Windows Update KB951847 error codes 0x8070663, 0x663

's Computer Specifications

In January of 2012 I did a reinstall of WinXP Pro SP2
from CD and updated to SP3, IE8 and all of the security
updates suggested by the Windows UPDATE site.
It's very laborious rebooting over and over as
directed but everything worked just fine until I got to
KB951847 .NET 3.5 SP1 and .NET Framework 3.5
Family Update for .NET v 2.0 through 3.5 and a
raft of other Framework UPDATES pushed after
that were failing.

They would download without any bad sectors yet
would FAIL to install, reported by an X on a red circle.
Retries and clicking on the warning x's to get the error codes
gave me errors 0x80070663, 0x663 and 0x8007064c.
I studied various cures described online including both
small MS Fixit and larger MS Fixit program that installs.
The larger one had whole major sections which would
not even run and could NOT report that failure to MS.
I noticed that various people had reported similar
Framework update failures even going back several
years and in many cases there was no report back
about what actually resolved them.

The cure that finally worked for me was described here:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...1-232642579e69

Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!

Checking the version of windows installer
---------------------------------------------------------
http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archiv.../03/99125.aspx

<html>
<head>
<script language="vbscript">
sub document_onclick()
set installer = createobject("windowsinstaller.installer")
msgbox installer.version
end sub
</script>
</head>
<body>
Click me for Windows Installer version...
</body>
</html>

Cut and paste that text into notepad, save it as a text file,
rename .txt to .html and double click to run it.
When you run it approve activex access and click the text.
The version of installer (internal code) will be revealed.
Some other methods to investigate what VERSION
you have actually report the number of a
related module but not the Windows Installer itself.
(formerly MSI, formerly MSinstall)
This short html (with approvals from operator)
apparently give a more accurate answer as to
the version of Windows Installer as it is called now.

I found that despite SP3 and ALL of the updates
the update site had pushed out to me that it had
never pushed Windows Installer 4.5 out to me.

I had 3.1.4001.5512 before the KB942288-V3-x86
redistributable installed 4.5.6001.22159 on my machine.
That's a huge jump in software revisions!

Yes, Microsoft's update site had pushed out updates
that required a newer version of INSTALLER before
pushing out the newer INSTALLER to do the job!

Note to Windows UPDATE site managers!

After I installed Windows Installer 4.5 KB942288
in the right flavor for my machine I was right
back to getting updates pushed out by the
Windows UPDATE site and rebooting and
going back to the site as directed and without
0x633, 0x80070663 or 0x8007064c error codes.

Windows Installer 4.5 had solved the update failure problem.

Installer (MSI) 4.5 for various systems

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942288

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en...s.aspx?id=8483

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=120486

Thank you to Gokul T at Microsoft!
Your 2009 pointer solved my problem in 2012.
Thanks!
Greg S. Hanson
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

's Computer Specifications

You realize that you probably didn't need all of that
in the first place? The .Net Framework is only needed
if you have .Net software. The 3+ versions are about
1/2 GB total size! It's basically a gigantic, bloated
Microsoft Java.

Even most people who need .Net don't need greater
than v. 2. When Microsoft came out with v. 3 it was a
problem for .Net programmers: Most people didn't have
the v. 3 runtime and dependencies half the size of the
operating system are tricky to sneak by end users who
thought they were just installing a 2 MB trinket program.
So MS designed later versions of Visual Studio (the
programming tool for .Net software) so that software
could be written in .Net v. 2 or later. Only people who
needed functionality in .Net 3+ would need to program
in .Net 3+.

The whole .Net mess was originally designed to compete
with Java in writing quickie applets on corporate intranet
servers. Microsoft pretends it's also the tool of choice for
writing Windows software because they want to get away
from allowing 3rd-party programmers free rein on Windows.
..Net, like Java, is designed for sandboxed, "safe" software.
The .Net runtime is one gigantic wrapper running on top of
the operating system.

One can see Microsoft's general
direction in their plans for Metro software on Win8. Metro
software will be controlled. It will have to go through the MS
store. (And MS gets a cut of sales.) And from reports it sounds
like it will be little more than glorified webpages - written in
..Net .... or javascript! Windows software will still be possible
-- as currently planned -- but it will only run on Desktop
Windows, and Metro software cannot be written as compiled
Windows software.

If you need .Net and don't mind the bloat then there's
no problem installing it, but it is *not* a part of Windows.
(I have XP SP3 and have no .Net files at all. As with Java,
if I come across software that needs .Net I find different
software to serve my needs.)

--
--
"Greegor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ebd072ea-4e57-48ad-af45-(E-Mail Removed)...
| In January of 2012 I did a reinstall of WinXP Pro SP2
| from CD and updated to SP3, IE8 and all of the security
| updates suggested by the Windows UPDATE site.
| It's very laborious rebooting over and over as
| directed but everything worked just fine until I got to
| KB951847 .NET 3.5 SP1 and .NET Framework 3.5
| Family Update for .NET v 2.0 through 3.5 and a
| raft of other Framework UPDATES pushed after
| that were failing.
|
| They would download without any bad sectors yet
| would FAIL to install, reported by an X on a red circle.
| Retries and clicking on the warning x's to get the error codes
| gave me errors 0x80070663, 0x663 and 0x8007064c.
| I studied various cures described online including both
| small MS Fixit and larger MS Fixit program that installs.
| The larger one had whole major sections which would
| not even run and could NOT report that failure to MS.
| I noticed that various people had reported similar
| Framework update failures even going back several
| years and in many cases there was no report back
| about what actually resolved them.
|
| The cure that finally worked for me was described here:
|
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...1-232642579e69
|
| Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!
|
| Checking the version of windows installer
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archiv.../03/99125.aspx
|
| <html>
| <head>
| <script language="vbscript">
| sub document_onclick()
| set installer = createobject("windowsinstaller.installer")
| msgbox installer.version
| end sub
| </script>
| </head>
| <body>
| Click me for Windows Installer version...
| </body>
| </html>
|
| Cut and paste that text into notepad, save it as a text file,
| rename .txt to .html and double click to run it.
| When you run it approve activex access and click the text.
| The version of installer (internal code) will be revealed.
| Some other methods to investigate what VERSION
| you have actually report the number of a
| related module but not the Windows Installer itself.
| (formerly MSI, formerly MSinstall)
| This short html (with approvals from operator)
| apparently give a more accurate answer as to
| the version of Windows Installer as it is called now.
|
| I found that despite SP3 and ALL of the updates
| the update site had pushed out to me that it had
| never pushed Windows Installer 4.5 out to me.
|
| I had 3.1.4001.5512 before the KB942288-V3-x86
| redistributable installed 4.5.6001.22159 on my machine.
| That's a huge jump in software revisions!
|
| Yes, Microsoft's update site had pushed out updates
| that required a newer version of INSTALLER before
| pushing out the newer INSTALLER to do the job!
|
| Note to Windows UPDATE site managers!
|
| After I installed Windows Installer 4.5 KB942288
| in the right flavor for my machine I was right
| back to getting updates pushed out by the
| Windows UPDATE site and rebooting and
| going back to the site as directed and without
| 0x633, 0x80070663 or 0x8007064c error codes.
|
| Windows Installer 4.5 had solved the update failure problem.
|
| Installer (MSI) 4.5 for various systems
|
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942288
|
| http://www.microsoft.com/download/en...s.aspx?id=8483
|
| http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=120486
|
| Thank you to Gokul T at Microsoft!
| Your 2009 pointer solved my problem in 2012.
| Thanks!
| Greg S. Hanson
| Cedar Rapids, Iowa

's Computer Specifications

On Jan 8, 8:48*am, "Mayayana" <mayay...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> You realize that you probably didn't need all of that
> in the first place? The .Net Framework is only needed
> if you have .Net software. The 3+ versions are about
> 1/2 GB total size! It's basically a gigantic, bloated
> Microsoft Java.
>
> * *Even most people who need .Net don't need greater
> than v. 2. When Microsoft came out with v. 3 it was a
> problem for .Net programmers: Most people didn't have
> the v. 3 runtime and dependencies half the size of the
> operating system are tricky to sneak by end users who
> thought they were just installing a 2 MB trinket program.
> So MS designed later versions of Visual Studio (the
> programming tool for .Net software) so that software
> could be written in .Net v. 2 or later. Only people who
> needed functionality in .Net 3+ would need to program
> in .Net 3+.
>
> * *The whole .Net mess was originally designed to compete
> with Java in writing quickie applets on corporate intranet
> servers. Microsoft pretends it's also the tool of choice for
> writing Windows software because they want to get away
> from allowing 3rd-party programmers free rein on Windows.
> .Net, like Java, is designed for sandboxed, "safe" software.
> The .Net runtime is one gigantic wrapper running on top of
> the operating system.
>
> * *One can see Microsoft's general
> direction in their plans for Metro software on Win8. Metro
> software will be controlled. It will have to go through the MS
> store. (And MS gets a cut of sales.) And from reports it sounds
> like it will be little more than glorified webpages - written in
> .Net .... or javascript! Windows software will still be possible
> -- as currently planned -- but it will only run on Desktop
> Windows, and Metro software cannot be written as compiled
> Windows software.
>
> * If you need .Net and don't mind the bloat then there's
> no problem installing it, but it is *not* a part of Windows.
> (I have XP SP3 and have no .Net files at all. As with Java,
> if I come across software that needs .Net I find different
> software to serve my needs.)
>
> --
> --"Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ebd072ea-4e57-48ad-af45-(E-Mail Removed)...
> | In January of 2012 I did a reinstall of WinXP Pro SP2
> | from CD and updated to SP3, IE8 and all of the security
> | updates suggested by the Windows UPDATE site.
> | It's very laborious rebooting over and over as
> | directed but everything worked just fine until I got to
> | KB951847 .NET 3.5 SP1 and .NET Framework 3.5
> | Family Update for .NET v 2.0 through 3.5 and a
> | raft of other Framework UPDATES pushed after
> | that were failing.
> |
> | They would download without any bad sectors yet
> | would FAIL to install, reported by an X on a red circle.
> | Retries and clicking on the warning x's to get the error codes
> | gave me errors 0x80070663, 0x663 and 0x8007064c.
> | I studied various cures described online including both
> | small MS Fixit and larger MS Fixit program that installs.
> | The larger one had whole major sections which would
> | not even run and could NOT report that failure to MS.
> | I noticed that various people had reported similar
> | Framework update failures even going back several
> | years and in many cases there was no report back
> | about what actually resolved them.
> |
> | The cure that finally worked for me was described here:
> |http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...s_other-window...
> |
> | Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!
> |
> | Checking the version of windows installer
> | ---------------------------------------------------------
> |http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archiv.../03/99125.aspx
> |
> | <html>
> | <head>
> | <script language="vbscript">
> | sub document_onclick()
> | set installer = createobject("windowsinstaller.installer")
> | msgbox installer.version
> | end sub
> | </script>
> | </head>
> | <body>
> | Click me for Windows Installer version...
> | </body>
> | </html>
> |
> | Cut and paste that text into notepad, save it as a text file,
> | rename .txt to .html and double click to run it.
> | When you run it approve activex access and click the text.
> | The version of installer (internal code) will be revealed.
> | Some other methods to investigate what VERSION
> | you have actually report the number of a
> | related module but not the Windows Installer itself.
> | (formerly MSI, formerly MSinstall)
> | This short html (with approvals from operator)
> | apparently give a more accurate answer as to
> | the version of Windows Installer as it is called now.
> |
> | I found that despite SP3 and ALL of the updates
> | the update site had pushed out to me that it had
> | never pushed Windows Installer 4.5 out to me.
> |
> | I had 3.1.4001.5512 before the KB942288-V3-x86
> | redistributable installed 4.5.6001.22159 on my machine.
> | That's a huge jump in software revisions!
> |
> | Yes, Microsoft's update site had pushed out updates
> | that required a newer version of INSTALLER before
> | pushing out the newer INSTALLER to do the job!
> |
> | Note to Windows UPDATE site managers!
> |
> | After I installed Windows Installer 4.5 KB942288
> | in the right flavor for my machine I was right
> | back to getting updates pushed out by the
> | Windows UPDATE site and rebooting and
> | going back to the site as directed and without
> | 0x633, 0x80070663 or 0x8007064c error codes.
> |
> | Windows Installer 4.5 had solved the update failure problem.
> |
> | Installer (MSI) 4.5 for various systems
> |
> |http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942288
> |
> |http://www.microsoft.com/download/en...s.aspx?id=8483
> |
> |http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=120486
> |
> | Thank you to Gokul T at Microsoft!
> | Your 2009 pointer solved my problem in 2012.
> | Thanks!
> | Greg S. Hanson
> | Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Thank you Mayayana!
After consideration I agree with you
that Framework is bloatware and to
be avoided as much as possible.

Then again, Windows itself kind of is.
WinXP Pro SP2 only uses 3.16 GB on hard disk.
SP3, IE8, WMP 11 and 125+ updates pushes
it up to 10.6 GB on hard disk.

What is the best software excuse to
have Framework installed?

I routinely skipped the Hotmail LIVE update.
The last time I looked at the skipped updates
the LIVE one was not even there.

I think I even got away with skipping
the Windows Genuine Advantage update since
I'm running name brand OEM computers.

Silverlight's not that big but what
actually uses it?

I am considering whether I really even want
Windows Media Player, since I mostly play
FLV and MP4 videos on VLC Media Player (Free)
because of the playlist feature.

If a person sat down and studied the entire
list of about 150 MS security updates for XP
have some of them been superceded by others?

I had Outlook Express successfully ripped
out at one point but some updates
apparently put it back. The method I used
to successfully rip out Outlook Express
seems to fail now, after some of the updates.
That "feature" that makes the Outlook
files re-appear out of nowhere really should
be something a person can turn OFF for OE.

I noticed that several outfits are trying
to make money from people's urge to get rid
of Outlook Express.

Is there a good free Outlook Express removal tool?

Aaron Stebner's Framework Removal Tool is worth mention here.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/arc...8/8904493.aspx

Stebner did a 10-19-2011 version, fixed for 64 bit systems.

Is there a list somewhere of MS updates for XP
that are redundant, superceded or bloatware?

's Computer Specifications

In
news:d4043e8e-d8fe-4aea-b272-(E-Mail Removed),
Greegor wrote:
> I am considering whether I really even want
> Windows Media Player, since I mostly play
> FLV and MP4 videos on VLC Media Player (Free)
> because of the playlist feature.

I use both VLC and WMP 9, 10, and 12). And WMP has a far better playlist
IMHO.

> I had Outlook Express successfully ripped
> out at one point but some updates
> apparently put it back. The method I used
> to successfully rip out Outlook Express
> seems to fail now, after some of the updates.
> That "feature" that makes the Outlook
> files re-appear out of nowhere really should
> be something a person can turn OFF for OE.
>
> I noticed that several outfits are trying
> to make money from people's urge to get rid
> of Outlook Express.
>
> Is there a good free Outlook Express removal tool?

What is wrong with?

Add and Remove Programs
Add/Remove Windows Components (left pane)
Outlook Express (uncheck)

And if you want to remove WMP, it is the same place.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

's Computer Specifications

>
Then again, Windows itself kind of is.
WinXP Pro SP2 only uses 3.16 GB on hard disk.
SP3, IE8, WMP 11 and 125+ updates pushes
it up to 10.6 GB on hard disk.
>

I have SP3. With the SP-removal backups, etc.
removed it's about 1 GB. With all my software it's
about 1.4 GB. (Though it's getting harder to avoid
wildly bloated software. Many things that were once
2-5 MB seem to get bloated to 40...80...120...250...)

I guess this is all a matter of preference. I don't
agree with the idea of letting software companies
send down updates willy nilly, so that Windows is
on a dozen or more unpredictable dripfeeds. That's
what used to be called beta software.

Microsoft
is no exception. I don't enable Windows Update. If
you want to enable WU then you have to accept
the bloat and potential [likely] instability that comes
with that.

I take the approach of simply not using MS software
online. (I do use OE, out of habit, but I'm careful about
the way I open email. I don't use IE online and avoid
updating IE. (I use it for HTAs. For that usage, the older
the better.) I've never used WMP, which is spyware.
MS Office is wildly bloated and absurdly expensive.
I can't think of anything else of interest that MS makes.

On the other hand, for non-techy people who don't
take thorough security precautions online, I guess
enabling Windows Update may be the lesser of the
evils...maybe.

>
What is the best software excuse to
have Framework installed?
>

?? I don't know. You might need it for some Microsoft
software. They like to throw it in to make .Net seem
mainstream. In general it's not used for Windows
software. It's used on corporate intranets. But a few
programs here and there use it, so if you want to avoid
it you need to look at that when installing new software.
(It's very similar to Java in that way: Bloated and almost
always unnecessary on non-corporate PCs. But there is
Java software out there.)
I just posted a link in another thread for a utility to find
out what, exactly, on your system might need .Net, in
case you're considering removing it:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/test/dotnetv.zip

> Is there a good free Outlook Express removal tool?

Why does OE need to be removed? It's not very big,
and you don't have to use it.

>
Is there a list somewhere of MS updates for XP
that are redundant, superceded or bloatware?
>

Good luck with that.

's Computer Specifications

On 1/14/2012 11:08 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> I have SP3. With the SP-removal backups, etc.
> removed it's about 1 GB. With all my software it's
> about 1.4 GB...

Interesting... I have installed many XP SP2 installs and they end up
around 3GB in size. And what do you mean by SP removal backups? You mean
deleting those $Nt* folders?

> I take the approach of simply not using MS software
> online. (I do use OE, out of habit, but I'm careful about
> the way I open email. I don't use IE online and avoid
> updating IE. (I use it for HTAs. For that usage, the older
> the better.) I've never used WMP, which is spyware.
> MS Office is wildly bloated and absurdly expensive.
> I can't think of anything else of interest that MS makes.

I never had a problem with OE, IE, or WMP by attracting malware. Maybe
using the stock default settings, but I always use custom settings. And
I don't use anything higher than MS Office Pro 2000. And 12 years ago it
was bloated. But by today's standards, it is really small. Add/Remove
says I would gain 207MB of disk space if I uninstall it.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

's Computer Specifications

|
| Interesting... I have installed many XP SP2 installs and they end up
| around 3GB in size. And what do you mean by SP removal backups? You mean
| deleting those $Nt* folders?
|

I don't remember the names offhand. I think it $NT
files are patch backups. (?) But then there's also a
backup that SPs create, in case you want to reverse
the process. It's big. I don't remember how those
get named. I also generally reomve driver backups to
a spare drive, though they aren't so big. I disable
System Restore, which can save space.

Right now I've got about 2.5 GB (with the swap file
on another drive). The 1 GB figure is for a fresh setup,
with no software and no data yet installed. The 1.4 GB
figure is for XP + software, but no data.

's Computer Specifications

On Jan 14, 11:08*am, "Mayayana" <mayay...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Then again, Windows itself kind of is.
> WinXP Pro SP2 only uses 3.16 GB on hard disk.
> SP3, IE8, WMP 11 and 125+ updates pushes
> it up to 10.6 GB on hard disk.
>
>
>
> * I have SP3. With the SP-removal backups, etc.
> removed it's about 1 GB. With all my software it's
> about 1.4 GB. (Though it's getting harder to avoid
> wildly bloated software. Many things that were once
> 2-5 MB seem to get bloated to 40...80...120...250...)
>
> * I guess this is all a matter of preference. I don't
> agree with the idea of letting software companies
> send down updates willy nilly, so that Windows is
> on a dozen or more unpredictable dripfeeds. That's
> what used to be called beta software.

Microsoft
> is no exception. I don't enable Windows Update. If
> you want to enable WU then you have to accept
> the bloat and potential [likely] instability that comes
> with that.
>
> * I take the approach of simply not using MS software
> online. (I do use OE, out of habit, but I'm careful about
> the way I open email. I don't use IE online and avoid
> updating IE. (I use it for HTAs. For that usage, the older
> the better.) I've never used WMP, which is spyware.
> MS Office is wildly bloated and absurdly expensive.
> I can't think of anything else of interest that MS makes.
>
> * On the other hand, for non-techy people who don't
> take thorough security precautions online, I guess
> enabling Windows Update may be the lesser of the
> evils...maybe.
>
> *>
> What is the best software excuse to
> have Framework installed?
>
>
>
> ?? I don't know. You might need it for some Microsoft
> software. They like to throw it in to make .Net seem
> mainstream. In general it's not used for Windows
> software. It's used on corporate intranets. But a few
> programs here and there use it, so if you want to avoid
> it you need to look at that when installing new software.
> (It's very similar to Java in that way: Bloated and almost
> always unnecessary on non-corporate PCs. But there is
> Java software out there.)
> *I just posted a link in another thread for a utility to find
> out what, exactly, on your system might need .Net, in
> case you're considering removing it:
>
> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/test/dotnetv.zip
>
> > Is there a good free Outlook Express removal tool?
>
> Why does OE need to be removed? It's not very big,
> and you don't have to use it.
>
>
>
> Is there a list somewhere of MS updates for XP
> that are redundant, superceded or bloatware?
>
>
>
> Good luck with that.

LOL

It looks like a lot of the updates are
for OE security holes and my understanding
is that even if you have present but not
active, it is still vulnerable to some
attacks.

There's also the annoying housekeeping
functions for Outlook Express that
actually RUN even though OE is not installed.
One thing runs on boot and uses a COUNT
in the registry to decide if it needs
to run on this boot, etc...

We have absolutely NO use for OE so
I WISH using add/remove programs really
removed all of the OE crud.

Windows really does instill feelings
that it's a love/hate relationship.

's Computer Specifications

On 1/14/2012 12:07 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> |
> | Interesting... I have installed many XP SP2 installs and they end up
> | around 3GB in size. And what do you mean by SP removal backups? You mean
> | deleting those $Nt* folders?
> |
>
> I don't remember the names offhand. I think it $NT
> files are patch backups. (?) But then there's also a
> backup that SPs create, in case you want to reverse
> the process. It's big. I don't remember how those
> get named. I also generally reomve driver backups to
> a spare drive, though they aren't so big. I disable
> System Restore, which can save space.
>
> Right now I've got about 2.5 GB (with the swap file
> on another drive). The 1 GB figure is for a fresh setup,
> with no software and no data yet installed. The 1.4 GB
> figure is for XP + software, but no data.

And this is a stock XP install and not some lite version of XP? I am
pretty good about getting Windows running in the smallest space. And
minimizing Windows unnecessary writes (about 200MB per day) for small
SSD and longevity. But I am not that good to get XP SP3 in 2.5GB of disk
space.

Online in the EeePC forum I ran into somebody who claimed to strip XP
down so small that it boots in 10 seconds. I was very interested in this
for netbooks. But for some reason when I questioned them further, they
wouldn't give me any details.

And the files you are talking about deleting is fine if you don't ever
plan on uninstalling any updates. That isn't a problem or the most part.
Although the story I heard (which I don't know how true it is), is that
Windows Updates checks on them to see what has been updated and what
hasn't. And Updates gets confused without them and you may get updates
again that you don't need or worse, it skips updates you should have.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

's Computer Specifications

On 1/14/2012 12:13 PM, Greegor wrote:
> It looks like a lot of the updates are
> for OE security holes and my understanding
> is that even if you have present but not
> active, it is still vulnerable to some
> attacks.
>
> There's also the annoying housekeeping
> functions for Outlook Express that
> actually RUN even though OE is not installed.
> One thing runs on boot and uses a COUNT
> in the registry to decide if it needs
> to run on this boot, etc...
>
> We have absolutely NO use for OE so
> I WISH using add/remove programs really
> removed all of the OE crud.
>
> Windows really does instill feelings
> that it's a love/hate relationship.

I have been using Windows since '93 and I have never got any malware (ok
tracking cookies and some spyware, but nothing dangerous). And I was a
big fan of MS Mail and News v1 and when OE4 came out, I have used
versions of it ever since. I have used dozens of other newsreaders and
they just don't cut it for me.

And I still use other newsreader too, but OE is still my favorite. And
before XP SP2 I guess you can say there were some serious security
issues (not with me). But all of that is in the past now.

And hey if you don't like OE, just uninstall it through Add/Remove
Windows Components. It's no big deal and that is what it is there for.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Windows Update KB951847 error codes 0x8070663, 0x663	Greegor	Windows XP Help	15	20th Feb 2012 01:55 PM
Windows Update KB951847 error codes 0x8070663, 0x663	Greegor	Windows XP General	15	20th Feb 2012 01:55 PM
windows update KB951847 is not installing	abnewallo	Windows XP General	1	4th Mar 2009 07:11 PM
windows update KB951847 is not installing	abnewallo	Windows XP General	1	8th Feb 2009 09:50 PM
error code 0x663	=?Utf-8?B?c3RhcnItYnJvb2tz?=	Microsoft Dot NET Framework	1	25th Oct 2008 10:49 PM