print without question? or do you ever dare to test a claim? It's not simply a case of "because Microsoft says so, it must be so"- Computers don't work that way. Afterall: If it were up to Microsoft we would all be running every service they enabled & update they wanted to push on us by default - Right? )-|
I ran some initial tests (rebooting between setting changes & tests), the results show no difference either way - so far! That is not to say that more tests will not show up any difference - just that your claim has not yet been proven for or against!
Maybe you could try a little practical experimentation yourself! It might make for a pleasent change from acting on hearsay only.Originally posted by Mastertech
I think Microsoft knows a little bit more about this then youYes! And I think they also know what services they would like to be left running so they could hack\crack a system on a whim if they so wished.
You can not accurately test something by "looking" at it.
...if you care to re-read my previous post, you may make out a word spelled "S E E M", this is a key part of the statement and is not mis-spelled in any way! For now I will assume you know it's meaning.
Just in case my assumption is wrong, here it is: I would not be so stupid as to experiment by "looking" alone. :rolleyes:
Maybe no one has told you that there are many internet broadband speed testers out there that can measure connection speeds. Haven't you heard?
Didn't you earlier mention "trial & error"? or is that only to be used when you say it is OK to do so? Do you believe everything Microsoft puts in print without question? or do you ever dare to test a claim? It's not simply a case of "because Microsoft says so, it must be so"- Computers don't work that way. Afterall: If it were up to Microsoft we would all be running every service they enabled & update they wanted to push on us by default - Right? )-|
I ran some initial tests (rebooting between setting changes & tests), the results show no difference either way - so far! That is not to say that more tests will not show up any difference - just that your claim has not yet been proven for or against!
Maybe you could try a little practical experimentation yourself! It might make for a pleasent change from acting on hearsay only.Originally posted by Mastertech
I think Microsoft knows a little bit more about this then youYes! And I think they also know what services they would like to be left running so they could hack\crack a system on a whim if they so wished.
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 07:32 PM
Yes! And I think they also know what services they would like to be left running so they could hack\crack a system on a whim if they so wished.Give me a break, you don't even know how this service works and are making ridiculous claims about. If you knew how this service works you would understand why any test you run are meaningless. Show me the DNS Client Service Hack? Please get over yourself, you don't know more the Microsoft. Oh and yes I believe everything they put in writing over any other source regarding their software. Point to Knowledgebase article that is wrong.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Give me a break, you don't even know how this service works and are making ridiculous claims about. If you knew how this service works you would understand why any test you run are meaningless. Show me the DNS Client Service Hack? Please get over yourself, you don't know more the Microsoft. Oh and yes I believe everything they put in writing over any other source regarding their software. Point to Knowledgebase article that is wrong. how 'bout the article that states WinFax Pro v.10 will not work with XP SP1 or SP2! Did you remove it before upgrading & throw it in the bin? :p
Please point to my statement that DNS Client Service was a hack point!
Give me a break, you don't even know how this service works and are making ridiculous claims about. If you knew how this service works you would understand why any test you run are meaningless. Show me the DNS Client Service Hack? Please get over yourself, you don't know more the Microsoft. Oh and yes I believe everything they put in writing over any other source regarding their software. Point to Knowledgebase article that is wrong. how 'bout the article that states WinFax Pro v.10 will not work with XP SP1 or SP2! Did you remove it before upgrading & throw it in the bin? :p
Please point to my statement that DNS Client Service was a hack point!
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 07:49 PM
The only thing I found was Microsoft warning that it may stop working. Keyword may.
"WinFax PRO client computers that are running Windows XP SP2 cannot communicate with a WinFax PRO Server."
I quoted what you said.
"WinFax PRO client computers that are running Windows XP SP2 cannot communicate with a WinFax PRO Server."
I quoted what you said.
Strawbs
02-10-2005, 08:03 PM
If you had ever run the XP configurater w\ Winfax Pro on a machine, you would have seen the advice to remove the software as it "would not work"! you obviously haven't.
I'm eager to know if you run all default services as Microsoft intended! and if not - why not?
:confused:
I'm eager to know if you run all default services as Microsoft intended! and if not - why not?
:confused:
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Get over Winfax already, Symantec admits Winfax Pro 10.0 is Not Supported in XP (http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument)!! So why wouldn't the configurator tell you to uninstall a non compatible program that the maker of said program admits is not compatible???
Did you miss the fact that I posted the link to this guide?
Did you miss the fact that I posted the link to this guide?
fancyf
02-10-2005, 08:39 PM
Isn't this getting a litle silly? :rolleyes:
Mastertech, if the change is not noticeable then why worry about it?
And if we ever have trouble with it then we'll know what to do...
)-|
In the mean time I'll wait for a reply from Mr. MVP :p
Mastertech, if the change is not noticeable then why worry about it?
And if we ever have trouble with it then we'll know what to do...
)-|
In the mean time I'll wait for a reply from Mr. MVP :p
Mastertech
02-10-2005, 08:50 PM
Who said the change is not noticeable? Your directly putting extra load on your ISP's DNS server, now try having everyone connected to it do the exact same thing.
Strawbs
02-11-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Get over Winfax already, Symantec admits Winfax Pro 10.0 is Not Supported in XP (http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument)!! So why wouldn't the configurator tell you to uninstall a non compatible program that the maker of said program admits is not compatible???
...But the fact is the program works - making MS' configurator advice wrong. you asked for proof - there it is! It's that "trial & error" thing again isn't it?
My point is this: One doesn't know something to be as advertised without practical experiment. You are proclaiming that we shouldn't bother ourselves with experimentation - we should just take both yours & Microsofts word for it.
If that were the case with every end-user, there would be no list of services that could be safely disabled - because nobody would have bothered to try turning them off.
I agree with f@ncy - no foul, no harm! So why are you so determined to prevent anyone from experimenting with their "own" settings. The site is called System Optimization for a reason! Every system is different in some small way, Everyone here knows that every system may respond differently to identical settings - everyone except you it seems.
I think it is you that needs to "Get over Yourself" and stop preaching as though you were Bill Gates' right hand.
Get over Winfax already, Symantec admits Winfax Pro 10.0 is Not Supported in XP (http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument)!! So why wouldn't the configurator tell you to uninstall a non compatible program that the maker of said program admits is not compatible???
...But the fact is the program works - making MS' configurator advice wrong. you asked for proof - there it is! It's that "trial & error" thing again isn't it?
My point is this: One doesn't know something to be as advertised without practical experiment. You are proclaiming that we shouldn't bother ourselves with experimentation - we should just take both yours & Microsofts word for it.
If that were the case with every end-user, there would be no list of services that could be safely disabled - because nobody would have bothered to try turning them off.
I agree with f@ncy - no foul, no harm! So why are you so determined to prevent anyone from experimenting with their "own" settings. The site is called System Optimization for a reason! Every system is different in some small way, Everyone here knows that every system may respond differently to identical settings - everyone except you it seems.
I think it is you that needs to "Get over Yourself" and stop preaching as though you were Bill Gates' right hand.
Mastertech
02-11-2005, 05:32 AM
Your argument is flawed, Symantec <---- The company that makes the program says it is incompatible. Which can mean ALOT of things, it DOES NOT mean the program may not partially work. They updated it for a reason. Then obviouly informed Microsoft!!!! So Microsoft repeating what a vendor of a program tells them is not proof of ANYTHING. Are you running v10.02 or dilliberately running v10.0??? LMAO!
You didn't provide ANY proof since you do not even know what the incompatibility is!
I've met alot of people like you who like to stick their hand in their ears when they don't hear what they want to, ignorance is bliss.
Do you even understand how DNS works?
You didn't provide ANY proof since you do not even know what the incompatibility is!
I've met alot of people like you who like to stick their hand in their ears when they don't hear what they want to, ignorance is bliss.
Do you even understand how DNS works?
Strawbs
02-11-2005, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Your argument is flawed, Symantec <---- The company that makes the program says it is incompatible. Which can mean ALOT of things, it DOES NOT mean the program may not partially work. They updated it for a reason. Then obviouly informed Microsoft!!!! So Microsoft repeating what a vendor of a program tells them is not proof of ANYTHING. Are you running v10.02 or dilliberately running v10.0??? LMAO!
You didn't provide ANY proof since you do not even know what the incompatibility is!
I've met alot of people like you who like to stick their hand in their ears when they don't hear what they want to, ignorance is bliss.
Do you even understand how DNS works? What I need to understand is how you became the self appointed God of XP Optimization here!
What I do understand is that Winfax Pro v.10 works with Windows XP despite Microsofts statement that it is not compatible & recomendation that it be uninstalled.
What you don't understand is that there is no "compatability patch" for v.10.0, See for yourself! (http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/files/winfax/winfax10_files.html) It is still listed as only supporting WinFax PRO 10.0 for Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000Only the later upgraded version 10.02 officially supports XP. The version I have still does not "officially" run in XP. I am here to tell you that after experimentation - it works like a charm. If Microsofts direction is mis-guided, it still doesn't make it right.
Have you changed your services from the recommended MS defaults?
Your argument is flawed, Symantec <---- The company that makes the program says it is incompatible. Which can mean ALOT of things, it DOES NOT mean the program may not partially work. They updated it for a reason. Then obviouly informed Microsoft!!!! So Microsoft repeating what a vendor of a program tells them is not proof of ANYTHING. Are you running v10.02 or dilliberately running v10.0??? LMAO!
You didn't provide ANY proof since you do not even know what the incompatibility is!
I've met alot of people like you who like to stick their hand in their ears when they don't hear what they want to, ignorance is bliss.
Do you even understand how DNS works? What I need to understand is how you became the self appointed God of XP Optimization here!
What I do understand is that Winfax Pro v.10 works with Windows XP despite Microsofts statement that it is not compatible & recomendation that it be uninstalled.
What you don't understand is that there is no "compatability patch" for v.10.0, See for yourself! (http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/files/winfax/winfax10_files.html) It is still listed as only supporting WinFax PRO 10.0 for Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000Only the later upgraded version 10.02 officially supports XP. The version I have still does not "officially" run in XP. I am here to tell you that after experimentation - it works like a charm. If Microsofts direction is mis-guided, it still doesn't make it right.
Have you changed your services from the recommended MS defaults?
Mastertech
02-11-2005, 07:54 AM
Winfax Support for Windows XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Listen, Symantec is making this claim NOT Microsoft, look at the Symantec link. It is not Microsoft's job to determine if this is true or not. There is an apparent compatibility problem with it and XP otherwise they would not have wasted their time recommending 10.02. Now as to the availability of an upgrade I know I would sure not use a program where a company made me buy a whole new version when a simple patch was all the was needed, your whole argument is with Symantec NOT Microsoft. Here are some known compatibility problems with 10.0:
WinFax PRO macro compatibility with Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/3c78b9bf7439258485256a34006fdb3e?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Microsoft Word 2002 or Excel 2002 do not appear in the WinFax Macro Installer dialog box
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/97534fd5cece79d685256a6200691ed9?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Outlook 2002 does not appear in the External Phonebook AutoLink list (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/922fe2272448836985256a62006682ff?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Error: "The macro can not be found or has been disabled" when you click the toolbar
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/524603eae59b5e7988256ce10082ebb2?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Now to reiterate:
Microsoft is not saying Winfax 10.0 is incompatible, Symantec is!!!
Listen, Symantec is making this claim NOT Microsoft, look at the Symantec link. It is not Microsoft's job to determine if this is true or not. There is an apparent compatibility problem with it and XP otherwise they would not have wasted their time recommending 10.02. Now as to the availability of an upgrade I know I would sure not use a program where a company made me buy a whole new version when a simple patch was all the was needed, your whole argument is with Symantec NOT Microsoft. Here are some known compatibility problems with 10.0:
WinFax PRO macro compatibility with Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/3c78b9bf7439258485256a34006fdb3e?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Microsoft Word 2002 or Excel 2002 do not appear in the WinFax Macro Installer dialog box
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/97534fd5cece79d685256a6200691ed9?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Outlook 2002 does not appear in the External Phonebook AutoLink list (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/922fe2272448836985256a62006682ff?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Error: "The macro can not be found or has been disabled" when you click the toolbar
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/524603eae59b5e7988256ce10082ebb2?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Now to reiterate:
Microsoft is not saying Winfax 10.0 is incompatible, Symantec is!!!
Strawbs
02-11-2005, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Winfax Support for Windows XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Listen, Symantec is making this claim NOT Microsoft, look at the Symantec link. There is an apparent compatibility problem with it and XP otherwise they would not have wasted their time recommending 10.02. Now as to the availability of an upgrade I know I would sure not use a program where a company made me buy a whole new version when a simple patch was all the was needed, your whole argument is with Symantec NOT Microsoft. Here are some known compatibility problems with 10.0:
WinFax PRO macro compatibility with Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/3c78b9bf7439258485256a34006fdb3e?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Microsoft Word 2002 or Excel 2002 do not appear in the WinFax Macro Installer dialog box
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/97534fd5cece79d685256a6200691ed9?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Outlook 2002 does not appear in the External Phonebook AutoLink list (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/922fe2272448836985256a62006682ff?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Error: "The macro can not be found or has been disabled" when you click the toolbar
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/524603eae59b5e7988256ce10082ebb2?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Now to reiterate:
Microsoft is not saying Winfax 10.0 is incompatible, Symantec is!!! Your tenacity is to be admired, but it is your argument that is flawed! so now you Listen.
I do not have Office 2002 or Office XP! I have Office 2000, which works faultlessly with WinFax Pro v10.0 - macro's and all. The warning is given by the OS - XP itself.
Is Microsoft so confident in the sale of it's more recent Office products that they should embed the warning & advice into the OS - or would it make more sense to place the warning only on products that are actually affected? I may not have had any MS Office product installed what so ever - but would see the warning & advisory even then!
Microsoft has repeated the statement of Symantec without first testing if the claim holds true for the OS - which it does not. It is most certainly Microsofts responsibility to determine what third party software is compatible with its Operating System. If they don't test a 3rd party product (and a major business product at that), they cannot then issue effective patches for any security or stability issues that may arise from its use. To recieve the advisory from the OS is wrong, because the advisory itself is wrong when a system does not have the affected products (Office 2002 & Office XP) installed. I know the advice to be wrong - because I have installed v.10.0 and use it without any "compatability" modifications.
It is not Microsoft's job to determine if this is true or not.I don't think you really believe this! If you do - How many more such advisories are issued by Microsoft without them first testing the credibility of the claim? Why would anyone in their rightr mind trust someone that doesn't test its claims beforehand?
Winfax Support for Windows XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Listen, Symantec is making this claim NOT Microsoft, look at the Symantec link. There is an apparent compatibility problem with it and XP otherwise they would not have wasted their time recommending 10.02. Now as to the availability of an upgrade I know I would sure not use a program where a company made me buy a whole new version when a simple patch was all the was needed, your whole argument is with Symantec NOT Microsoft. Here are some known compatibility problems with 10.0:
WinFax PRO macro compatibility with Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/3c78b9bf7439258485256a34006fdb3e?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Microsoft Word 2002 or Excel 2002 do not appear in the WinFax Macro Installer dialog box
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/97534fd5cece79d685256a6200691ed9?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Outlook 2002 does not appear in the External Phonebook AutoLink list (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/922fe2272448836985256a62006682ff?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Error: "The macro can not be found or has been disabled" when you click the toolbar
(http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/524603eae59b5e7988256ce10082ebb2?OpenDocument&prod=WinFax%20PRO&ver=10.0%20for%20Windows%2095/98/Me/NT/2000&src=sg&pcode=winfax&svy=&csm=no)
Now to reiterate:
Microsoft is not saying Winfax 10.0 is incompatible, Symantec is!!! Your tenacity is to be admired, but it is your argument that is flawed! so now you Listen.
I do not have Office 2002 or Office XP! I have Office 2000, which works faultlessly with WinFax Pro v10.0 - macro's and all. The warning is given by the OS - XP itself.
Is Microsoft so confident in the sale of it's more recent Office products that they should embed the warning & advice into the OS - or would it make more sense to place the warning only on products that are actually affected? I may not have had any MS Office product installed what so ever - but would see the warning & advisory even then!
Microsoft has repeated the statement of Symantec without first testing if the claim holds true for the OS - which it does not. It is most certainly Microsofts responsibility to determine what third party software is compatible with its Operating System. If they don't test a 3rd party product (and a major business product at that), they cannot then issue effective patches for any security or stability issues that may arise from its use. To recieve the advisory from the OS is wrong, because the advisory itself is wrong when a system does not have the affected products (Office 2002 & Office XP) installed. I know the advice to be wrong - because I have installed v.10.0 and use it without any "compatability" modifications.
It is not Microsoft's job to determine if this is true or not.I don't think you really believe this! If you do - How many more such advisories are issued by Microsoft without them first testing the credibility of the claim? Why would anyone in their rightr mind trust someone that doesn't test its claims beforehand?
Mastertech
02-11-2005, 09:07 AM
You still don't get it. The office compatibility problems are just one part of it, Symantec lists this on it's site:
WinFax support for Windows XP or Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument)
WinFax support for Windows XP or Office XP
Situation:
You need to know whether WinFax PRO 10 is supported under Windows XP or supported with Office XP.
Solution:
WinFax PRO 10.02 and WinFax Basic Edition 10.02 are supported under Windows XP and with Office XP.
WinFax PRO 10.0 and WinFax Basic Edition 10.0 are not supported under Windows XP.
Microsoft is not making these claims, Symantec is!!!
Cannot Install or Use WinFax PRO 10.0 on Windows XP (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;324755)
SYMPTOMS
You may not be able to install or use the WinFax PRO 10.0 fax management software from Symantec Corporation on your Microsoft Windows XP-based computer.
CAUSE
This behavior occurs because WinFax PRO 10.0 is incompatible with Windows XP. For compatibility with Windows XP, you must use WinFax PRO 10.02 or later.
For more information, visit the following Symantec Web site:
http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument
RESOLUTION
To resolve this issue, remove WinFax PRO 10.0 (if it is installed on your computer), and then contact Symantec Corporation to inquire about how to upgrade to a version of WinFax PRO that is compatible with Windows XP. For more information about how to do this, contact Symantec Corporation at the following Symantec Web site:
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/
This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MICROSOFT! If during the creation of the validator a reputable vendor tells Microsoft to mark one of its products as not supported, Microsoft will comply. This isn't rocket science nor does this have anything to do with Microsoft claiming something will not work from its own decision.
If you have a problem (obviously you do) with Winfax working or not talk to Symantec, it is their problem.
WinFax support for Windows XP or Office XP (http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument)
WinFax support for Windows XP or Office XP
Situation:
You need to know whether WinFax PRO 10 is supported under Windows XP or supported with Office XP.
Solution:
WinFax PRO 10.02 and WinFax Basic Edition 10.02 are supported under Windows XP and with Office XP.
WinFax PRO 10.0 and WinFax Basic Edition 10.0 are not supported under Windows XP.
Microsoft is not making these claims, Symantec is!!!
Cannot Install or Use WinFax PRO 10.0 on Windows XP (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;324755)
SYMPTOMS
You may not be able to install or use the WinFax PRO 10.0 fax management software from Symantec Corporation on your Microsoft Windows XP-based computer.
CAUSE
This behavior occurs because WinFax PRO 10.0 is incompatible with Windows XP. For compatibility with Windows XP, you must use WinFax PRO 10.02 or later.
For more information, visit the following Symantec Web site:
http://service1.symantec.com/support/faxprod.nsf/a74513c210251d318525688d004c147a/abb267463f34596f85256a32007245d0?opendocument
RESOLUTION
To resolve this issue, remove WinFax PRO 10.0 (if it is installed on your computer), and then contact Symantec Corporation to inquire about how to upgrade to a version of WinFax PRO that is compatible with Windows XP. For more information about how to do this, contact Symantec Corporation at the following Symantec Web site:
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/
This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MICROSOFT! If during the creation of the validator a reputable vendor tells Microsoft to mark one of its products as not supported, Microsoft will comply. This isn't rocket science nor does this have anything to do with Microsoft claiming something will not work from its own decision.
If you have a problem (obviously you do) with Winfax working or not talk to Symantec, it is their problem.
Strawbs
02-11-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Mastertech
You still don't get it. ... Symantec & Microsoft both say it doesn't work - so according to your theory of "The Bible of Bill", I should remove it and throw it away - because they both say it's no good with XP? Even though it works?
You said Microsoft can't be wrong - but they are in this one instance at least.
Oh wait ...I geddit now ....Microsoft hasn't really recommended I remove WinFax before installing XP, It's all an illusion.
Look! It was not Symantec that first alerted me to an "incompatibility" with XP! it was Microsoft Windows XP.
You still don't get it. ... Symantec & Microsoft both say it doesn't work - so according to your theory of "The Bible of Bill", I should remove it and throw it away - because they both say it's no good with XP? Even though it works?
You said Microsoft can't be wrong - but they are in this one instance at least.
Oh wait ...I geddit now ....Microsoft hasn't really recommended I remove WinFax before installing XP, It's all an illusion.
Look! It was not Symantec that first alerted me to an "incompatibility" with XP! it was Microsoft Windows XP.
r8500
02-11-2005, 09:49 AM
Ok kids, maybe its time to fight nice.
Comage
02-11-2005, 09:55 AM
Oh come on guys. The guy deserves some credit for putting it up.
We're all entitled to our own opinions of what tweaks we should put into our systems. There's no hard and fast rule that we *must* follow every step listed on that page.
Take it as a skeletal guide to options that may require tweaking, together with a pinch of salt, and a lot of common sense. :)
I say the guy should have a round of applause for his effort, at the least, to make a decent looking website with helpful information to some users out there.
:t
We're all entitled to our own opinions of what tweaks we should put into our systems. There's no hard and fast rule that we *must* follow every step listed on that page.
Take it as a skeletal guide to options that may require tweaking, together with a pinch of salt, and a lot of common sense. :)
I say the guy should have a round of applause for his effort, at the least, to make a decent looking website with helpful information to some users out there.
:t
Mastertech
02-11-2005, 10:00 AM
Symantec & Microsoft both say it doesn't work - so according to your theory of "The Bible of Bill", I should remove it and throw it away - because they both say it's no good with XP? Even though it works?
You said Microsoft can't be wrong - but they are in this one instance at least.
Oh wait ...I geddit now ....Microsoft hasn't really recommended I remove WinFax before installing XP, It's all an illusion.
Look! It was not Symantec that first alerted me to an "incompatibility" with XP! it was Microsoft Windows XP.Drop the nonsense "Bible of Bill". You don't even know what the compatibility problems are! Why not contact Symantec and ask them before you embarrass yourself any more. Look alot of people do things against better judgement because they don't know what they are doing. When a software company makes a piece of software that you want to use and gives clear warning it is wise to listen. You want to prove Microsoft is wrong here show me where they say it is not compatible and symantec disproves it? If you can't you have nothing other then your unfounded claims. Since your so obvious incapable of understanding common sense I will ask Symantec myself what the compatibility problem is. Something I would have done two years ago when this problem came up not spread misinformation because you have axe to grind with Microsoft. It is called being repsonsible.
I say the guy should have a round of applause for his effort, at the least, to make a decent looking website with helpful information to some users out there.
Thanks, that is all it was ever intended to be.
You said Microsoft can't be wrong - but they are in this one instance at least.
Oh wait ...I geddit now ....Microsoft hasn't really recommended I remove WinFax before installing XP, It's all an illusion.
Look! It was not Symantec that first alerted me to an "incompatibility" with XP! it was Microsoft Windows XP.Drop the nonsense "Bible of Bill". You don't even know what the compatibility problems are! Why not contact Symantec and ask them before you embarrass yourself any more. Look alot of people do things against better judgement because they don't know what they are doing. When a software company makes a piece of software that you want to use and gives clear warning it is wise to listen. You want to prove Microsoft is wrong here show me where they say it is not compatible and symantec disproves it? If you can't you have nothing other then your unfounded claims. Since your so obvious incapable of understanding common sense I will ask Symantec myself what the compatibility problem is. Something I would have done two years ago when this problem came up not spread misinformation because you have axe to grind with Microsoft. It is called being repsonsible.
I say the guy should have a round of applause for his effort, at the least, to make a decent looking website with helpful information to some users out there.
Thanks, that is all it was ever intended to be.
Strawbs
02-11-2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by r8500
Ok kids, maybe its time to fight nice. OK! let me just make a final comment & I'll leave well alone!
I do not have a problem with WinFax Pro v.10.0, Neither do I have a problem with Symantec or Microsoft (believe it or not).
I simply asked for information to test a configuration & was told I should not change a setting to run the tests. I am not in anyway criticising his efforts to provide help to those that require it. But what I have a problem with is: Folk that "dictate" what is in the best interests of the world - because Microsoft\Intel\nVidia\Dell\etc. say it is.
To those ppl I simply say: Get A Life.
Ok kids, maybe its time to fight nice. OK! let me just make a final comment & I'll leave well alone!
I do not have a problem with WinFax Pro v.10.0, Neither do I have a problem with Symantec or Microsoft (believe it or not).
I simply asked for information to test a configuration & was told I should not change a setting to run the tests. I am not in anyway criticising his efforts to provide help to those that require it. But what I have a problem with is: Folk that "dictate" what is in the best interests of the world - because Microsoft\Intel\nVidia\Dell\etc. say it is.
To those ppl I simply say: Get A Life.
Mastertech
02-11-2005, 10:30 AM
People who ignore the advice and warnings of companies who manufacturer the products you use are fools.
r8500
02-11-2005, 10:31 AM
All right, now that you both have gotten your final words out, this is bordering lock down teritory. Direct insults at members usually don't last long here.
fancyf
02-12-2005, 10:12 PM
Here's the answer I received from the MVP guy:
Fancy,
If you are on a "stand-alone" machine that Service is not needed.
>"some services will not be invoked set as manual"
Not true ... I have several Services set to Manual and if you check the "Status" it shows up as "Started" ...
Mike Burgess
Microsoft MVP
Fancy,
If you are on a "stand-alone" machine that Service is not needed.
>"some services will not be invoked set as manual"
Not true ... I have several Services set to Manual and if you check the "Status" it shows up as "Started" ...
Mike Burgess
Microsoft MVP
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 10:32 PM
Since he recommends using hosts files it would not surprise me if he did not understand how services work. Certain services can be invoke to startup when set to manual, however this is not guaranteed and dependant on the condition. if you disable the DNS Client Service, you will put unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS server, while you might not notice a performance difference initially, at some point (such as when the ISP DNS server becomes overloaded) you will. The more people who do this, the more things will slow down.
MVP stands for Most Valuable Professional, now while they are usually fairly knowledgeable they are by no means authorities on anything and frequently get things wrong. Giving examples of this works for me is not proof, they need to reference documents supporting their assertions.
MVP stands for Most Valuable Professional, now while they are usually fairly knowledgeable they are by no means authorities on anything and frequently get things wrong. Giving examples of this works for me is not proof, they need to reference documents supporting their assertions.
r8500
02-12-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Mastertech
Since he recommends using hosts files it would not surprise me if he did not understand how services work. Certain services can be invoke to startup when set to manual, however this is not guaranteed and dependant on the condition. if you disable the DNS Client Service, you will put unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS server, while you might not notice a performance difference initially, at some point (such as when the ISP DNS server becomes overloaded) you will. The more people who do this, the more things will slow down.
MVP stands for Most Valuable Professional, now while they are usually fairly knowledgeable they are by no means authorities on anything and frequently get things wrong. Giving examples of this works for me is not proof, they need to reference documents supporting their assertions.
All right, I have remained pretty calm on this, but I think I need to point something out. It doesn't seem to matter to you who posts what information, or even if an MVP states a fact. In your opinion, they must be wrong, because only the things that you have stated can be accurate.
Now, I am all for giving everyone a fair chance to state their thoughts and tricks to make things work better. However, that has to go both ways. You need to understand that sometimes you are not always going to be right, and other people can actually know what they are talking about.
Since he recommends using hosts files it would not surprise me if he did not understand how services work. Certain services can be invoke to startup when set to manual, however this is not guaranteed and dependant on the condition. if you disable the DNS Client Service, you will put unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS server, while you might not notice a performance difference initially, at some point (such as when the ISP DNS server becomes overloaded) you will. The more people who do this, the more things will slow down.
MVP stands for Most Valuable Professional, now while they are usually fairly knowledgeable they are by no means authorities on anything and frequently get things wrong. Giving examples of this works for me is not proof, they need to reference documents supporting their assertions.
All right, I have remained pretty calm on this, but I think I need to point something out. It doesn't seem to matter to you who posts what information, or even if an MVP states a fact. In your opinion, they must be wrong, because only the things that you have stated can be accurate.
Now, I am all for giving everyone a fair chance to state their thoughts and tricks to make things work better. However, that has to go both ways. You need to understand that sometimes you are not always going to be right, and other people can actually know what they are talking about.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 10:43 PM
I've posted supporting evidence on how the DNS Client affects performance, she has posted his opinion and added he is an MVP. Well I'm sorry that is not proof of anything but his opinion, the Microsoft Knowledge base clearly states that disabling the DNS Client affects performance.
r8500
02-12-2005, 10:45 PM
I am not saying one thing about whether the KB article you have, or whether the MVP should be the way to go, and to be honest, I don't care.
All I am saying is you can't act like you are the only one who knows this skill, and you must give people a chance to be right as well.
All I am saying is you can't act like you are the only one who knows this skill, and you must give people a chance to be right as well.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:08 PM
I don't understand what you are refering to? This is not about knowing a skill but what information is correct. Microsoft Published documents in relation to its own software supercede anyone's opinion, including mine or any MVP.
I am attempting to accurately inform people why the DNS Client service should be left running.
I am attempting to accurately inform people why the DNS Client service should be left running.
r8500
02-12-2005, 11:13 PM
No, you are arguing with people who tested one thing, and say that it is either just as fast, or faster, against a document that MS has written. Just because MS published something, doesn't mean that it is 100% correct. As I recall, MS used to have intellimouse as a critical update, and then it would blow up the mouse and keyboard drivers in Windows NT. Everyone makes mistakes, including MS.
I am just saying that it is something to think about before forcing that opinion down other peoples throats like is the only correct way to do things.
I am just saying that it is something to think about before forcing that opinion down other peoples throats like is the only correct way to do things.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:27 PM
I clearly explained why testing this is not possible due to the variables involved and the impossibility in testing your ISP's DNS server load.
I don't recall the Intellimouse drivers blowing anything up.
I don't recall the Intellimouse drivers blowing anything up.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:32 PM
I think they released the Intellimouse Drives as a critical update due to a compatibility problem of the v2.0 drivers with the SP6A Security Rollup Package. KB305462 (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305462)
r8500
02-12-2005, 11:32 PM
The intellimouse drivers were part of a security roll up package
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305462
Also, if it can't be tested to see if its faster, then why can you preach your way, and tell others they are wrong.
Also, you started to make a mistake when you started fighting with Strawbs and calling him names.
If you are going to preach technology to people, make sure that you have done you homework, and you don't fight people, or make fun of them for how they do things.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305462
Also, if it can't be tested to see if its faster, then why can you preach your way, and tell others they are wrong.
Also, you started to make a mistake when you started fighting with Strawbs and calling him names.
If you are going to preach technology to people, make sure that you have done you homework, and you don't fight people, or make fun of them for how they do things.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:34 PM
No they were not included:
This problem can occur if you install the SRP or Security Update on a computer that is running Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.0.
They released the update to fix this problem.
This problem can occur if you install the SRP or Security Update on a computer that is running Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.0.
They released the update to fix this problem.
r8500
02-12-2005, 11:36 PM
At any rate, my point still remains. You are trusting articles from people who manage to blow up their own software on a regualr basis.
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:36 PM
Also, if it can't be tested to see if its faster, then why can you preach your way, and tell others they are wrong.
What do you want me to do teach a course on how DNS servers work just so people can understand this?
What do you want me to do teach a course on how DNS servers work just so people can understand this?
r8500
02-12-2005, 11:38 PM
I think people understand how DNS servers work. See there you go again thinking you are the only one who understands something.
But, you can't prove you way is faster. You just think it is because of the way DNS works. Its the same arguement that you have for everyone else. They can 't prove theirs is faster, you can't PROVE your way is faster/
But, you can't prove you way is faster. You just think it is because of the way DNS works. Its the same arguement that you have for everyone else. They can 't prove theirs is faster, you can't PROVE your way is faster/
Mastertech
02-12-2005, 11:41 PM
At any rate, my point still remains. You are trusting articles from people who manage to blow up their own software on a regualr basis.
You can not possibly test for every compatibility problem and the fact that they release fixes for these issues says enough. The DNS Client issue is not new.
You can not possibly test for every compatibility problem and the fact that they release fixes for these issues says enough. The DNS Client issue is not new.
r8500
02-12-2005, 11:43 PM
Dude, is there anyone you wont argue with. You are dancing around my point.
Your way can't be tested and proven to bne bettter than anyone elses way. And until that day comes, you can not put down our members because you think your way is the only way to do something.
Your way can't be tested and proven to bne bettter than anyone elses way. And until that day comes, you can not put down our members because you think your way is the only way to do something.
Picard
02-13-2005, 02:35 AM
All the dns service does is cache dns entries locally. And yes, having it enabled does slow Internet browser and network performance cause then everytime you click a link, or access your network the service first checks if the sites address has changed and then updates as necessary (this applies to every link on a website as well) before letting go so you can access the site. Always disable it, it is not, I repeat NOT needed. Try it, and you will see it is not needed, and web pages will load faster.
Mastertech
02-13-2005, 02:36 AM
This is not about MY way of doing anything, it is about doing it the right way. Look you have members disabling services without understanding the consequences of doing so.
Look I tried explaining this then I get responses such as this:
Yes! And I think they also know what services they would like to be left running so they could hack\crack a system on a whim if they so wished.
Now the only service being discussed is the DNS Client Service? So wouldn't you imply that he meant leaving the DNS Client is only enabled so Microsoft can hack your system? Now tell me that is not ridiculous? This sort of response is not even rational.
Yes you can run your system without the DNS Client service however it will hurt performance by requiring unnecessary lookups. First time lookups will be the same speed on or off, subsequent lookups to items already in the DNS Cache (Client Service) will be greatly improved. Turning this off also puts unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS for unnecessary lookups.
Look I tried explaining this then I get responses such as this:
Yes! And I think they also know what services they would like to be left running so they could hack\crack a system on a whim if they so wished.
Now the only service being discussed is the DNS Client Service? So wouldn't you imply that he meant leaving the DNS Client is only enabled so Microsoft can hack your system? Now tell me that is not ridiculous? This sort of response is not even rational.
Yes you can run your system without the DNS Client service however it will hurt performance by requiring unnecessary lookups. First time lookups will be the same speed on or off, subsequent lookups to items already in the DNS Cache (Client Service) will be greatly improved. Turning this off also puts unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS for unnecessary lookups.
Picard
02-13-2005, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Mastertech
People who ignore the advice and warnings of companies who manufacturer the products you use are fools.
What does that make people who believe all the warnings of companies THAT(not who) manufacture products?
Product liability does not care what works best, rather, what is the most idiot proof.
Hint hint.
People who ignore the advice and warnings of companies who manufacturer the products you use are fools.
What does that make people who believe all the warnings of companies THAT(not who) manufacture products?
Product liability does not care what works best, rather, what is the most idiot proof.
Hint hint.
Mastertech
02-13-2005, 02:42 AM
All the dns service does is cache dns entries locally. And yes, having it enabled does slow Internet browser and network performance cause then everytime you click a link, or access your network the service first checks if the sites address has changed and then updates as necessary (this applies to every link on a website as well) before letting go so you can access the site. Always disable it, it is not, I repeat NOT needed. Try it, and you will see it is not needed, and web pages will load faster.
It doesn't check if it is changed only if it exists since loading an entry out of the cache is much quicker then quering the ISP DNS server each time. Why do you think this is called a DNS Cache? Caching implies storing it for quick access and that is exactly what it does.
"When the Windows XP Professional resolver receives a positive or negative response to a query, it adds that positive or negative response to its cache, thus creating a DNS resource record. The resolver always checks the cache before querying any DNS server, so if a DNS resource record is in the cache, the resolver uses the record from the cache rather than querying a server. This expedites queries and decreases network traffic for DNS queries."
It doesn't check if it is changed only if it exists since loading an entry out of the cache is much quicker then quering the ISP DNS server each time. Why do you think this is called a DNS Cache? Caching implies storing it for quick access and that is exactly what it does.
"When the Windows XP Professional resolver receives a positive or negative response to a query, it adds that positive or negative response to its cache, thus creating a DNS resource record. The resolver always checks the cache before querying any DNS server, so if a DNS resource record is in the cache, the resolver uses the record from the cache rather than querying a server. This expedites queries and decreases network traffic for DNS queries."
Strawbs
02-13-2005, 10:26 AM
...
"...The resolver always checks the cache before querying any DNS server,..." If a webpage has been updated in any way since last accessed, it will take longer to load with local caching switched on, because the initial query went to the local cache, which then has to check with & be refreshed from the website! With no caching - the initial query goes straight to the website, thereby removing the "middle-man" local cache out of the equasion along with the page refresh period.
Highly active Threads, Topics, etc. on Forums such as this, will load quicker without the cache because they are updated on a regular basis & clicking a link will take one directly to the updated page - rather than checking the local cache first.
Picard: Thank You for putting into words that which I couldn't quite put my finger on.
"...The resolver always checks the cache before querying any DNS server,..." If a webpage has been updated in any way since last accessed, it will take longer to load with local caching switched on, because the initial query went to the local cache, which then has to check with & be refreshed from the website! With no caching - the initial query goes straight to the website, thereby removing the "middle-man" local cache out of the equasion along with the page refresh period.
Highly active Threads, Topics, etc. on Forums such as this, will load quicker without the cache because they are updated on a regular basis & clicking a link will take one directly to the updated page - rather than checking the local cache first.
Picard: Thank You for putting into words that which I couldn't quite put my finger on.
r8500
02-13-2005, 11:22 AM
Not to mention is you have your system doing DNS cache, and its loads information on a site while it is down. If it is down temporarily, and it caches this, then it is going to take longer to load the site when it is finally up because the site unavailable is going to ba cached.
See, there is more than one right way.
See, there is more than one right way.
Mastertech
02-13-2005, 01:08 PM
If a webpage has been updated in any way since last accessed, it will take longer to load with local caching switched on, because the initial query went to the local cache, which then has to check with & be refreshed from the website! With no caching - the initial query goes straight to the website, thereby removing the "middle-man" local cache out of the equasion along with the page refresh period.If it is in the cache it just loads the page using the cached DNS address. If it is not cached it goes to your ISP's DNS server which may or may not have it cached. Your local DNS cache will always load the page faster if it is in it. What your describing makes absolutely no sense and would defeat the purpose of the DNS cache.
Mastertech
02-13-2005, 01:10 PM
Not to mention is you have your system doing DNS cache, and its loads information on a site while it is down. If it is down temporarily, and it caches this, then it is going to take longer to load the site when it is finally up because the site unavailable is going to ba cached.Yes this can happen, however not often and the speed benefits offered by using the local DNS cache outweigh a handful of situations you are describing. These sorts of cache miss scenarios happen all the time with all sorts of caching on your system but you don't see people turning them off because of this.
Strawbs
02-13-2005, 01:21 PM
... and would defeat the purpose of the DNS cacheprecisely!
Mastertech
02-13-2005, 08:05 PM
If it worked that way but since it does not, the cache becomes beneficial for DNS lookups and improves performance. If it worked how you described it, Microsoft would not even waste any time putting it in.
Strawbs
02-14-2005, 05:15 PM
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/thread4sale.gif
Picard
02-17-2005, 10:56 PM
Shikes, let him use his DNS cahce, he's unwilling to try it without it, and believes everything Microsoft says. Someday, maybe, he'll be a critical thinker and come up with his own original thoughts rather than re-iterating what he has read elsewhere.
herosrest
03-02-2005, 09:22 AM
Dns cache is one of those clever little ideas that in practise is worth diddly squat on stand alone machines.
It is an unnecessary overhead.
How many websites do u visit.
Bring on active directory - an even bigger piece of junk - cluttering Os.
It is further a rather unfortunate security problem the size of the barn, never mind the barn door.
Disable it on stand alone machines.
The reason for this - It does exactly what is said on the box.
It is an unnecessary overhead.
How many websites do u visit.
Bring on active directory - an even bigger piece of junk - cluttering Os.
It is further a rather unfortunate security problem the size of the barn, never mind the barn door.
Disable it on stand alone machines.
The reason for this - It does exactly what is said on the box.
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.