******** Thread now full, see volume 20 ********
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=23919
In this thread you may ask any computer related question for which you need help, advice, suggestions or whatever.
Usual rules apply,
No motoring related discussion,
No politics,
No Speeding, speed cameras, traffic calming
No arguments or slanging matches
Nothing which I think is not following the spirit of the thread
Nothing that risks the future of this site (please see the small print for details www.honestjohn.co.uk/credits/index.htm )
Any of the above will be deleted. If the thread becomes difficult to maintain it will simply be removed.
There is a wealth of knowledge in here, much of which is not motoring related, but most of which is useful.
This is Volume 19. Previous Volumes will not be deleted.
A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=20892
PLEASE NOTE:
When posting a NEW question, please \"Reply to\" the first message in this thread, i.e. this one. This keeps each question in it\'s own separate segment and stops each new question from getting mixed up in amongst existing questions. Also please remember to change the subject header.
|
Can anybody make these work? I never get responses, and it would be most convenient if it were to be made to work...
Thanks.
|
multi1.rmuk.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.h...o
hn.co.uk/general/1364916919/Bottom/AD2ONE/MoreThan_HonestJ_banne
r_Jul04/MoreThan_Banner_HJ.html/33656665303030393365376130613630
?s0b.bluestreak.com/ix.e?hr&s=337184\' target=_top>
When using the site today, on some pages, U get the codes above, instead of the main frame of the page, this has been now and again on the back room, and every time I have tried the car by car beakdown section, is it my setup (Apple Safari & Mac OSX) , or does it effect others?
|
Have you run a virus and/or spybot check?
If you have Ad-aware and/or Search and Destroy 1.3 (both fully updated) run them.
If not download Ad-aware6 from www.lavasoft.de (plus updates after installing) and S and D 1.3 from www.spybot.info/en/index.html (also updates after installing) before doing a scan with each one.
The clues lie in the link you have provided.
|
|
A clue to why Spybot etc. are not the answer lies in the "Safari, Mac OSX" bit of his post. Do they even exist for Mac OSX? I don't think Mac OSX even allows unauthorized software to install itself, so spyware is not the problem I am quite sure.
|
What ever gave you the impression that a Mac OS cannot suffer from a virus?
Perhaps you had better read the configuration instructions for Sophos Mac Anti-Virus:
www.bol.ucla.edu/software/sophos/docs/macosxconfig...l
|
What ever gave you the impression that a Mac OS cannot suffer from a virus?
There are currently no viruses for Mac OSX in the wild. In fact there has so far been just one trojan horse for Mac OSX and it was a "proof of concept" that did not survive in the wild:
news.designtechnica.com/article3321.html
Sophos, Norton and the rest are having a laugh for now and making money out of it. That's not to say Mac OSX is invulnerable, or that this kind of protection won't be necessary in the future, but it's a long way off. Unlike Windows this certainly wouldn't be my first suspicion in the case of a browser problem. Some vulnerabilities in IE/Safari are applicable to Mac OSX but the result would not have been as described and they were patched back in May.
This is what SecureMac.com has to say about the trojan:
4.9.2004 News
A Mac OS X proof of concept trojan has been found showing the potential of trojans in Mac OS X. The proof of concept did not harm anything it was dubbed MP3Concept or MP3Virus.gen and added into the anti-virus definitions for future protection of this style. This trojan contains the file extension of .mp3 although it is not, the icon itself is hardcoded into the trojan and not picked up based on file creator associations. The file itself is a Carbon (CFM) application with the file type of APPL. iTunes should not be able to execute a trojan or virus, and this file would only be able to run if double clicked on to execute it. It does have potential for manipulation to cause harm but at its current state did not, it was a benign trojan proof of concept code.
Many news media sources are reporting this finding to be destructive as if it were a trojan or virus to cause harm. Again it was proof of concept showing the ability allowing the anti-virus companies to have a heads up and protect against future manipulations of the code.
|
|
Should have added that one reason for having anti-virus protection on a Mac is that they can carry Windows viruses in "dormant" form within infected Windows files. But Mac OSX is not affected by any of them as yet.
|
|
|
|
sooty tailpipes - re your question on ad banner code. it is most likely that your settings or mac-os are preventing the ad being displayed and instead showing you the code.
stuartli - you ask chris r "What ever gave you the impression that a Mac OS cannot suffer from a virus?". quite.
! ;-) ! didn't you know - the answer must be that the mac-os software is nothing to do with microsoft. microsoft are a monolpoly whose software writers are writing code to enable evil vandals to damage our computers whereas mac-os software writers must be working for generous charities or philanthropists who are giving away free software to the anti-microsoft brigade.!;-)!
|
>mac-os software writers must be working for generous charities or philanthropists who are giving away free software to the anti-microsoft brigade
There is a grain of truth in your sarcasm. Apple are competing with MS so they are "anti-microsoft" of course. And in fact MacOSX is developed from open source software (OpenBSD I think) which is written and distributed for free. Apple add their own proprietary stuff (Finder, for example) but Mac OSX is essentially free software written by philanthropists. Apple even distributes the base (non-proprietary) code for nothing itself.
|
|
|
I'm perfectly well aware that Mac OS is nothing to do with Microsoft - I was writing features about Apple computer clubs and their members for computer magazines in the mid 1985s.....
Further, Microsoft should be described in the singular and not the plural (in your words: .... "microsoft are a monolpoly"...) i.e. Microsoft "is" a monopoly.
This is perfectly true in many ways - in fact it's why some 97-98 per cent of all computer systems run on Microsoft based software. It's why Bill Gates and Co helped to revolutionise the use of computers for millions of people.
Your comments, however, don't cover why so many educational institutions both here and in the US, for instance, provide extensive and comprehensive instructions and guidance for students on configuring and protecting both Windows and Mackintosh systems from viruses and other potential problems; the protection is available free of charge to students by arrangement with McAfee and other software companies.
|
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or to Dalglish here. Anyway the fact remains that there are no live virus threats to Mac OSX. Neither Spybot nor Ad-Aware provide "solutions" for any Mac OS. A quick Google suggests that there are 58 known "virus" threats to Mac OS Classic (none works on Mac OSX, which is quite different), going back twenty-odd years. Many of those are "proof of concept" and did not exist in the wild.
As to why McAfee et al offer antivirus tools for Mac I can think of four main reasons:
1. Cash in on paranoia caused by the Great Windows Virusfest of 2003/4. Offering free software to students is like Tom Lehrer's Old Dope Pedler giving the kids free samples, so that explains that I think.
2. Protect Windows clients by preventing Macs from harbouring (though not suffering from) files infected with Windows viruses etc. on otherwise clean networks.
3. Protect MS Office data on Macs from macro viruses which will run in MS Office whatever the OS.
4. It's always a good idea to be prepared even if the threat is essentially non-existent.
I've been having a think about the original question here and I wonder if a Realplayer, Flash, or other plugin needs upgrading.
|
If you go to this link:
131.103.219.14/index.php?class=news&view=186
you will find that some of the listings in sooty tailpipes's query are directly mentioned in it as part of online advertising.
That's why I originally suspected spybots and to run S and D etc - as I've already pointed out virtually 100 per cent of computer related problems/queries concern Windows...:-)
RealMedia is also one of the links which is prominent - the problem with Real is that if you don't configure it to do exactly as YOU want it to, it will take over your system and do as Real wants it to do.
|
RealMedia is also one of the links which is prominent - the problem with Real is that if you don't configure it to do exactly as YOU want it to, it will take over your system and do as Real wants it to do.
Realplayer is essentially spyware, you're right.
I assumed that Sooty Tailpipes was having a problem viewing ads on the page--hence my wondering about a plugin. This is very common on non-Windows machines as ads are often written to work (and do who knows what?) with IE on Windows and are not compliant with agreed standards. He could try the version of Mozilla for Mac, known as Camino, and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
I use dial up and am concerned about these pirate diallers.
My computer is equipped with NAV (which has zapped two) and Zone Alarm Pro. I have three questions.
1. If Zone Alarm Internet lock is activated can these diallers by-pass it ?
2. Is there an XP function that actually measures and logs outgoing dial ups with times and duration of use. If not can anyone recommend a site with such a beast as adownload ?
3. When I go Broadband shortly will the diallers stil be able to connect..? (n/a if the answer to question 1 is no)
|
I would think they wouldn't work if Internet Lock was activated - that's one of the main reasons for it. Not sure about logs but when you go to broadband they won't be a problem as they won't be able to dial with anything.
Hope that helps
Adam
|
|
|
If you have ZA's Internet Lock enabled nothing can access the Internet....:-)
Apart from Ad-aware6 and S and D 1.3 which I mentioned earlier, you should also install SpywareBlaster (now in 3.2 version form) from:
www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
Again download and install it, check for updates, and then Enabled All Protection. Once you have done this you can close it down as it runs in the background.
It stops spybot nasties etc getting into your system in the first place - Ad-aware and S and D polish off any loose ones or those already on your system.
To get the diallers you are concerned about (normally they call up a premium rate line) most people have been visiting what might be termed dubious websites - I'm not saying that this is true in your case, but it's something of which to be aware poarticularly if you are not the only user. Check History..:-)
I run AVG, S and D 1.3, Ad-aware6 and SpywareBlaster 3.2 and have used all these free utilities for some years (all manually checked for updates or updated at least once a day as required) - as a result I've only had the odd bit of fairly harmless spybot. These are found and removed through scanning regularly with Ad-aware or S and D.
In addition, in Internet Explorer, I set Privacy configuration to Allow First Party Cookies and to Block or Prompt Third Party Cookies.
This ensures that when I go onto a website, I am always asked if I wish to allow cookies or not either pemanently or for that session; refusing such spybots or cookies normally doesn't prevent you from exploring the website as normal. A website you know to be safe can be allowed to store cookies.
If and when you get broadband you should look into the question of security more closely, as it is likely that your connection will be virtually permanent.
|
|
|
When I go Broadband shortly will the diallers stil be able to connect..? >>
If you go onto Broadband then the answer is that the dialer.exes won't be able to dial out.
However, if you decide to keep a 56k modem in use (for sending faxes) then the answer is Yes, it would be possible.
|
|
|
In answer to one it is possible.2 the modem keeps an active record of connection activities if it is enabled.3 You will need to disable modem in control panel.usually zone alarm works but have seen cases where it dont.would make sure its dissabled in control panel or if not sure disconnect cable to modem.this will make sure a connection isnt made.
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks, my Windows XP pro machine is starting to do a few strange things and me thinks its time to do as OS re-install. I think this will retain most of my programs and settings but can anybody tell me if this will retain the Microsoft updates/hotfixes that I have installed ? Many thanks
|
I've only dabbled in XP but didn't know you could just reinstall the OS without wiping anything. I know you could put XP on say, a 2000 machine and it will upgrade. However, I've steered clear of this because it's technical enough without adding another OS in the works so I've always wiped the harddrive which is guranteed to get rid of any virus and problem programs but of course the downside is losing everything useful.
I would ask what "strange things" it's doing and unless anyone here has done it or can comment on the reliability of putting the new O/S over the existing one urge you to wipe everything and start again otherwise you run the risk of leaving whatever is causing the problem.
I could of couse be completely wrong and people may do it all the time but I don't know the best way to advise you.
Cheers
Adam
|
|
|
Have you tried system restore.If you do OS re install.it wont retain any files they are all deleted.would suggest any files you need put on cd.unless you have second hard drive ie not bootable you can transfer to that and recover later.I am not certain about pro but think its similar to home ed.
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
There would have to be a very, very good reason to do the rather drastic step you are contemplating.
What sort of "a few strange things" is XP Pro coming up with?
Are you sure that it's not the result of a virus, failure to defrag or something similar?
|
|
|
|
Thanks folks, I think I got this one a bit wrong, suffice to say I wont be doing this. I think the main problem actually relates to my graphics card/drivers. I have wound this back to the previous version and one or two of the problems have been resolved, although I am still waiting to see if the my screen stops completely freezing - which can only be resolved by restarting the machine .
|
|
|
|
Does anyone get weird emails like the ones I do every day?
Sender Heading
Natasha Delong Calculated bonbons 5053
Oliver Earthling Prime designated mushrooms abbreviate
.............and so on.
I never open them, but what on earth do they mean and whyu would anyone send them?
|
GRowler
We all get those weird emails with completely stupid subjects. I understand that many ISPs (and other programs such as Mailwasher),have software which detects mail with \"spam like\" subjects, i.e. \"get a bigger ***\" \"buy V*** on line\", -you know the sort of thing without further details, I am sure. The spammers attempt to bypass this type of detection by using subject lines which contain such nonsense as you have described!
I can thouroughly recommend Mailwasher - free - but limited to one email account, or paid for, which supports any number of accounts including Hotmail.
The only downside is that when a domain or sender is blacklisted, the program, by default, attempts to bounce the message. This can take time, does not always work and increases internet email traffic, thus adding to congestion.
Roger in Spain
|
I never open this rubbish and really it's not a big deal, it just spiked my curiosity. Anyway I can buy C***** at the pharmacy down the road here, well I mean I could if necessary, of course :+)
I am told much of this junk comes from Russian websites.
|
|
|
The only downside is that when a domain or sender is blacklisted, the program, by default, attempts to bounce the message. This can take time, does not always work and increases internet email traffic, thus adding to congestion.
I know you said 'by default', but it's easy enough to use Mailwasher to delete junk without using the bounce feature. Go to Tools - Accounts and select an account. Click Properties and the option not to bounce mail is on the third tab along.
Returning to Growler's original query, the Register recently ran a competition for the most artistic arrangement of random words designed to fool spam filters: www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/01/spam_poetry_deadl.../
|
I have been getting hundreds of spam e-mails with mainly porn on them, some with very explicit images. The only way to avoid a lawsuit at the office or corrupting the children is to use Mailwasher. It may be advertising, but its the best thing I found.
However, even with the bounce function, they still keep coming, as if the senders know that I have blacklisted mail from one location, (say anything@.is) and then send from another location. Most annoying and wastes valuable time.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
... they still keep coming, asif the senders know that I have blacklisted mail from one location, (say anything@.is) and then send from another location.
Standard spamming technique. Send from a different (fake) address every time. This means your own blacklist is of limited usefulness. Fortunately, Mailwasher can use internet-based blacklists which are normally pretty accurate, although I have seen legitimate companies blacklisted.
I got into a debate here a few months ago about whether there's any point in using the bounce feature. If the sender's address is faked the bounce message either goes nowhere or to an innocent victim. As Roger pointed out above, it just adds to the amount of junk circulating.
|
|
|
|
"I know you said 'by default', but it's easy enough to use Mailwasher to delete junk without using the bounce feature. Go to Tools - Accounts and select an account. Click Properties and the option not to bounce mail is on the third tab along."
Talk about familiarity breeding something - in this case sloppiness on my part! I had become so used to Mailwasher that I hadn't bothered to look more closely at its configuration :(
Thanks, Welliesorter, I have now disabled bouncing as an option - much time will be saved given that 90% of our mail is spam.!
Roger in Spain
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK this one has me stumped.
My computer clock is gaing about 1-2 mins per hour, I'm used to dealing with time losses, usually a M/B battery problem, replaced that but no change.
Any bright ideas?
Thanks
|
Sounds like you've got a dodgy crystal, which sets the clock speed. try replacing it and thigs should improve. Normally they are very accurate but sometimes a shock will cause the crystal to crack or a tiny peice of dust on the crystal will fall off.
Its rare, but I used to work in a lab where one of the soap dispensers had some grafitti on it after it was used to improve a problem crystal.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
|
It is normally due to a CMOS battery on the way out, but such batteries normally last a very long time; I've never had to replace one in the last 15 years at least and my current mobo was installed in 1999.
Have you checked the time setting in the Bios? If this is incorrect the system display could be trying to match it.
Also check you have GMT set properly and that the Regional and Language Options are correctly configured from Control Panel.
|
|
|
|
|
As of recently, whenever I fire up my computer I get the message (which cannot be removed) "Video not available. Cannot find decompressor VIDS:CVID". I have no idea what this means but how do I get this "video" back?
|
I remember getting this on a TNT2 graphics card.cant remember what it meant but a driver update from man fixed it.I may be wrong as it was a while ago and since binned it?
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
You don't mention your operating system, so here's the Microsoft KB reference in this case to 95 (should be on similar lines in later OS versions):
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q...1
Again, similar vein:
www.ati.com/support/technote/2778.TXT
More info on codecs etc at:
www.veoda.com/search/click/smartframe.cgi?http://w.../
|
|
Many thanks for your note, Stuartli. The Microsoft lead worked like a charm.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 98 SE, IE 6
Currently, outlook express is my default mail client - (I think that is the default install). We currently have 2 accounts/profiles set up for me/her, but we only use 1 isp
I'd like to change to Outlook, as it will let me do things with signatures that OE wont. Can I do that, and what are the likely issues ?
ta
Mike
|
I'd like to change to Outlook, as it will let me do things with signatures that OE wont.
I use Outlook at work, and OE at home. AFAIA, there's no difference in how the signatures work.
|
Dave - like you I use outlook at work and outlook express at home. The problem is that OE doesn't, or indeed can't (unless i've missed something) handle graphic files as image maps in the signature, and as I'm trying to promote my web site, I was hoping to do that, and I have been able to do that in Outlook
www.mikes-walks.co.uk - go on, you know you want to !
|
|
JPEGs in emails require the mail client to create HTML format mail rather than plain text, which can be adjusted in the tools menu of OE. This is largely considered bad practice/netiquette (especially among more technical users) and should be avoided wherever possible, as it increases the time needed to download the same information and opens the door for scripting viruses.
|
This is largely considered bad practice/netiquette (especially among more technical users)>>
Sorry to absolutely disagree...:-)
I send plenty of .jpegs from Outlook Express to many parts of the world (each file normally reduced on average to around 25-50KB) and this is purely from within Plain Text configuration.
Unless it is absolutely necessary, Outlook Express should generally be chosen for home use in preference to Outlook, which is a business orientated program.
|
But are we talking about sending the image as part of the email body which is written in HTML format, or sending the image as an attachment to a plain text email? The latter I have no problems with at all, but we take steps to block emails with any embedded scripting whatsoever which leads to many of the former being rejected. I don't know that many sysadmins who are happy to receive HTML emails, or in some cases who will even let them pass thrpugh their servers. To summarise, here's a passage from an online netiquette guide which I'm in total agreement with:
HTML e-mail is always uneconomic, sometimes unreceivable and/or unreadable and it can occasionally be unsafe. There really is no good argument for sending e-mail in HTML format. If you want your audience to see an HTML formatted page, put it on your website and send them the URL.
I also have to disagree quite strongly with the suggestion that outlook express makes a better program for home use. Outlook is an overall communication and time management package rather than just an email client - I know many 'everyday' users who use Outlook at home as a diary and also sychronise handheld devices to keep track of their appointments. Outlook isn't particularly hard to use in its most basic form, and can be extremely beneficial - it isn't so much business orientated as suitable and useful for business activities. If you only need email though then yeah, it's overkill. You also have to consider that OE to many people refers purely to the original version they got with their OS - in the case of Win98, this opens up a whole security can of worms. Personally I wouldn't let it anywhere near my machines.
|
>>HTML e-mail is always uneconomic, sometimes unreceivable and/or unreadable and it can occasionally be unsafe. There really is no good argument for sending e-mail in HTML format. If you want your audience to see an HTML formatted page, put it on your website and send them the URL.>>
May I respectfully suggest that you read my earlier posting on the subject again, this time somewhat more carefully, particularly in relation to observations regarding Plain Text...:-))
Outlook Express is far more suitable for home use for the majority of people than Outlook as I suggested; .jpegs are easily sent as attachments by right-clicking on the pic file and choosing Mail Recipient from Open With.
Providing that you maintain proper OE/IE security updating, anti-virus and spybot utilities (regularly updated) and, most important of all, DISABLE the OE Preview Pane permanently, then you should have little or no problems.
It's the Preview Pane that causes many of the viruses in OE to road freely - even just clicking on an infected e-mail can set them off.
However, with the PP disabled, you can highlight an e-mail from the list, check the header and also read the message via Message Source, and if found to be dubious, Cancel back to the highlighted message and then delete it using the Delete button on the Toolbar.
|
that causes many of the viruses in OE to road freely
..to roam freely....
|
|
|
My mistake - I did fail to spot that bit at the end :)
The point still stands though - there's a big difference between embedding an image to use as a signature within an HTML formatted email (which I gather was the subject of the original comment) and simply attaching one to a plain text message so that it can be viewed inline. The latter of the two is, as you rightly say, perfectly acceptable assuming that the image size is kept as low as possible - if this is intended as a signature though you can't always guarantee that the recipient's mailreader will have inline viewing enabled, spoiling the effect somewhat. The former (which is the way Outlook formats mail for use with those 'lovely' templates and backdrops) opens the way to all sorts of nastiness and should be stomped on from a great height.
My concerns are really over the use of HTML in emails full stop - anything else is workable with enough common sense :)
|
|
|
|
|
>>Sorry to absolutely disagree...:-)
Shock Horror!!!
|
|
My mother always taught me if you were charming to people they never had a comeback...:-)
|
My mother always taught me if you were charming to people they never had a comeback...:-)
You're new round here, aren't you?
|
Not quite - but I'm usually on a website devoted to computers and all manner of related problems, rather than one that includes the subject almost as an afterthought.
That's not meant, in any way, to be a slight, merely an observation as this website, in turn, is mainly dedicated to motoring.
|
Not quite ... That's not meant, in any way, to be a slight, merely an observation as this website, in turn, is mainly dedicated to motoring.
Do lighten up, there's a good chap. And what are all those commas about? Is it the 1950s all over again or what?
|
I don't need to lighten up nor be patronised; the commas are correctly inserted, good practice that's part of the legacy of a lifetime in journalism.
Just because various forms of communication today often tend to be sloppy and slapdash doesn't mean that I have to tamely follow suit.
|
Er, can we stop the petty bickering and get back to the question please?
DD. BR Moderator.
|
DD - i'm almost sorry I asked the question in the first place !
|
|
|
|
Here's some basic info on e-mail formatting etc:
www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html
If you want to be sure that anyone who sends you e-mails can read yours, go to Tools>Options>Send tab and enable "Reply to messages in the format in which they were sent."
|
I work quite a bit with publishers and several of them have a policy of not accepting email in anything other than plain text. There are several reasons for this but I agree with them that it's rude to assume everyone wants to see images and graphical gew gaws when they are reading their mail--junk snail mail companies make this mistake too. A picture in the sig would not appear in my mailer unless I specifically chose to view it, which I wouldn't. And if I want to look at a web page I'll use a browser thanks.
I'd also say that Eudora is better and more secure than Outlook Express for home use and it does allow picture sigs if you must have them.
|
|
|
|
|
If you go to OE's Help section and key in Signatures (variations include Personal) you will be able to read up on how to do what you require.
|
|
Amazingly, even Microsoft has become an advocate of e-mailing in plain text: tinyurl.com/45l3v .
|
|
It's worth pointing out as well that if you send e-mails from Outlook it expects the recipient(s) to be able to read them in the form sent - that's why you have to send them in Plain Text in Outlook to ensure that every recipient can read them.
|
|
|
|
|
Neeeennnahhhnneeeennnahhhhh.
Mornin Sah. Wont delay you too long.
Yew using that Computor withhart the two latest critical updates from Microsoft issued yesterday?
Yer knot. Then yew is at danger of gettin orrible things in your system and mebbee passing nasties to hall and sundry.
Get along to the Update site now and do the business.
Horf yew go now..
DVD
|
|
Depending on your OS you'd better count those critical updates again....
|
|
|
|
This is bugging me.
At work I use Mozilla, the tite bar of the browers shows the name of the page followed by - Mozilla for example on this page it shows
Back Room: Computer Related questions Volume 19 - Mozilla
On my laptop I occasionally use IE which has a similar title bar in the brower, but this time it shows
Back Room: Computer Related questions Volume 19 - Microsoft Internet Explorer
Now the question....At home I have a new PC running XP and a nice new broadband home network...I have never bothered with dial up at home before since I have fast access at work. But the new PC came with options to sign up with BT, AOL, Ticali, none of which I wanted to use so I immediately uninstalled them without even opening any software.
Now whenever browsing with IE at home I get the title bar as follows:
Back Room: Computer Related questions Volume 19 - Tiscali 10.0
Where does the Ticali 10.0 come from? I have never used Ticali,
How can I set this back to the default?
cheers
StarGazer
|
1) Have a go with editing the registry. bit dodgy
2) download hijackthis. Run it, look for the line with Tiscali in it and ask hijackthis to remove/repair it. not dodgy.
|
|
|
Tiscali 10.0 is the ISP's equivalent of AOL 6, 7 etc and was most probably installed by default attempting to get you to use its Internet service.
The "Back Room Computer Related..." line you have when you are on this website (or wording according to which ever one you happen to be on) is nothing to worry about as it's just information.
To get rid of the Tiscali 10.0 branding there are a number of possible ways without touching the registry.
If you have SpywareBlaster, go to Tools>IE and type in what you would prefer to see; I have my name inserted, but purely for ego purposes you understand.
Internet Explorer's own built-in branding removal method:
First close down Internet Explorer then click Start>Run.
In the Open dialog box type:
rundll32.exe iedkcs32.dll,Clear
(note the space after .exe and comma before Clear) and click OK. Probably easier to Copy and Paste the line rather than try and type it.
After restarting Internet Explorer the annoying ISP branding should disappear.
PS
When ISPs provide a copy of Internet Explorer for their subscribers the facility is provided for them to include their name in the title bar. Annoying advertising if you don't want it and yet it's reaosnably easy to alter or reword.
You should now go to Network Connections and delete the Tiscali dialup setup/account if still listed.
|
Thanks Mark, Stuart,
Yes it was the annoying ISP branding that I wanted to get rid of.
Will try this when I get home
Ian L.
|
|
|
|
|
For some strange reason I am currently not able to open attachments which arrive with e-mails.
Please can anyone suggest why this should be and how I can correct the fault.
I am using Win-xp-home and IE6.
|
Goto tools/options. Click on the security tab, then untick the "do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus" box.
Save and exit out of the menus.
|
|
Thank-you, DD, that has cured the problem. I can now choose to open the attachments, providing I know who has sent them.
|
|
|
|
I am trying to run Defrag on my hard disk. It is very slow and continually re-starts with the message \"drives contents changed, restarting\".
I have got to about 10% defragged, with little or no progress. The only thing I have done recently, was to run a Window Cleaning program - it was a freebie from Computer Shopper magazine.
I would be grateful for any suggestions.
Don drbe
|
Try closing down all anti virus programmes.
Gear up in safe mode and try again.
When the message flag comes up if it has \"dont show message\" box click on it.
My defrag takes about 2 hourts to achieve - very slow.
DVD
|
|
|
You must have something running in the background, perhaps a screensaver.
If this is set to kick in after, say, 10 or 15 minutes, try moving the mouse a fraction a minute or two before it is due to come into operation.
|
Essential to startup in Safe Mode for this in my experience. What OS are you running?
W98 on my machine used to take up to 4-5 hours to perform defrag but I got a piece of freeware, sorry can\'t recall name, which did it in about 90mins. Have a search om Tucows or ZDnet.
I find regular Scandisk important but defrag much less obviously beneficial.
|
Scandisk and Defrag are similar, though different things.
Scandisk searches for missing or corrupted files and can repair or guide you to replace them; defragging rearranges scattered files on your hard disk into an orderly fashion again so that your system works more smoothly and efficiently.
Over the years I've always completed a full defrag, no matter what size hard disk or OS, in half-an-hour or less, using the Windows defrag utility direct from Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Defrag.
The smaller the hard drive and the more files contained the greater the benefits experienced from a defrag; a big HDD with a comparatively small number of files will not need defragging as often. XP advises if a defrag is necessary if you analyse the drive.
|
If you have Windows98 try this method:
Turn off the Rearrange program files so my programs start faster setting from the Settings button in the Select Drive dialog.
The best way to do so is if you run Defrag from Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools as mentioned above, rather than from the drive's Properties button.
When enabled (ticked) this setting causes Defrag to rearrange the most frequently used program files so that they can be started quicker and can involve moving quite large program files.
Without the setting it will perform a basic defrag which will involve less rearranging.
I would also do a full scan first using your AV utility, as well as Search and Destroy 1.3 and/or Ad-Aware6, just to be on the safe side.
|
|
|
|
I am trying to run Defrag on my hard disk. It is very slow and continually re-starts with the message "drives contents changed, restarting".
don drbe - i suspect you are using win98/se/me. look up
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;1...8
""Drive's Contents Have Changed: Restarting..." Message When You Use the Disk Defragmenter Tool""
and/or
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;2...0
"Disk Defragmenter Hangs After Choosing Disk to Defragment"
and/or read up daily-telegraph's connected or the hundred of links found on google.
|
don drbe -
i left out the following link
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;1...1
which includes this sentence
"Appears to Hang at 10 Percent
In Windows 98, Disk Defragmenter typically runs an optimization process during the first 10 percent of the defragmentation process."
|
If you have Office 97 installed, it brings with it a thing called "findfast" which causes the problems described above.
Here's Micro$ofts way of getting rid:
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q...5
|
|
|
Thanks fellers, for all that. In the end, I just left the PC to get on with it, it took about 4 hours - it got much quicker as time went on!
The screensaver was turned off already. I didn't like to turn off the virus protection. I will try to defrag more frequently, it said it was 142 days since last defrag. What is the optimum?
Thanks again for all the helpful advice.
drbe
|
It is perfectly safe to turn off virus protection if you are not connected to the Internet; just don't forget to enable it again before you do.
Defragging depends very much on how often you use your system, install/uninstall programe, utilities etc.
But once a week or a fortnight should be adequate with normal use. 142 days, however, is a bit too long...:-)
I'm using my system all day, every day but only need to defrag about once every two or three weeks on average; as I've already said, it takes less than half-an-hour for a 60GB drive.
|
There is a nice utility from Executive Software - "Diskeeper".
This, if you set it in automatic mode will periodically check your HD and if there is an unacceptable amount of fragmentation , will defrag it in the background.
Because the program checks your disc frequently, the time taken for a defrag is usually pretty brief. Little & often is the principle.
It is not a free program but "nudge nudge wink wink" - Say no more!
Roger. (in Spain).
|
|
If I remember correctly, the Windows defrag program is basically DiskKeeper Lite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
slight problem. I'm building up a machine in the hope that I can use it as a server but for now I'm just trying to get it working. Anyway - when you click Windows update, it scans for updates and then when it comes up Review and install updates you click it, an hourglass comes up but nothing happens. Previously it closed the Internet Explorer window but now nothing happens.
A few notes that may help you diagnose my problem:
1) It doesn't crash. The hourglass comes up but you can enter a new URL or close IE without problems
2) I tried installing all the manual patches etc...to no avail as well as Opera which put some Java rubbish on which I think has helped with the window not closing but sadly I can't use Opera to download the updates as you can only use I.E. apparently.
I would be very grateful for any advice.
Many thanks
P.S. Computer is running Windows 2000
Adam
|
I can't use Opera to download the updates as you can only use I.E. apparently. I would be very grateful for any advice.
>>
adski - i can't help with the cause but here is a workaround to manualy install the files:
1. use windows-update to get list of updates needed.
2. at end of each update description, there is a link which says something like "more info".
3. click those to get to the knowledgebase or q articles, and from within those find the direct download link appropriate for win2k.
4. go to the link-page and in most cases you can download/save the update-file in a named folder.
5. having done this for each update, close all programs and click on the downloaded files to install the updates in turn.
you can do steps 3 and 4 from opera/mozilla/netscape once you have saved the links in a word/wordpad/notebook file.
let us know if this works.
|
Dalglish,
I really appreicate you help but I can't get that far! When I try to click the list of updates needed it does the exact same thing. It's beginning to annoy me now. Since posting my original...er...post, I've took IE off again and put it all back on. Nothing.
Thanks very very much for your advice though which I will follow as soon as I get that far!
Cheers
Adam
|
adski - sorry i missed the fact that you could not get the list of updates. so the following microsoft advice will be of no use to you!
" If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center.
go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=10678&clcid=0x409 "
|
Dalglish,
thank you very much again BUT, that link just takes you to the normal download section of the Microsoft site so there are 50 odd things I could install some not all for 2000. If you click the windows update link from there I get the same problem. I'm currently sifting through the Microsoft Website now for little nuggets of information but am not finding anything.
Many thanks again
Adam
|
Real shot in the dark here, which can only provide a pointer at best:-
Have you tried downloading ANYTHING from anywhere else to see if it works?
Have you set a valid download path?
|
|
|
I give up. I've tried everything. Installing .inf files from the Microsoft website, tinkering with security settings, downloading active x controls and nothing. I did notice something though. When you open "Windows Update", before you scan your computer, if you click Review Updates to the left then it comes up with "There are no updates to install" on the screen that would appear with the updates. When you click this AFTER the scan though, nothing happens. It is an absolute mystery. My other computer does it fine.
Many thanks
Adam
|
Frostbite cracking suggestion which is why I thought of it 20 mins ago ;-). I worked on this for 4 hours today and I was getting more desperate but that idea seemed quite good until it worked.
Thanks though and I don't mean to dismiss everyone's very good suggestions.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
adski -
see list of windows updates at
www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylan...7
i just tested my pc, and i get a lsit of updates before the "review and install" stage.
you may wish to try the ms baseline security analyser as an alternative route
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahome....x
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsaqa.ms...x
|
Woah. There's a lot of stuff to get through. Sorry about not replying earlier but I never got an email. As luck would have it I have to go out so I'm going to leave it for tonight and try tomorrow. I can only thank you for your help and will let you know tomorrow how I get on.
Many many many many thanks
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried BigFix?
This works in exactly the same way as WindowsUpdate and can be downloaded from www.bigfix.com.
You can collect Windows updates and also updates for other programs, applications etc as required through the configuration.
Evesham Technology used to install BigFix on their new computer systems (it may still do so) as a means of enabling customers to easily update on a regular basis. Evesham also discovered that it cut down customer calls to its support centre very substantially.
|
Right. I would like to thank everyone who have made very helpful suggestions. Sadly I thnk think the only way to get Windows Update working is to wipe it and start again. However, I have installed BigFix as per Stuartli's suggestion and am pretty impressed. I've loaded it with AdAware, BigFix, Spybot, Norton System Works, AVG and more so I'm not too worried about Windows Update. Considering that that is the only problem I'm going to leave it unless something more important goes wrong.
I must extend my thanks to everyone which has helped me no end.
Many thanks
Adam
|
Glad you are hopefully sorted.
Re WindowsUpdate. It puts a small file on your system the first time you visit it - this may have become corrupted.
However, BigFix does the same job so all should be well.
|
|
|
|
|
