 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: about Microsoft, IE, Outlook
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Tech: about Microsoft, IE, Outlook |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Jan 02 - 02:59 PM RIDDLER PART 2 The ATTRIB listing will show a list of entries, each of which will probably look something like: A SHR Filename FullPathFilename The initial four characters, A,S,H,R are the "file attributes." Only those appropriate to a given file will be shown. The "A" is officially called the "Archive Bit" and tells you whether the file has been changed since the last time it was "archived." The main old-timey use was probably with the DOS XCOPY command, where the /m switch would let you copy only files that had been changed, and would "turn off the A bit" so that you wouldn't copy them again (unless they were changed again) in your next backup. The "S" is the "System Bit" and is applied specifically so that you don't have to look at all of the program system files - and generally so you don't copy or move them unintentionally. BY DESIGN dating back to DOS version 1.4, at least, they do not display in normal DIR listings. The "H" is the "Hidden Bit," which traditionally had no more nefarious a purpose than to permit you to "remove" files from display in a DIR listing. DOS is only able to display about 25 lines on a screen. If you were working with a directory that had a few dozen files, it was very handy to be able to "Attrib +H" a few of them to get the out of the way. "ATTRIB -H *.*" brought them all back when you were done with what you were working on. The "R" is the "ReadOnly Bit," which merely means that you are "inhibited" from changing the file, especially by accident. Note that "inhibited" does NOT mean "prevented." I suppose that "Riddler" would be appalled to know that there are also other attribute bits that don't display in the ATTRIB listing. As an example, the "dirty bit" tells a program whether a file has been changed since it was last saved, so that the program can ask "Do you want to save" when you try to close without saving. And then there's the "busy bit" that lets the machine know that someone has a file open - so that you don't have two people making conflicting changes at the same time. DEEP, DARK CONSPIRACY. Cumulative disk space used is exceedingly difficult to calculate exactly, due to the need to look at exactly how many "clusters" each file needs (for each of about 15,000 files on my machine?). A rough calculation brings me easily within 10M of matching the total writable space on my drive with the space used by known and easily identifiable files. Since my last backup of about 3 years worth of email files was some 1.4G-Bytes, I really wonder where Windows is storing "all of my email in secret files." The Registry Key where "Mr Riddler" claims that Windows stores every web site you have ever visited contains exactly ONE entry on my machine. Man, I gotta get busy and go somewhere! John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Jan 02 - 03:07 PM RIDDLER PART 3 Certain information is kept in log files, and in certain instances this could be embarrassing - particularly to the paranoid. Since the same Windows used on a home machine must be useful on a network with a hundred machines, it is not too difficult to justify most of the logs. Most of these logs are in binary files, which the casual sneak probably can't read. Most of these log files can probably be deleted (but will start compiling again at the next boot-up). The key point to remember is that anyone who can access your machine can (if determined) access your data. "Deleting" a file merely erases the first byte in the cluster (The first letter of the file name). This tells the disk controller that it is free to use this cluster to write new stuff. It is relatively simple to "undelete" the file by substituting any non-null character in this space - untill something else has been written there. For all practical purposes, a good defrag will move everything around enough to make recovery impractical. It is conceded that Windows and IE do a pretty sloppy job of cleaning up when you tell it to delete temps and such, but this is a compromise between actually deleting everything and deleting what "probably isn't wanted." The program just isn't very smart. But then if it's not smart enough to delete the "right stuff," how do we expect it to be smart enought to "save and hide just the embarassing stuff?" John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:56 PM *printing this to study at leisure*.. Thanks John...it is good to get another view of it all. If it turns out that The Riddler's stuff is paranoid nonsense, so much the better. I do truly appreciate the effort to make a clear case for what you say....that's a lot of typing and thinking! I suspect that I will 'mostly' continue to use some non-MS stuff, simply because I also like the interface better, and people are not targeting Pegasus and Eudora email with viruses....and because I genuinely like the idea of MS having some real competition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 29 Jan 02 - 08:22 AM Well my index.dat files are 200k and have loads of http:// 's in, you need to read them with a BIN/HEX viewer, I use "Fileview". Does anyone know where MS puts Outlook from Office 2000? Try the properties of the shortcut and guess what? Hidden! Its the old system attribute again but which hidden folder and what have they done to the shortcut system to treat some files differently? Not that I care because all I wanted to do was load Outlook from VB and send keystrokes. VBA (even within Outlook) similalry blocks all sorts of potential virus wheezes. **BTW** I pasted this from from OutLook (Ver 8.04.5619) Help (Office 97) while I still have work! How can I prevent the Visual Basic Scripting Edition code from running? To prevent any Visual Basic Scripting Edition code from running, hold down the SHIFT key. For example, hold down SHIFT while you open an item to prevent the VBScript code for the Open event from running. AND if you thought Netscape was logical try figuring why in one dialogue box they use alt C for Colo(u)r and, while they were on a roll, the just as mnemonic alt C for Category. They couldn't use alt E for Ergonimic, no siree. Anyway I reckon I have it licked, use Messenger to lower viral exposure, get the home made functionality I want at zero co$t (never mind the grey hairs, but it is programming experience) and I'm free of MS. er....... shame about the VB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 29 Jan 02 - 01:14 PM Oh I forgot to say I copied the index.dat file to fred.txt in a temp folder before I could read the contents and probably removed attributes to get it to copy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 30 Jan 02 - 01:00 AM Hi all, intersting stuff I've got a question - I'm looking for a good and SAFE uninstall program. I've got a bunch of stuff that's taking up room and I'd like to get rid of it, but non of it has its own uninstall utility. Also, I have Norton Utilities, and for the past couple months the "Speed Disk" cannot seem to ever complete defragmenting my drive. The MS version doesn't seem to work either. My PC runs fine, as far as I know, but I'm a bit worried that I cannot defrag my drive. Sorry about thread creep, but I didn't want to waste a new thread on this and it appears that most of the wonderful people I could ask here at Mudcat are on this thread. Thanks! Blackcatter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:10 AM Blackcatter, You can remove unwanted programs using the Add/Remove Programs tool in the Windows Control Panel. To perform a defrag, print out the instructions below so you'll have them handy.
If you have never completed the maintenance activity described above, you'll find that your system seems to run faster than it did before. These routine maintenance steps should be performed every week or two in order to keep your system running at its best. It should always be performed just prior to installing any large new software package. Good luck, - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 09:55 AM do note that the defrag program in Norton is 'different' than the one given to you with Windows....and there is a lot of discussion in various forums lately about the defrag utility from Windows ME being a significant improvement!--so much so that you are finding copies of it being 'made available'(if you do a Google search in Usenet, you can explore this). I downloaded it, substituted it for the 'old' defrag program in WIN 98, and it seemed to do a good job, Whether it is better than Norton's, I cant say yet, as each defrag is a bit different...I feel ok using either Norton's or Windows'...maybe I'll pick one after a few more tests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 30 Jan 02 - 12:46 PM Just to calm the style police and claim itsa music music music thread, have folks seen Les Barkers lyrics "Re-installing Windows" to the tune of George Formby's "When I'm cleaning windows"?. He told me bitterly (as bitterly as Les ever gets) "Win95 took 6 months of my life!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:10 PM Thanks Mark, But how likely am I to screw this up? My system really works fine, I'm just concerent that both defrag programs no longer finish the work no matter how long I let them run. thanks again
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:33 PM Blackcatter...what tells you it is 'not finished'?...I have a visual display that shows me with colored bars/squares when it is done. Do you get some error message? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM The reason they don't finish is that they are interrupted when some other process changes the contents of the hard disk in some fashion. This could be almost anything as many programs remain active in the background and update a time stamp once in a while or perform some other type of disk access. Making any change to any file system on the hard disk invalidates all the information defrag collected during its first pass so all it can do is start over at the beginning. If you stop all processes running on your machine, as outlined above, except for Explorer and Systray, and then start your defrag, it should run to completion without interruption. Windows defrag will complain if you haven't run ScanDisk for a while. That's why I recommended running ScanDisk first. Perhaps the Norton defrag utility won't check to see that all your file system pointers are valid before it begins. Of course if Norton bypasses that check, you might not want to rely on the Norton defrag utility. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 30 Jan 02 - 10:40 PM There were a lot of complaints about Windows defrag when Win95 and Win98 were new. A lot of the problems come from the fact that drives are huge compared to what people were accustomed to. Part of the problems people see also may have come from the "new" option to "arrange files so my programs run faster." This is a check box you can set or clear under Options in defrag. It appears that Windows sometimes can't make up its mind where it wants to put things. It was once common practice to run multiple defrags "if you really want things to be right." Following this old practice, I recently ran multiple passes on my C: drive, with results: Pass 1 - 4 hours Pass 2 - 2.4 hours Pass 3 - 2.2 hours Pass 4 - 3.5 hours ... Pass 9 - 14 hours Pass 10 thru 12 - 34 to 38 minutes. Defrag starts from the information in your File Allocation Table (assuming a FAT or FAT32 disk). It gets where each file starts, and how big it is. It does not know, at this point, where all of the pieces of any file are. Each cluster tells it where to go for the next cluster. It is not uncommon for programs to mess up how "full" a cluster is, and when a misreported cluster is moved during defrag, the "true" filesize can change. This is something that needs to be "reported back" to the FAT, which is a "write to disk" and requires that the process start over. On a boot drive, it is not uncommon for defrag to fill the lower part of the drive, and then decide that a certain group of the files it has moved "down" really need to be at another location. When defrag starts over, it will again move the same files down - and later back up. This little "fairy dance" alone can take about 20 minutes - during each restart, and it can appear that nothing is happening. Eventually, defrag should get everything sorted out, and the time required to run a subsequent defrag will be very much shorter; but there is a real "hump" in the process as things get "almost but not quite right" (in defrag's small mind). Turning off the "optimize for speed" should get you through a much faster defrag, and probably won't greatly affect machine performance. I can't say what will happen if you turn the "optimize" back on and try another defrag. Comments about turning off as much as possible are certainly appropriate. I would be somewhat cautious about resorting to a DOS (Command Line) defrag. It will run, but can "lose" long file names that Windows does use and may also move files that early version Windows calls by absolute disk location. These files are ordinarily tagged Hidden/System etc., and even a DOS defrag shouldn't move them; but DOS isn't even as smart as Windows about such stuff. The risk is much greater if you've been playing around with all those subversive secret hidden files, and left an attribute not properly reset. Note to Mr Red: in your C:\Windows, there should be a folder/directory called "Send To." If you paste a shortcut to your email program there, you will be able to right-click on any file and "send it" to your email. Easiest way to save hunting around each time. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 11:03 PM thanks Mark & John...that is information that it is hard to find all in one place and clearly stated. I had noticed all the false starts and re-ordering in de-frag, but had no idea why.... (I have some real slow-downs these days...boot-up seems to take MUCH longer, and my CPU at one point hits 100% and hangs there for 20-30 seconds..and every now & then Windows decides it has to re-write something and slows as it deals with some memory issue, I guess...would multiple de-frags possibly help this?) I have a LOT of programs installed and many icons on the desktop, but I try to keep a limit on what is actually running...(I have various ways to monitor these) I do manage to keep things going, but I work at understanding the basics.....I can barely imagine what some people go thru who have NO idea about de-frags or Scandisk or caches or the 27 different categories of 'memory' *grin*...I guess they just re-boot and pray a lot... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 11:18 PM (BTW..my wife, Ferrara, was a programmer for 25 years...mostly in DOS and prior, and she helps a LOT with stuff...but it is ME, the 62 year old woodworker who can figure out how to get out of 'safe mode' when things go wrong, and re-configure the system, including graphics drivers and desktop sizes and options..*grin* however...*sigh*...while I have you here...the last time I did this, I lost that blue bar/border that shows progress in file downloads and highlights certain items being 'selected' (can't show that progress in Agent newsreader, for example, though I can edit it's .ini to get a numerical %).....it does NOT seem to be in the 'settings' menu under 'active desktop'....and, Rita & I have separate profiles for Windows, and the bar works in the default profile, just not in mine!...and I can't find any .ini file or anything else that would explain where that setting is! ummm...any ideas? ..I'll sing you a song...in the Key of "R"..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:17 AM Bill, Most PC questions have already been answered somewhere on the Net, often in a very careful and understandable way. Rather than reproduce that information here, I'll give you some Web sites that will help you with configuration questions and those nasty details that are often hard to track down. They are mostly self-explanatory and I'm sure that between you and Ferrara you'll have no trouble understanding them. Still, if something seems resistant to understanding, post the question here and somebody is bound to answer. - Mark
A few PC help sites in no particular order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:38 AM Thanks for the help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 02 - 04:16 PM yup...thanks, Mark |
| Share Thread: |