re-install or delete activex control for windows update ?

[*ProteanThread*]

having absolutely no luck in IE7 going to any of the microsoft updates
websites (including office); how can i delete the activex for microsoft
/ windows updates so that it can be reinstalled?

(IE7 hangs everytime i try to visit an update website)

 

[Guest]

Similar problem here, IE doesn't hang but Microsoft Update gets caught in a
loop installing the ActiveX component, not finding it in IE and asking me to
install it an return. I can see the bar downloading (or trying to download)
it over and over again.

I used to have the warning bar at the top but got bored of clicking it and
wondered if it was timing out before I did so the Microsoft Update site is
allowed and Microsoft Signed Objects are automatically allowed, now it just
sticks in that loop.

I think it was soon after installing the Live Toolbar that it all started,
but that may be coincidence. I am using the release version of IE7 for this,
and prefer to use Firefox for general web browsing.

I have also used the option to reset IE7 back to defaults which may have
made the situation worse, as there are now many ActiveX components and BHOs
installed and disabled. Enabling them doesn't help, but could IE7 be using
the already installed (presumably corrupt) versions rather than the ones on
Microsoft Update... Especially when they are disabled?

I don't know, ActiveX installation seems such a black box to me I don't
really know what it's doing. I know how ActiveX embedded objects and BHOs are
developed, how they are embedded in a page etc, but what IE does with them
when it finds them and how it decides to update, replace or keep the existing
copy when it finds an Object the same or similar to one it has seen before I
have no idea.

It's also difficult to tell from the list where the objects were installed
from first, what they do or why they are, or may be, needed. Just MHO there.

But I do frequently encounter problems on Clients PCs with Windows Update
Website, and had assumed this was caused by Trojens or Rootkits stopping them
getting security patches. Maybe not, it could just be a generic problem with
a key MS technology, and that why they get so infected in the first place?

Microsoft Update may be better served as a full application rather than
executable components on a web page. I don't see this kind of issue with
Apples OS X Updater or the RPM managers in Linux f.e. They look up the latest
versions on the net from predefined URL database which points them to
specific update locations match the present Internet database with their own
database of component versions, modify it by user options and fetch and
install what is needed.

Still that doesn't help me solve the issue of accessing Microsoft Update
site when the ActiveX component won't install.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

kinda makes me not want to update to vista. :-(

 

[Guest]

kinda makes me not want to update to vista. :-(

Hmm. Well, I refuse to go 64-bit (because 64 big goes slower than
comparatively priced 32-bit processor) and since Vista needs at least 2Gig
RAM and 32-bit goes flaky with more than 2Gig RAM, and Vista doesn't support
non-iNTEL based processors and I will not install .NET framework because
every time I've tried it or programs that use it everything becomes so
unstable as to make me want to go back to pencil and paper. Vista really
isn't an issue for me personally. It's just the end of the road for windows
as we know it.

But I know I'm gonna have to put it on the systems they use at work and I'm
gonna have to maintain it and use it. Not that we can afford to upgrade the
PIII systems with only ¼Gig RAM, and shared video, so what the heck they are
gonna make of Vista I don't know.

But they are gonna be expected to run Vista only software, and not be
replaced and they can't be upgraded any more. By order of "da management". My
life is going to be very sad next year.

Ultimately I'm sure I will figure a way to remove .NET framework from Vista
by some OEM install method. I'm sure I can replace most of the resource
hogishness with decent Stardock components too.

It's also possible we will see Strong ARM based desktop PCs or something
that future Vista versions will support that I will consider or that 64-bit
intel based computers will run at the speed they advertise during normal
computing, not only under specifically 64-bit optimised gaming or server
code, and or will become worth what they cost considering the lack of
performance.

Vista may drive up demand for 64-bit PCs and thus drive down the cost of the
processors.

But I'm not in any hurry to upgrade "this" PC to anything. The question
then for my next upgrade (since I have to change hardware and throw out most
of my legacy software) is do I go Vista or Tiger? If I could choose who
manufactured the hardware to run Tiger there would be no question, but as it
is Windows may win again, *IF* certain issues can be resolved.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

Look at it as job security

Hmm. Well, I refuse to go 64-bit (because 64 big goes slower than
comparatively priced 32-bit processor) and since Vista needs at least 2Gig
RAM and 32-bit goes flaky with more than 2Gig RAM, and Vista doesn't support
non-iNTEL based processors and I will not install .NET framework because
every time I've tried it or programs that use it everything becomes so
unstable as to make me want to go back to pencil and paper. Vista really
isn't an issue for me personally. It's just the end of the road for windows
as we know it.

But I know I'm gonna have to put it on the systems they use at work and I'm
gonna have to maintain it and use it. Not that we can afford to upgrade the
PIII systems with only ¼Gig RAM, and shared video, so what the heck they are
gonna make of Vista I don't know.

But they are gonna be expected to run Vista only software, and not be
replaced and they can't be upgraded any more. By order of "da management".. My
life is going to be very sad next year.

Ultimately I'm sure I will figure a way to remove .NET framework from Vista
by some OEM install method. I'm sure I can replace most of the resource
hogishness with decent Stardock components too.

It's also possible we will see Strong ARM based desktop PCs or something
that future Vista versions will support that I will consider or that 64-bit
intel based computers will run at the speed they advertise during normal
computing, not only under specifically 64-bit optimised gaming or server
code, and or will become worth what they cost considering the lack of
performance.

Vista may drive up demand for 64-bit PCs and thus drive down the cost of the
processors.

But I'm not in any hurry to upgrade "this" PC to anything. The question
then for my next upgrade (since I have to change hardware and throw out most
of my legacy software) is do I go Vista or Tiger? If I could choose who
manufactured the hardware to run Tiger there would be no question, but asit
is Windows may win again, *IF* certain issues can be resolved.

 

[Tom Scales]

Hmm. Well, I refuse to go 64-bit (because 64 big goes slower than
comparatively priced 32-bit processor) and since Vista needs at least 2Gig
RAM and 32-bit goes flaky with more than 2Gig RAM, and Vista doesn't
support
non-iNTEL based processors and I will not install .NET framework because
every time I've tried it or programs that use it everything becomes so
unstable as to make me want to go back to pencil and paper. Vista really
isn't an issue for me personally. It's just the end of the road for
windows
as we know it.

I didn't bother to read the rest because there is SO much wrong in this one
paragraph, I lost interest.

64 bit is NOT slower for applications properly compiled for 64-bit. It's
faster. Getting the programs to natively support 64 bit will take awhile.
32 bit XP supports 3.5Gb of Ram flawlessly. So, therefore, does Vista
Vista supports AMD processors. In fact, I believe it was developed on them
DotNet is remarkably stable. It is a performance enhancement, as multiple
programs can share common libraries. If your machine becomes unstable (and
none of mine do), look at the applications.

Sounds like you haven't actually tried Vista.

Tom

 

[*ProteanThread*]

either way i don't think i'll be upgrading to vista.

 

[Rock]

Hmm. Well, I refuse to go 64-bit (because 64 big goes slower than
comparatively priced 32-bit processor) and since Vista needs at least 2Gig
RAM

<snip>

x86 Vista does not need 2GB of Ram. I'm typing this on a system with 1GB
and it runs fine. It can run on less.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

IMHO from what i've seen on MS's website, Vista isn't worth the
eyecandy. :-(

 

[Rock]

"*ProteanThread*"wrote

IMHO from what i've seen on MS's website, Vista isn't worth the
eyecandy. :-(

Have you run it? There is eye candy but that isn't the heart of it. There
are a lot of nice features in Vista, not the least of which is the increased
security. The system I'm running has a old video card that doesn't support
Aero or Glass. I'm not running it for the eye candy.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

Have you run it? There is eye candy but that isn't the heart of it. There
are a lot of nice features in Vista, not the least of which is the increased
security. The system I'm running has a old video card that doesn't support
Aero or Glass. I'm not running it for the eye candy.

Yes, was one of the fortunate to get the last beta version before final
went to production. IMHO its nothing but eye candy. take away and
disable all of the eye candy and it could run in the same minimal specs
as xp home.

nothing in vista is worth the upgrade.

 

[Rock]

Yes, was one of the fortunate to get the last beta version before final
went to production. IMHO its nothing but eye candy. take away and
disable all of the eye candy and it could run in the same minimal specs
as xp home.

nothing in vista is worth the upgrade.

Ok, I disagree. You are not understanding all the changes to the OS,
however it is a cost benefit analysis for sure. Whether it's worth it for
someone is for them to decide, but that's different than saying there is
nothing good in Vista - and it's not clear to me if that is in fact what you
are saying. The same was said when XP came out.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

actually i was looking forward to when xp came out just turns out to be
the opposite with vista (just like i liked 98 but disliked ME)

 

[Rock]

actually i was looking forward to when xp came out just turns out to be
the opposite with vista (just like i liked 98 but disliked ME)

You may have been but there were many posts from folks saying about XP what
yours says about Vista. It's a matter of individual choice and
cost/benefit, but Vista is far from worthless.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

we'll see.

You may have been but there were many posts from folks saying about XP what
yours says about Vista. It's a matter of individual choice and
cost/benefit, but Vista is far from worthless.

 

[Rock]

we'll see.

Fair enough.

 

[Guest]

64 bit is NOT slower for applications properly compiled for 64-bit. It's
faster. Getting the programs to natively support 64 bit will take awhile.

I only followed what the developers have told me. They cannot perform the
specific tune-up code on the 64-bit processors that allow them the
optimization they can achieve in 32-bit code, so they didn't bother.

If you could buy a dual core 2.3Gig 64-bit PC as cheap as a 32-bit one I'm
sure it would be faster, but at the moment a 1.9Gig single 64 processor is
more than the 2.3Gig Duo here... So that's just down to demand I guess.

DotNet is remarkably stable. It is a performance enhancement, as multiple
programs can share common libraries. If your machine becomes unstable (and
none of mine do), look at the applications.

No, my machine becomes unstable when I install the framework even if I don't
install any .NET applications. My hope was that .NET would become stable (and
cross version compatible, which is where the fun starts for me at work)
enough that what kind of processor you use is only relevant at the OS level,
and Apps will run flawlessly on all processors, compiled JIT. Like Java or
Python Apps.

Sounds like you haven't actually tried Vista.

Tom

I haven't tried recently. I lost a lot of interest when they dropped WinFS
which should have made a BIG difference to all those handle resources it uses.

I do appreciate the face lift on Explorer, the more automated networking
becomes the more I feel I'm fighting to keep control of managing my network,
so that concerns me, but again I'm sure I will figure out how to get it back.
I was impressed with the security features, and it's about time, but there
wasn't any equivalent of the Keyring or file vault of OS X, and I'm still
unsure what will be required of the DC & AD servers to manage that security
across the domain, as there is no Vista Server OS.

Chances I will get Vista, so I can support it better. But I will probably do
as I alway have. I Dual Booted 2K & XP up till SP2 of XP, because 2K was
still more stable, and faster. I got used to doing this when you had to Dual
Boot 9x for Multimedia stuff and then NT for anything you wanted secure and
stable. Since SP2 XP I've had a single OS on my machine, installed the
Recovery Console and been happy. I guess I'm just going to miss that for a
bit.

 

[Guest]

You may have been but there were many posts from folks saying about XP what

yours says about Vista. It's a matter of individual choice and
cost/benefit, but Vista is far from worthless.

I agree, the choice between XP and 2000 Pro, was only made for me when
patches stopped being issued for 2000 Pro. ME was indeed a dog, 98 was indeed
good. XP was a dog prior to SP2, and I'm thinking that Vista won't be worth
the upgrade for a couple of service packs either.

Yes, there are extra features in Vista, I've looked at each of the packages,
and each one has at least one feature I would want that none of the others
support, except the top of the line version which is far too expensive for
what you get. Each package on offer has many many features I am likely to
disable as well, just as I do with XP.

The "new features" of Vista, IMHO would better be implemented by 3rd
parties, and NOT a standard part of the OS bar 1. Virtual Folders. The only
killer feature would have been the new FS, with that dropped... or possibly
postponed for a later SP, there is no reason to upgrade to Vista rather than
upgrading XP with 3rd party components.

My greatest concern is that I do not consider the .NET framework to be
stable and suitable for Desktop / Home use... yet. Mono is, so I'm sure MS
will eventually knuckle the standard down so that apps developed for other
versions don't perform the usual package fails which no USER is going to be
able to figure a way around.

For lack of frustration .Net is a feature I retain on 2003 for Server side
applications but disable on XP Workstations so my users arn't confused with
..NET nonsense.

There is NO Vista version that works without .NET. So I will wait till that
feature becomes "User Friendly" at least.

 

[Guest]

:

get an answer to your question?

hehe No jp we didn't.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

:



hehe No jp we didn't.

I didn't either.