Windows Update KB951847 error codes 0x8070663, 0x663


G

Greegor

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/windows/forum/windows_other-windows_update/fail-to-update-windows-xp-microsoft-net-framework/d76afa76-a124-4433-81a1-232642579e69

Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!

Checking the version of windows installer
---------------------------------------------------------
http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archive/2006/06/03/99125.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/details.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
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mayayana

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.)

--
--
| 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/windows/forum/windows_other-windows_update/fail-to-update-windows-xp-microsoft-net-framework/d76afa76-a124-4433-81a1-232642579e69
|
| Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!
|
| Checking the version of windows installer
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archive/2006/06/03/99125.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/details.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
 
G

Greegor

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.)

--

| 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/windows/forum/windows_other-window...
|
| Get a redistributable update to Microsoft Installer 4.5!
|
| Checking the version of windows installer
| ---------------------------------------------------------
|http://msmvps.com/blogs/athif/archive/2006/06/03/99125.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/details.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/archive/2008/08/28/8904493.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?
 
B

BillW50

In
Greegor said:
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.
 
M

Mayayana

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.
 
B

BillW50

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.
 
M

Mayayana

|
| 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.
 
G

Greegor

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.
 
B

BillW50

|
| 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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

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.
 
M

Mayayana

| > 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?
| But I am not that good to get XP SP3 in 2.5GB of disk
| space.

Yes. It's just installing XP and then cleaning it up. I can
imagine I might clean up 100-200 MB that you don't, but
not 1.5 GB. My current 2.5 GB includes a lot of data files.
I'm not trying to keep it lean.

| 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.
|

I don't and won't enable Windows Update. It's
just a bloated accident waiting to happen in my
view. WU may be why you have a "lean" size of
2.5 GB. But you might also do a system-wide folder
size check. Odd things can happen. For instance,
the default max. size for IE temp files is somewhere
around 1 GB! I set that as small as possible and don't
use IE online. But if I remember correctly, you do use
IE.
 
B

BillW50

|> 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?
| But I am not that good to get XP SP3 in 2.5GB of disk
| space.

Yes. It's just installing XP and then cleaning it up. I can
imagine I might clean up 100-200 MB that you don't, but
not 1.5 GB. My current 2.5 GB includes a lot of data files.
I'm not trying to keep it lean.
XP SP3 even at 2.5GB is damn good. I don't think I can get mine that
lean. As a good part of SP3 needs 1.5GB of temporary space just to
install. And on a 4GB drive, it just isn't possible with XP SP2 installed.
| 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.
|

I don't and won't enable Windows Update. It's
just a bloated accident waiting to happen in my
view. WU may be why you have a "lean" size of
2.5 GB. But you might also do a system-wide folder
size check. Odd things can happen. For instance,
the default max. size for IE temp files is somewhere
around 1 GB! I set that as small as possible and don't
use IE online. But if I remember correctly, you do use
IE.
IE Cache isn't a problem. Yes you can adjust the size and you can delete
everything anytime you want too. And I use WU only as suggestions and
nothing more. As I like to hear what it suggests and I choose what parts
I am interested in.

I personally rarely use IE for anything. But I do use Maxthon 3 which
can use either IE (Trident) or Webkit (what Chrome uses) rending
engines. So the version of IE and the settings do play a part. But most
of the time I am using Webkit unless that just doesn't cut it.
 
G

Greegor

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, Microsoft's program add/remove does
NOT fully get rid of Outlook Express.

And it even leaves parts of it still RUNNING
like some sort of sorting function that
still slows down bootup of windows.

But the most sickening part of it is that
Microsoft has implemnted something
such that if you delete the unwanted
OE files, it serrupticiously PUTS THEM BACK.

Truly onerous, like the "kill" chips in
ink and toner cartridges that prevent you
from using the last ounce of ink or toner
actually IN the cartridges, but mostly
protect the makers cartridge sales racket.

The nasty business model is well known.

They sell you the printers cheap but then
rip you off on seriously overpriced
ink or toner cartridges.

Did you see where Lexmark actually
had the nerve to use the DMCA to
sue Static Control Components of Sanford NC
for making chips to overcome this racket?

Then NC passed a law aimed directly
at busting up the racket, making it
expressly legal to refill ink and
toner cartridges.

Europe also took some legal action
against this ink/toner racketeering.

I believe in free enterprise, but not
this ink and toner racket!
I would propose harsher laws to attack
the ink/toner racket.

Make it illegal for printer manufacturers
to produce or profit from ink or toner in
the first place. End the conflict of interest.

Create a situation where there are not
so many thousands of different types
of ink/toner cartridges all doing
the exact same thing.

Make ink/toner cartridges a standardized
thing like car tires or flashlight batteries
and end this less than free market racket.

Then the computer printer outfits can
compete based on actual PRINTING technology
rather than wasting so much effort on
devious ways to protect their supplies racket.

And cart refillers can stop wasting resources
overcoming the printer makers protectionism
and place more resources into competing on
price/quality/delivery.

I bet computer printers could get down to
a small assortment of standard cartridges
used by all computer printer makers.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were only
3 types of ink cartridge and 3 types
of laser toner cartridge used by ALL
of the new printer makers, all refillable?

Mandate that all new computer printers
must use ink/toner reservoirs or cartridges
designed to be refillable by users or third parties.

Get the computer printer makers OUT of the ink/toner racket.

Mandate that protectionist "kill chip" technology must go.

The racketeers perverted the notion
of "free market" so they deserve no less.

I'd like to see computer printers made
so that generic ink or toner can just be
dumped into a hopper and get makers out
of the supplies ripoff racket.

Not only is the printer supplies racket
a ripoff, but it is counter to trends
toward recycling. Reduce, REUSE, Recycle.

ANY reverse engineering that breaks
this ink/toner racket should be
expressly LEGAL. Letting printer makers hide
behind the DMCA to protect their supplies
racket is seriously wrong.

Now, Can you guess what my feelings are about
the deliberate efforts Microsoft has made to
prevent me from removing their application
program that I DO NOT USE?

LOL
 
M

Mayayana

| But the most sickening part of it is that
| Microsoft has implemnted something
| such that if you delete the unwanted
| OE files, it serrupticiously PUTS THEM BACK.
|

That's System File Protection, later renamed Windows
File Protection. It not only blocks your control without
telling you, but also stores a hidden folder full of backup
files on C drive.

My very elderly father worries that there's a "spy" on
his PC. SFP is one reason. He finds music files (the samples
that come with Windows to sell people on Media Player)
and deletes them. Later he finds they're back. I try to
explain that Windows itself puts back those files, but
he doesn't believe me. That's clearly too preposterous. :)

SFP can be uninstalled, but it takes PCHealth with it.
They're tied together. So you lose Windows help. On the
other hand, Windows help is nearly useless, so it's not
much loss. (CHM files still work. It's just that the "help
center" is removed.) After uninstalling SFP you can also
delete all the backup files. Then when you delete Media
Player, OE, etc., you'll just see a misleading message
saying that you've replaced files with invalid replacements
and should insert your Windows CD. After cancelling that
it shuts up.

The uninstall is just this single command line run in the
Run window:

rundll32.exe setupapi.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultUninstall 132
C:\WINDOWS\INF\PCHealth.inf

Watch for wordwrap. There's 1 space before and after '132'.

I don't know for sure that MS hasn't broken the
above command. I've used it before SP3, and SFP
stays gone after SP3. But I don't think I've ever
actually tried this operation on a system with
SP3 already installed. I guess the test would be
if you delete Windows Media Player files and they
don't re-appear in a few seconds.

Once rid of SFP you can delete the useless bloat
of the backup folder. I don't remember the name of
it offhand, but I think it's on the root of C drive.
I've got an empty, hidden folder named System Volume
Information. Maybe that's it.

This all gets even worse with Vista/7. One needs
special measures to get control over system files,
while Microsoft forces you to install the whole
bloated 4 GBs of DVD file to the winsxs folder, so that
they can make Vista/7 appear stable. (Since every
imaginable driver has been dumped into the winsxs
folder, Vista/7 appears to be effortless about
installing new hardware. But all that's really changed
is that the install forces you to store those drivers
without asking your permission, so it doesn't need to
ask for the DVD when you install something new.)
I've experimented with moving or deleting the winsxs
folder, by first overriding the system restrictions
with permissions changes. In one case Windows 7 became
unbootable. In another case I moved winsxs to D drive
and everything was fine....except that there were no
drives in MyComputer. :)
 
P

Paul

Mayayana said:
| But the most sickening part of it is that
| Microsoft has implemnted something
| such that if you delete the unwanted
| OE files, it serrupticiously PUTS THEM BACK.
|

That's System File Protection, later renamed Windows
File Protection. It not only blocks your control without
telling you, but also stores a hidden folder full of backup
files on C drive.

My very elderly father worries that there's a "spy" on
his PC. SFP is one reason. He finds music files (the samples
that come with Windows to sell people on Media Player)
and deletes them. Later he finds they're back. I try to
explain that Windows itself puts back those files, but
he doesn't believe me. That's clearly too preposterous. :)

SFP can be uninstalled, but it takes PCHealth with it.
They're tied together. So you lose Windows help. On the
other hand, Windows help is nearly useless, so it's not
much loss. (CHM files still work. It's just that the "help
center" is removed.) After uninstalling SFP you can also
delete all the backup files. Then when you delete Media
Player, OE, etc., you'll just see a misleading message
saying that you've replaced files with invalid replacements
and should insert your Windows CD. After cancelling that
it shuts up.

The uninstall is just this single command line run in the
Run window:

rundll32.exe setupapi.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultUninstall 132
C:\WINDOWS\INF\PCHealth.inf

Watch for wordwrap. There's 1 space before and after '132'.

I don't know for sure that MS hasn't broken the
above command. I've used it before SP3, and SFP
stays gone after SP3. But I don't think I've ever
actually tried this operation on a system with
SP3 already installed. I guess the test would be
if you delete Windows Media Player files and they
don't re-appear in a few seconds.

Once rid of SFP you can delete the useless bloat
of the backup folder. I don't remember the name of
it offhand, but I think it's on the root of C drive.
I've got an empty, hidden folder named System Volume
Information. Maybe that's it.

This all gets even worse with Vista/7. One needs
special measures to get control over system files,
while Microsoft forces you to install the whole
bloated 4 GBs of DVD file to the winsxs folder, so that
they can make Vista/7 appear stable. (Since every
imaginable driver has been dumped into the winsxs
folder, Vista/7 appears to be effortless about
installing new hardware. But all that's really changed
is that the install forces you to store those drivers
without asking your permission, so it doesn't need to
ask for the DVD when you install something new.)
I've experimented with moving or deleting the winsxs
folder, by first overriding the system restrictions
with permissions changes. In one case Windows 7 became
unbootable. In another case I moved winsxs to D drive
and everything was fine....except that there were no
drives in MyComputer. :)
Isn't there some other way to do that ?

http://www.bitsum.com/aboutwfp.asp

Paul
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Greegor

Microsoft should never have started using such
functions for keeping windows FUNCTIONAL.
Using it to protect their business interests was downright nasty.

How troublesome is a system with PCHealth and SFP gone?
Does killing those off create any bad side effects?
I have never intentionally used those functions that I KNOW of.
I've used restore points on a few work systems but
never needed a restore point on my own systems.

Does XP quietly use those without my knowledge?

In situations where many folks might use restore points
I rely instead on cloned images of the installed system.
Since I own 5 identical Dell (OEM) computers,
cloned system images work much easier than
when I had a fleet of mixed computers.

This seems vastly better than restore points, to me.

Given this situation, would getting rid of
SPF, PCHealth and restore points hurt me
in some other way?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top