Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Joe User]

One word: Opera


-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Stan Zaske]

I would hope you're not wearing one. LOL I'm personally convinced that 
Firefox is the numero uno for the hundreds of plugins (many of which add 
a lot of functionality) if no other reason.



DHSinclair wrote:

Stan,
Interesting, but does not really blow my dress up!
Duncan

At 20:06 01/23/2009 -0600, you wrote:

Thought you IE6/7 users might be interested in this:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090123/tc_pcworld/microsofttodeliverfirstie8releasecandidatemonday 




Bino Gopal wrote:
Eh, I've gotten pretty used to IE7; enough now that I don't miss it 
over
IE6.  But I will say DO NOT install IE8; the beta of that was 
horrible and I
had to get rid of it (I was very glad they at least made rolling 
back fairly

painless!).

FF3 just has too many memory leak issues (these are from die-hard Apple
fans/MS haters who are heavy web browsing-types); not to say IE 
doesn't, but

if it's not really better...

Does anyone else know about the supposed memory and/or CPU issues 
with Flash

in IE and other browsers tho?  I thought I remembered reading something
about that somewhere...

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DHSinclair
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:53 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been 
testing/using IE7 on my XP test machine.  After a year of living 
with IE7, I have to say that I do not care for its' new format. I 
get lost quickly trying to drive IE7; so, I do not do much testing 
any longer. :)

My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder 
on trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate 
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, 
but I suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the 
highway..

:(

My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of 
use; even with its' own set of small glitches.

Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:

This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I 
ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be 
interested in



how


this is solved for future reference.

On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) 
but when I
go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't 
compatible,
and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is 
no IE7

uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder


(there


is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.

T

Re: [H] Extend partition?

[DHSinclair]

Rick,
Yes, I agree.  The trial was NOT functional for me.  I am not a *nix person 
at all (except that my NAS is *nix, but I do not dabble!) :)
Anything "hard" is now avoided.  After 40 years in this sphere, if "it" is 
not easy, I just go find another way... coding business is for 
programmers. I am not a programmer.  I am a user. I quit programming 35 
years ago.

And, I suppose I am getting less patient as the days tick off.
Thank you for the share. I will go look in any case.
Best,
Duncan

At 20:45 01/23/2009 -0500, you wrote:

I said this recently on another list. (Hope it wasn't here.)

IF the trial version was fully functional, lots of people would
just "borrow it" and not buy it...

I'm not much of a Linux person, but I've used:
http://gparted.sourceforge.net/  and found it a little
similar to Acronis Partition Expert. It was a little harder to
use and required more steps.

 Rick Glazier

From: "DHSinclair"

Sam,
Yes I did solve the problem. I used PartitionMagic7.  The partition(s) is/are
happy and well.  All is back to normal again.
The Acronis trial-ware would only let me LOOK; but it would not
let me DO anything.
Thanks,
Duncan



Have you got this problem solved?
Did you get Acronis?
Sam

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[DHSinclair]

Stan,
Interesting, but does not really blow my dress up!
Duncan

At 20:06 01/23/2009 -0600, you wrote:

Thought you IE6/7 users might be interested in this:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090123/tc_pcworld/microsofttodeliverfirstie8releasecandidatemonday


Bino Gopal wrote:

Eh, I've gotten pretty used to IE7; enough now that I don't miss it over
IE6.  But I will say DO NOT install IE8; the beta of that was horrible and I
had to get rid of it (I was very glad they at least made rolling back fairly
painless!).

FF3 just has too many memory leak issues (these are from die-hard Apple
fans/MS haters who are heavy web browsing-types); not to say IE doesn't, but
if it's not really better...

Does anyone else know about the supposed memory and/or CPU issues with Flash
in IE and other browsers tho?  I thought I remembered reading something
about that somewhere...

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DHSinclair
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:53 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been testing/using IE7 
on my XP test machine.  After a year of living with IE7, I have to say 
that I do not care for its' new format. I get lost quickly trying to 
drive IE7; so, I do not do much testing any longer. :)

My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder on 
trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate 
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, but I 
suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the highway..

:(

My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of use; 
even with its' own set of small glitches.

Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:


This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in


how


this is solved for future reference.

On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder


(there


is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.

T

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Stan Zaske]

Thought you IE6/7 users might be interested in this:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090123/tc_pcworld/microsofttodeliverfirstie8releasecandidatemonday


Bino Gopal wrote:

Eh, I've gotten pretty used to IE7; enough now that I don't miss it over
IE6.  But I will say DO NOT install IE8; the beta of that was horrible and I
had to get rid of it (I was very glad they at least made rolling back fairly
painless!).

FF3 just has too many memory leak issues (these are from die-hard Apple
fans/MS haters who are heavy web browsing-types); not to say IE doesn't, but
if it's not really better...

Does anyone else know about the supposed memory and/or CPU issues with Flash
in IE and other browsers tho?  I thought I remembered reading something
about that somewhere...

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DHSinclair
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:53 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been testing/using IE7 
on my XP test machine.  After a year of living with IE7, I have to say that 
I do not care for its' new format. I get lost quickly trying to drive IE7; 
so, I do not do much testing any longer. :)

My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder on 
trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate 
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, but I 
suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the highway..

:(

My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of use; even 
with its' own set of small glitches.

Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:
  

This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in


how
  

this is solved for future reference.

On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder


(there
  

is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.

T





  

Re: [H] Extend partition?

[Rick Glazier]

I said this recently on another list. (Hope it wasn't here.)

IF the trial version was fully functional, lots of people would
just "borrow it" and not buy it...

I'm not much of a Linux person, but I've used:
http://gparted.sourceforge.net/  and found it a little
similar to Acronis Partition Expert. It was a little harder to
use and required more steps.

 Rick Glazier

From: "DHSinclair" 

Sam,
Yes I did solve the problem. I used PartitionMagic7.  The partition(s) is/are
happy and well.  All is back to normal again.
The Acronis trial-ware would only let me LOOK; but it would not
let me DO anything.
Thanks,
Duncan



Have you got this problem solved?
Did you get Acronis?
Sam

[H] "target.lnk" files?

[DHSinclair]

Is there a way I can stop my LAN clients (XP) from creating these icons/files
in the "My Network Places" global icon?

I think these are reminders of where any given client goes to visit their 
LAN neighbors for moving/copying files and such.  I do this a lot 
daily...

I could be way wrong.
Thanks,
Duncan

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[DHSinclair]

fp,
THAT IS MY POLICY also..not to worry.
Duncan

At 17:37 01/23/2009 -0700, you wrote:
I tell my family daily to NOT leave browser windows minimized, paranoid I 
guess. Seems like leaving a door unlocked to me but I may be wrong.

fp

At 03:32 PM 1/23/2009, DHSinclair Poked the stick with:
>Chris,
>Thanks.  OK.  My habit is to open the browser when needed, do my 
business, close browser, go about my business.  I never have a browser 
OPEN all day (except for the radio audio streams I listen to 
daily!).  There are the occasional "shopping" sessions!

>
>I am still having trouble with "tabs" for some reason.  If "tabs" are 
enabled, the FF3 browser just grinds to a halt quickly; like right after 
the 2d "tab".  If I disable "tabs" and us "open in a new browser page," 
FF3 works great; just like IE.  This is my current run choice.
>I know that problem is here locally.  I just have not found it and 
killed it! LOL!
>Several have suggested that I just kill/erase the current FF install and 
start fresh. An option, perhaps, but I am still wondering why?  I started 
w/FF3.01 and am not at FF3.05 (using NoScript and CSLite).

>
>Whatever. Not an operational issue for me ATM.
>Best,
>Duncan
>
>At 17:03 01/23/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, DHSinclair wrote:
>>
>>>Bino,
>>>Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
>>>IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I 
have been
>>>schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary 
tricks to

>>>"harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.
>>>
>>>Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.
>>>
>>>Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
>>>now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
>>>"memory leak" anyway?
>>>Thanks,
>>>Duncan
>>
>>Meh, my order of Preference is FF3 > FF2 > IE7 > IE6.
>>
>>Tabs are a must, and IE6 doesn't support them out of the box.
>>
>>
>>The memory leak isn't a leak per say, it's just that the way firefox is 
written it caches stuff.  a LOT of stuff.  If you have firefox open and 
rarely close it (I am like that at work -- restart firefox every couple 
of WEEKS) and run with a bunch of tabs (6+ or more) you'll run into 
instances where firefox grows to use all the available memory on the system.

>>
>>
>>It can be controlled by doing various tweaks, but mostly it's just a 
matter of minimizing it and restoring it.

>>
>>
>>Christopher Fisk
>>
>>--
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>believed to be clean.

--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Living: The best demonstration of victory over mortality.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[FORC5]

I tell my family daily to NOT leave browser windows minimized, paranoid I 
guess. Seems like leaving a door unlocked to me but I may be wrong.
fp

At 03:32 PM 1/23/2009, DHSinclair Poked the stick with:
>Chris,
>Thanks.  OK.  My habit is to open the browser when needed, do my business, 
>close browser, go about my business.  I never have a browser OPEN all day 
>(except for the radio audio streams I listen to daily!).  There are the 
>occasional "shopping" sessions!
>
>I am still having trouble with "tabs" for some reason.  If "tabs" are enabled, 
>the FF3 browser just grinds to a halt quickly; like right after the 2d "tab".  
>If I disable "tabs" and us "open in a new browser page," FF3 works great; just 
>like IE.  This is my current run choice.
>I know that problem is here locally.  I just have not found it and killed 
>it! LOL!
>Several have suggested that I just kill/erase the current FF install and start 
>fresh. An option, perhaps, but I am still wondering why?  I started w/FF3.01 
>and am not at FF3.05 (using NoScript and CSLite).
>
>Whatever. Not an operational issue for me ATM.
>Best,
>Duncan
>
>At 17:03 01/23/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, DHSinclair wrote:
>>
>>>Bino,
>>>Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
>>>IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I have been
>>>schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary tricks to
>>>"harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.
>>>
>>>Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.
>>>
>>>Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
>>>now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
>>>"memory leak" anyway?
>>>Thanks,
>>>Duncan
>>
>>Meh, my order of Preference is FF3 > FF2 > IE7 > IE6.
>>
>>Tabs are a must, and IE6 doesn't support them out of the box.
>>
>>
>>The memory leak isn't a leak per say, it's just that the way firefox is 
>>written it caches stuff.  a LOT of stuff.  If you have firefox open and 
>>rarely close it (I am like that at work -- restart firefox every couple of 
>>WEEKS) and run with a bunch of tabs (6+ or more) you'll run into instances 
>>where firefox grows to use all the available memory on the system.
>>
>>
>>It can be controlled by doing various tweaks, but mostly it's just a matter 
>>of minimizing it and restoring it.
>>
>>
>>Christopher Fisk
>>
>>--
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>believed to be clean.

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Living: The best demonstration of victory over mortality.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[DHSinclair]

Chris,
Thanks.  OK.  My habit is to open the browser when needed, do my business, 
close browser, go about my business.  I never have a browser OPEN all day 
(except for the radio audio streams I listen to daily!).  There are the 
occasional "shopping" sessions!


I am still having trouble with "tabs" for some reason.  If "tabs" are 
enabled, the FF3 browser just grinds to a halt quickly; like right after 
the 2d "tab".  If I disable "tabs" and us "open in a new browser page," FF3 
works great; just like IE.  This is my current run choice.
I know that problem is here locally.  I just have not found it and killed 
it! LOL!
Several have suggested that I just kill/erase the current FF install and 
start fresh. An option, perhaps, but I am still wondering why?  I started 
w/FF3.01 and am not at FF3.05 (using NoScript and CSLite).


Whatever. Not an operational issue for me ATM.
Best,
Duncan

At 17:03 01/23/2009 -0500, you wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, DHSinclair wrote:


Bino,
Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I have been
schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary tricks to
"harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.

Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.

Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
"memory leak" anyway?
Thanks,
Duncan


Meh, my order of Preference is FF3 > FF2 > IE7 > IE6.

Tabs are a must, and IE6 doesn't support them out of the box.


The memory leak isn't a leak per say, it's just that the way firefox is 
written it caches stuff.  a LOT of stuff.  If you have firefox open and 
rarely close it (I am like that at work -- restart firefox every couple of 
WEEKS) and run with a bunch of tabs (6+ or more) you'll run into instances 
where firefox grows to use all the available memory on the system.



It can be controlled by doing various tweaks, but mostly it's just a 
matter of minimizing it and restoring it.



Christopher Fisk

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Bino Gopal]

Yeah I prefer a minimialist approach too, and tabs are a must for me for
browsing, so that's why IE7 > IE6.

And it's exactly like Chris says; when the program you have open starts out
by using 100 or so MB of mem, but then after opening multiple windows and or
leaving them open for a while (which I often do) the program might grab few
hundreds, or even over 1GB of mem, and then run out of virtual mem and then
things just crawl and die at that point...

That's normal for IE from what I understand.  The other issue is that
opening more than one or two pages with Flash (like YouTube) at once causes
CPU to spike (does on my laptop and even my desktop).  Anyone else run into
this and know a fix?

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Fisk
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:04 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, DHSinclair wrote:

> Bino,
> Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
> IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I have
been
> schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary tricks
to
> "harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.
>
> Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.
>
> Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
> now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
> "memory leak" anyway?
> Thanks,
> Duncan

Meh, my order of Preference is FF3 > FF2 > IE7 > IE6.

Tabs are a must, and IE6 doesn't support them out of the box.


The memory leak isn't a leak per say, it's just that the way firefox is 
written it caches stuff.  a LOT of stuff.  If you have firefox open and 
rarely close it (I am like that at work -- restart firefox every couple of 
WEEKS) and run with a bunch of tabs (6+ or more) you'll run into instances 
where firefox grows to use all the available memory on the system.


It can be controlled by doing various tweaks, but mostly it's just a 
matter of minimizing it and restoring it.


Christopher Fisk

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Christopher Fisk]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, DHSinclair wrote:


Bino,
Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I have been
schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary tricks to
"harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.

Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.

Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
"memory leak" anyway?
Thanks,
Duncan


Meh, my order of Preference is FF3 > FF2 > IE7 > IE6.

Tabs are a must, and IE6 doesn't support them out of the box.


The memory leak isn't a leak per say, it's just that the way firefox is 
written it caches stuff.  a LOT of stuff.  If you have firefox open and 
rarely close it (I am like that at work -- restart firefox every couple of 
WEEKS) and run with a bunch of tabs (6+ or more) you'll run into instances 
where firefox grows to use all the available memory on the system.



It can be controlled by doing various tweaks, but mostly it's just a 
matter of minimizing it and restoring it.



Christopher Fisk

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[DHSinclair]

Bino,
Let's just agree to disagree then. For me, IE7 just stinks, period.
IE6sp1 is fine in either the W2K version or the XP version.  Yes, I have been
schooled, cajoled, prattled at, and scolded into certain necessary tricks to
"harden" IE.  Certainly not perfect, but so far so good.

Then again, of course, I am not browser-centric either.

Can you expand on the "memory leak issues?"  Many in the collective
now use FF and I do not recall hearing about this.  What exactly is a
"memory leak" anyway?
Thanks,
Duncan

At 13:44 01/23/2009 -0800, you wrote:

Eh, I've gotten pretty used to IE7; enough now that I don't miss it over
IE6.  But I will say DO NOT install IE8; the beta of that was horrible and I
had to get rid of it (I was very glad they at least made rolling back fairly
painless!).

FF3 just has too many memory leak issues (these are from die-hard Apple
fans/MS haters who are heavy web browsing-types); not to say IE doesn't, but
if it's not really better...

Does anyone else know about the supposed memory and/or CPU issues with Flash
in IE and other browsers tho?  I thought I remembered reading something
about that somewhere...

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DHSinclair
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:53 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been testing/using IE7
on my XP test machine.  After a year of living with IE7, I have to say that
I do not care for its' new format. I get lost quickly trying to drive IE7;
so, I do not do much testing any longer. :)
My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder on
trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, but I
suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the highway..
:(

My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of use; even
with its' own set of small glitches.
Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:
>This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
>reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in
how
>this is solved for future reference.
>
>On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
>tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:
>
>I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
>go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
>and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
>uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder
(there
>is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
>reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.
>
>T

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Bino Gopal]

Eh, I've gotten pretty used to IE7; enough now that I don't miss it over
IE6.  But I will say DO NOT install IE8; the beta of that was horrible and I
had to get rid of it (I was very glad they at least made rolling back fairly
painless!).

FF3 just has too many memory leak issues (these are from die-hard Apple
fans/MS haters who are heavy web browsing-types); not to say IE doesn't, but
if it's not really better...

Does anyone else know about the supposed memory and/or CPU issues with Flash
in IE and other browsers tho?  I thought I remembered reading something
about that somewhere...

BINO


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DHSinclair
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:53 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] IE7 problem

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been testing/using IE7 
on my XP test machine.  After a year of living with IE7, I have to say that 
I do not care for its' new format. I get lost quickly trying to drive IE7; 
so, I do not do much testing any longer. :)
My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder on 
trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate 
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, but I 
suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the highway..
:(

My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of use; even 
with its' own set of small glitches.
Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:
>This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
>reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in
how
>this is solved for future reference.
>
>On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
>tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:
>
>I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
>go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
>and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
>uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder
(there
>is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
>reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.
>
>T

Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003

[Steve Tomporowski]

Thanks!  This looks really good.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM, JRS  wrote:
> Check out this Outlook converter, only 60 bucks for a site license..
>
> http://www.processtext.com/abcoutlk.html
>
>
>
>  --
> JRS   steinie**...@pacbell.net
> Please remove  **X**  to reply...
>
>
> Facts do not cease to exist just
> because they are ignored.
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Steve Tomporowski 
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:58:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003
>
> A little bit of searching and I've found out that we're pretty much
> screwed.  If we had Word 2003, we could use that as editor and do any
> conversion, since we've never upgraded, that's that.
>
> The whole idea of using rtf is to keep the email and attachment
> together.  If you save as html, then you have to save the attachment
> separately or at least in the screwed up way our system is now.
>
> As for why, it's fit for a dilbert cartoon.  Apparently if the message
> is in it's native form, either still in outlook or saved as a .msg
> file, our lawyers believe that it is admissible as evidence in court.
> As soon as it is changed in form, it's not admissible in court.  It
> seems that our lawyers believe that we either are or will in the
> future do plenty of stuff to get us into legal trouble, so they want
> to cover their buttocks.  Of course, if one of our customers knows
> about this, they can screw us over royally by producing emails they
> have, but we have long since deleted.  We would have no leg to stand
> on.
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Joe User  wrote:
>> Hello Steve,
>>
>> Friday, January 23, 2009, 8:20:32 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> This is a question about a situation at my job.
>>
>>> The IT department does very strange things here.  Stuff will work,
>>> then they 'improve' it and then issue a workaround because things
>>> don't work anymore.
>>
>>> Currently we are using Outlook 2003 SP3, mainly because IT got it
>>> free.  It broke a few processes mainly because we have an older
>>> version Office.  They didn't upgrade Word, Excel, etc because that
>>> would have cost money.  Now the Legal department has gotten involved
>>> and suddenly saving messages in Outlook format for more than 1 year is
>>> now against company policy.  Now we have 6 months to convert all .msg
>>> files to either .html or .txt or .rtf and delete the original or IT
>>> will delete them for us (whether they are converted or not).
>>
>>> Of the 3 formats, the only one that will preserve attachments without
>>> the extra step of saving them separately is .rtf.  Of course you know
>>> that the old Outlook always worked in rtf but the new Outlook always
>>> worked in html.
>>
>>> My issue is with converting the html files so that you preserve
>>> attachments.  The IT work around forces you (or more likely Outlook
>>> forces you) to convert an html file to text first, only then do you
>>> have the option to convert to rtf.  In the process, although you do
>>> preserve the attachment but the formatting is lost.  Inline responses
>>> that used to be in color are now more difficult to see and God forbid
>>> if you actually had a table in there.
>>
>>> So after all this preample, is there a way to convert directly from an
>>> html format in the .msg files to rtf?
>>
>>> Just for reference, the IT work around is to open the .msg file,
>>> Edit-Edit Message-Format-Text (the only options shown are text and
>>> html), the again Edit-Edit Message-Format-Rich Text.
>>
>>> I've only have just over 3000 messages to go
>>
>>> ThanksSteve
>>
>>
>> This sounds retarded. A lot of work to save a file that could just be
>> left the way it is and it would be fine. Why must they be rtf? If it's
>> all about attachments and, while not mentioned, I assume these
>> attachments are threaded emails or some document format, why not just
>> leave them as html? Seems like this is being overly complicated.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>  joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
>>
>> "...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."
>>
>>
>

Re: [H] Extend partition?

[DHSinclair]

Sam,
Yes I did solve the problem. I used PartitionMagic7.  The partition(s) is/are
happy and well.  All is back to normal again.
The Acronis trial-ware would only let me LOOK; but it would not
let me DO anything.
Thanks,
Duncan

At 09:27 01/23/2009 -0800, you wrote:

Have you got this problem solved?
Did you get Acronis?
Sam

DHSinclair wrote:

Sam,
Went and dl'd the trial copy of DD10 from Acronis.  I do recognize the 
windows.  Trouble is, the trial version will NOT let me do any of the 
basic operations!  Even though the webpage indicates these operations are 
available.  Very confusing.  The only operation it did allow was to 
change my current unallocated space back to the old D:\ partition.

I still can NOT RESIZE the C:\ partition.
Acronis lets me set the operation up, but at Commit/Proceed an error 
window pops up saying that this operation is "impossible" with the trial 
edition-would I like to buy... :)
Going to snoop around for an older version. At 09:42 12/27/2008 -0800, 
you wrote:
 

\I suggest you download a trail copy of the above Acronis Disk Director 
or get a copy ofthe old Power Qwest Partition Magic

Either one will do what you want.
Sam

 





DHSinclair wrote:
Been studying the Disk Manager in XP.  I would dearly like to extend my 
current c:\ partition to now span the remaining 4.27GB on the hard 
drive.  Last night I backed up and got rid of the d:\ partition on the 
same drive.  So, now I have my c:\ partition (system) at 4.27GB, and an 
Unallocated 4.27GB space on the same drive.


Reading the details of the Disk Manager, and, buried deep in the 
directions, it says the EXTEND command will NOT allow extending a 
system/boot partition!  Huh?  Anyone know why this is so?


I suspect that the MBR may get dorked up and/or I may have to use the 
Repair Console again to do a CHKDSK c: /R followed by the bootcfg 
/rebuild commands  (well if it worked :)


I do have a variety of disk partition tools here, but none will play on 
a full U160 scsi system!  And, I do hot have a spare pata CDROM to swap 
into the system... :(

Thanks,
Duncan




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 
270.10.0/1865 - Release Date: 12/26/2008 1:01 PM




--
Sam Franc
On the Oregon Coast
I must be willing to give up what I am
in order to become what I will be.-Einstein





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 
270.10.1/1868 - Release Date: 12/29/2008 10:48 AM





--
Sam Franc
On the Oregon Coast
I must be willing to give up what I am
in order to become what I will be.-Einstein

Re: [H] Extend partition?

[Sam Franc]

Have you got this problem solved?
Did you get Acronis?
Sam

DHSinclair wrote:

Sam,
Went and dl'd the trial copy of DD10 from Acronis.  I do recognize the 
windows.  Trouble is, the trial version will NOT let me do any of the 
basic operations!  Even though the webpage indicates these operations 
are available.  Very confusing.  The only operation it did allow was 
to change my current unallocated space back to the old D:\ partition.  
I still can NOT RESIZE the C:\ partition.
Acronis lets me set the operation up, but at Commit/Proceed an error 
window pops up saying that this operation is "impossible" with the 
trial edition-would I like to buy... :)
Going to snoop around for an older version. At 09:42 12/27/2008 -0800, 
you wrote:
 

\I suggest you download a trail copy of the above Acronis Disk 
Director or get a copy ofthe old Power Qwest Partition Magic

Either one will do what you want.
Sam

 





DHSinclair wrote:
Been studying the Disk Manager in XP.  I would dearly like to extend 
my current c:\ partition to now span the remaining 4.27GB on the 
hard drive.  Last night I backed up and got rid of the d:\ partition 
on the same drive.  So, now I have my c:\ partition (system) at 
4.27GB, and an Unallocated 4.27GB space on the same drive.


Reading the details of the Disk Manager, and, buried deep in the 
directions, it says the EXTEND command will NOT allow extending a 
system/boot partition!  Huh?  Anyone know why this is so?


I suspect that the MBR may get dorked up and/or I may have to use 
the Repair Console again to do a CHKDSK c: /R followed by the 
bootcfg /rebuild commands  (well if it worked :)


I do have a variety of disk partition tools here, but none will play 
on a full U160 scsi system!  And, I do hot have a spare pata CDROM 
to swap into the system... :(

Thanks,
Duncan

 




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus 
Database: 270.10.0/1865 - Release Date: 12/26/2008 1:01 PM





--
Sam Franc
On the Oregon Coast
I must be willing to give up what I am
in order to become what I will be.-Einstein





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date: 12/29/2008 10:48 AM


  


--
Sam Franc
On the Oregon Coast
I must be willing to give up what I am
in order to become what I will be.-Einstein

Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003

[JRS]

Check out this Outlook converter, only 60 bucks for a site license..

http://www.processtext.com/abcoutlk.html



 -- 
JRS   steinie**...@pacbell.net
Please remove  **X**  to reply...


Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.





From: Steve Tomporowski 
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:58:37 AM
Subject: Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003

A little bit of searching and I've found out that we're pretty much
screwed.  If we had Word 2003, we could use that as editor and do any
conversion, since we've never upgraded, that's that.

The whole idea of using rtf is to keep the email and attachment
together.  If you save as html, then you have to save the attachment
separately or at least in the screwed up way our system is now.

As for why, it's fit for a dilbert cartoon.  Apparently if the message
is in it's native form, either still in outlook or saved as a .msg
file, our lawyers believe that it is admissible as evidence in court.
As soon as it is changed in form, it's not admissible in court.  It
seems that our lawyers believe that we either are or will in the
future do plenty of stuff to get us into legal trouble, so they want
to cover their buttocks.  Of course, if one of our customers knows
about this, they can screw us over royally by producing emails they
have, but we have long since deleted.  We would have no leg to stand
on.

Steve

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Joe User  wrote:
> Hello Steve,
>
> Friday, January 23, 2009, 8:20:32 AM, you wrote:
>
>> This is a question about a situation at my job.
>
>> The IT department does very strange things here.  Stuff will work,
>> then they 'improve' it and then issue a workaround because things
>> don't work anymore.
>
>> Currently we are using Outlook 2003 SP3, mainly because IT got it
>> free.  It broke a few processes mainly because we have an older
>> version Office.  They didn't upgrade Word, Excel, etc because that
>> would have cost money.  Now the Legal department has gotten involved
>> and suddenly saving messages in Outlook format for more than 1 year is
>> now against company policy.  Now we have 6 months to convert all .msg
>> files to either .html or .txt or .rtf and delete the original or IT
>> will delete them for us (whether they are converted or not).
>
>> Of the 3 formats, the only one that will preserve attachments without
>> the extra step of saving them separately is .rtf.  Of course you know
>> that the old Outlook always worked in rtf but the new Outlook always
>> worked in html.
>
>> My issue is with converting the html files so that you preserve
>> attachments.  The IT work around forces you (or more likely Outlook
>> forces you) to convert an html file to text first, only then do you
>> have the option to convert to rtf.  In the process, although you do
>> preserve the attachment but the formatting is lost.  Inline responses
>> that used to be in color are now more difficult to see and God forbid
>> if you actually had a table in there.
>
>> So after all this preample, is there a way to convert directly from an
>> html format in the .msg files to rtf?
>
>> Just for reference, the IT work around is to open the .msg file,
>> Edit-Edit Message-Format-Text (the only options shown are text and
>> html), the again Edit-Edit Message-Format-Rich Text.
>
>> I've only have just over 3000 messages to go
>
>> ThanksSteve
>
>
> This sounds retarded. A lot of work to save a file that could just be
> left the way it is and it would be fine. Why must they be rtf? If it's
> all about attachments and, while not mentioned, I assume these
> attachments are threaded emails or some document format, why not just
> leave them as html? Seems like this is being overly complicated.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>  joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
>
> "...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."
>
>

Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003

[Steve Tomporowski]

A little bit of searching and I've found out that we're pretty much
screwed.  If we had Word 2003, we could use that as editor and do any
conversion, since we've never upgraded, that's that.

The whole idea of using rtf is to keep the email and attachment
together.  If you save as html, then you have to save the attachment
separately or at least in the screwed up way our system is now.

As for why, it's fit for a dilbert cartoon.  Apparently if the message
is in it's native form, either still in outlook or saved as a .msg
file, our lawyers believe that it is admissible as evidence in court.
As soon as it is changed in form, it's not admissible in court.  It
seems that our lawyers believe that we either are or will in the
future do plenty of stuff to get us into legal trouble, so they want
to cover their buttocks.  Of course, if one of our customers knows
about this, they can screw us over royally by producing emails they
have, but we have long since deleted.  We would have no leg to stand
on.

Steve

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Joe User  wrote:
> Hello Steve,
>
> Friday, January 23, 2009, 8:20:32 AM, you wrote:
>
>> This is a question about a situation at my job.
>
>> The IT department does very strange things here.  Stuff will work,
>> then they 'improve' it and then issue a workaround because things
>> don't work anymore.
>
>> Currently we are using Outlook 2003 SP3, mainly because IT got it
>> free.  It broke a few processes mainly because we have an older
>> version Office.  They didn't upgrade Word, Excel, etc because that
>> would have cost money.  Now the Legal department has gotten involved
>> and suddenly saving messages in Outlook format for more than 1 year is
>> now against company policy.  Now we have 6 months to convert all .msg
>> files to either .html or .txt or .rtf and delete the original or IT
>> will delete them for us (whether they are converted or not).
>
>> Of the 3 formats, the only one that will preserve attachments without
>> the extra step of saving them separately is .rtf.  Of course you know
>> that the old Outlook always worked in rtf but the new Outlook always
>> worked in html.
>
>> My issue is with converting the html files so that you preserve
>> attachments.  The IT work around forces you (or more likely Outlook
>> forces you) to convert an html file to text first, only then do you
>> have the option to convert to rtf.  In the process, although you do
>> preserve the attachment but the formatting is lost.  Inline responses
>> that used to be in color are now more difficult to see and God forbid
>> if you actually had a table in there.
>
>> So after all this preample, is there a way to convert directly from an
>> html format in the .msg files to rtf?
>
>> Just for reference, the IT work around is to open the .msg file,
>> Edit-Edit Message-Format-Text (the only options shown are text and
>> html), the again Edit-Edit Message-Format-Rich Text.
>
>> I've only have just over 3000 messages to go
>
>> ThanksSteve
>
>
> This sounds retarded. A lot of work to save a file that could just be
> left the way it is and it would be fine. Why must they be rtf? If it's
> all about attachments and, while not mentioned, I assume these
> attachments are threaded emails or some document format, why not just
> leave them as html? Seems like this is being overly complicated.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>  joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
>
> "...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."
>
>

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Christopher Fisk]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote:


This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in how
this is solved for future reference.


If you use the reset IE settings button does that help?  Also set each 
security zone to default?



Christopher Fisk

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[DHSinclair]

I am interested in this IE7 business also.  I have been testing/using IE7 
on my XP test machine.  After a year of living with IE7, I have to say that 
I do not care for its' new format. I get lost quickly trying to drive IE7; 
so, I do not do much testing any longer. :)

My remaining non-FF machines still use IE6sp1(?).

But,  during my last 3 XP upgrades I see that MS is leaning harder on 
trying to force IE7 installation during the initial WinUpdate 
cycle.  Scary.  Kudos that MS still allows me to NOT install IE7, but I 
suspect the time will come that it will be either IE7 or the highway.. :(


My out will be FF3 which I am growing more happy with each day of use; even 
with its' own set of small glitches.

Duncan

At 19:40 01/23/2009 +0300, you wrote:

This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in how
this is solved for future reference.

On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder (there
is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.

T

Re: [H] IE7 problem

[Naushad Zulfiqar]

This is a very interesting problem. I had something similar, but I ended up
reformatting because of other problems. Anyway, I would be interested in how
this is solved for future reference.

On Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM, "Thane Sherrington" <
tsh...@computerconnectionltd.com> wrote:

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but when I
go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't compatible,
and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or IE7.  There is no IE7
uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is no %windir%\IE7 folder (there
is a %windir%\IE7updates folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried
reinstalling IE7, and it appears to install, but still doesn't work.

T

Re: [H] Message format in Outlook 2003

[Joe User]

Hello Steve,

Friday, January 23, 2009, 8:20:32 AM, you wrote:

> This is a question about a situation at my job.

> The IT department does very strange things here.  Stuff will work,
> then they 'improve' it and then issue a workaround because things
> don't work anymore.

> Currently we are using Outlook 2003 SP3, mainly because IT got it
> free.  It broke a few processes mainly because we have an older
> version Office.  They didn't upgrade Word, Excel, etc because that
> would have cost money.  Now the Legal department has gotten involved
> and suddenly saving messages in Outlook format for more than 1 year is
> now against company policy.  Now we have 6 months to convert all .msg
> files to either .html or .txt or .rtf and delete the original or IT
> will delete them for us (whether they are converted or not).

> Of the 3 formats, the only one that will preserve attachments without
> the extra step of saving them separately is .rtf.  Of course you know
> that the old Outlook always worked in rtf but the new Outlook always
> worked in html.

> My issue is with converting the html files so that you preserve
> attachments.  The IT work around forces you (or more likely Outlook
> forces you) to convert an html file to text first, only then do you
> have the option to convert to rtf.  In the process, although you do
> preserve the attachment but the formatting is lost.  Inline responses
> that used to be in color are now more difficult to see and God forbid
> if you actually had a table in there.

> So after all this preample, is there a way to convert directly from an
> html format in the .msg files to rtf?

> Just for reference, the IT work around is to open the .msg file,
> Edit-Edit Message-Format-Text (the only options shown are text and
> html), the again Edit-Edit Message-Format-Rich Text.

> I've only have just over 3000 messages to go

> ThanksSteve


This sounds retarded. A lot of work to save a file that could just be
left the way it is and it would be fine. Why must they be rtf? If it's
all about attachments and, while not mentioned, I assume these
attachments are threaded emails or some document format, why not just
leave them as html? Seems like this is being overly complicated. 


-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

[H] IE7 problem

[Thane Sherrington]

I've got a machine which has IE7 installed (Help/About says IE7) but 
when I go to Windows Update it tells me that the browser I have isn't 
compatible, and that I should upgrade from IE5 to either IE6 or 
IE7.  There is no IE7 uninstall in Add/Remove programs, and there is 
no %windir%\IE7 folder (there is a %windir%\IE7updates 
folder.)  Anyone ever see this?  I've tried reinstalling IE7, and it 
appears to install, but still doesn't work.


T

[H] Message format in Outlook 2003

[Steve Tomporowski]

This is a question about a situation at my job.

The IT department does very strange things here.  Stuff will work,
then they 'improve' it and then issue a workaround because things
don't work anymore.

Currently we are using Outlook 2003 SP3, mainly because IT got it
free.  It broke a few processes mainly because we have an older
version Office.  They didn't upgrade Word, Excel, etc because that
would have cost money.  Now the Legal department has gotten involved
and suddenly saving messages in Outlook format for more than 1 year is
now against company policy.  Now we have 6 months to convert all .msg
files to either .html or .txt or .rtf and delete the original or IT
will delete them for us (whether they are converted or not).

Of the 3 formats, the only one that will preserve attachments without
the extra step of saving them separately is .rtf.  Of course you know
that the old Outlook always worked in rtf but the new Outlook always
worked in html.

My issue is with converting the html files so that you preserve
attachments.  The IT work around forces you (or more likely Outlook
forces you) to convert an html file to text first, only then do you
have the option to convert to rtf.  In the process, although you do
preserve the attachment but the formatting is lost.  Inline responses
that used to be in color are now more difficult to see and God forbid
if you actually had a table in there.

So after all this preample, is there a way to convert directly from an
html format in the .msg files to rtf?

Just for reference, the IT work around is to open the .msg file,
Edit-Edit Message-Format-Text (the only options shown are text and
html), the again Edit-Edit Message-Format-Rich Text.

I've only have just over 3000 messages to go

ThanksSteve