http://groups.google.com/group/micro...&start=1&num=3

"Marcus" <sashago@comcast.net> schrieb:

>
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...&start=1&num=3

LOL you even didn't read the thread you're pointing to. There's
only one whiner left poluting the newsgroup(s) with his childish
assumptions. Dear Sir, get a life - IOW plonk.

HTH,
Freudi

Freudi,

Please refer to this post this morning by Lawrence Garvin. I have pasted it
below in case you missed it. I believe it sums up our issues here succintly
and without needless venom.

"Marcus" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:it2dnTWvf85zphjenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Freudi,
>
> You must be dreaming if you believe I'm the only one who hasn't solved
this.
> Even Microsoft tech-support acknowledges that KB896688 has caused a lot of
> problems.

Marcus... there's nobody disagreeing that numerous people have encountered
issues with KB896688. However, let's keep "numerous people" in perspective
of
the number of PCs and servers installed worldwide. When you put the two
numbers in perspective, you'll find that the actual number of incidents of
issues is a very small percentage.

> But, whether I get this update installed or not, my main point here is,
and
> has been, that all these hoops we have to jump through should not be
> necessary.

You're right, Marcus, they should not be necessary -- and in a perfect
world,
they are not. And third-party software vendors should not be writing
software
that removes registry values from core operating system functions (like
ole32.dll). But that does appear to be what has happened. On the systems
that
do not have this "problem" (something removed the registry settings that
/should/ be present), there are no issues installing and using KB896688 --
only on those system that have been modified by a /third-party/ application
that improperly has modified the registry.

> If the OLE Fix works for some systems it should be NOTED ON THE
> UPDATE SITE ITSELF so people don't have to spend time searching here there
> and everywhere.

Your point is well taken. However, if you notice, there is /no/ technical
information about updates at the Update Site. It is all contained in the KB
articles. Now, if you go read the /article/ KB896688, you'll find that the
KB909889 'fix' is documented and linked there, along with several other
issues/fixes. The reason Microsoft includes the KB number in the update
title
is so that people can easily find the /documentation/ associated with an
update and read about it /before/ they install the update.

Finding a KB article is very easy -- enter the URL
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/###### where ###### is the six digit KB
article number. So, KB896688 is found at
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896688. You might want to take a look at it.

> Moreover, the installation of an update should not require a
> computer user to unistall major programs.

Actually, it doesn't. Unless those "major programs" have modified the
operating system in such a way that Microsoft could not possibly be aware of
that modification, and could not possibly create a testing environment
capable
of testing every possible stupid modification made by every third-party
"major
program" in the world.

> (By the way, there is a different
> REG4 edit for Windows 98SE. The only way I found this out was through an
> extended, tedious series of e-mails with tech support. Of course, this
> didn't work for me anyway.)

So.. maybe that "different" edit was flawed and isn't even correct?

> You and others spend a lot of time and energy trying to help poor
> neo-luddies like myself and it is appreciated.

Thank you.

> But I will continue to argue
> and lobby for a more upfront approach from Microsoft, in terms of
admitting
> problems,

With this, we are 100% in agreement. I've communicated with the people on
the
WSUS/WU/MU/AU team, and they fully understand the challenges and
implications
of not responding in a timely manner to issues discovered by the application
of the updates. Unfortunately, it's not the WSUS/WU/MU/AU team who can
address
this issue directly, as it has to come from the teams directly responsible
for
the creation of the update content.

> and more extensive testing of their updates

If this problem were something that 'broke' a virgin Windows system, with
nothing else installed, I would absolutely agree with you. However, as big
as
you think Microsoft is, the truth is that Microsoft is a very large
collection
of hundreds of very small teams. Furthermore, it's simply /not/ possible to
test every update in every conceivable permutation of installed software
that
exists in the world. The simple truth is that some people/organizations will
encounter issues from time-to-time when they have non-standard
configurations
of their computers that cannot possibly be tested in a laboratory
environment.
Also consider that there's a time tradeoff between how much testing is done,
and how fast a /security/ update can be released in order to protect US from
the security risks in the world. KB896688 is a SECURITY update, so it needed
to be released as soon as possible, with a reasonable amount of testing
performed to handle /most/ normal scenarios.

> so that we can get on
> with what computers are supposed to be all about....actually, I'm not sure
I
> remember what that is, at this point.
>
> Meanwhile, I suppose I will uninstall AVG which is ALWAYS DISABLED unless
I
> run a manual scan..... and try KB896688 again.

It's standard software installation practice to disable antivirus software
/anytime/ new software is being installed - including updates to the
operating
system.

For one, there's no purpose in slowing down the installation process by
having
the AV software scan files that have zero risk of being infected.

For two, sometimes antivirus software interferes with the updating of
/system/
files. It's /DESIGNED/ to do that!!! If your antivirus software is designed
to
prevent the overwriting/updating of system files, then it's a matter of
design
that the software will need to be disabled in order to apply an operating
system update.

For three, the installation of the update in your particular AV environment
has probably not been tested. The testing of update content will be done on
systems with /no/ AV protection, or perhaps, only whatever AV product is
used
internally by Microsoft. (CA EZ-Trust, at this time.) So, if you have
issues,
the first thing to do is to make your system as "virginal" as possible.

Again, I agree that Microsoft needs to be more responsive to 'fixes' to
problems caused by updates, and I've expressed that opinion directly to
Microsoft staff -- verbally -- and they have heard, acknowledge, and /agree/
with my statements. They /are/ working on improving the process.

> Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Happy Thanksgiving, Marcus.

> Marcus
>
>
>





"Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:4385564a$0$20849$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
"Marcus" <sashago@comcast.net> schrieb:

>
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...&start=1&num=3

LOL you even didn't read the thread you're pointing to. There's
only one whiner left poluting the newsgroup(s) with his childish
assumptions. Dear Sir, get a life - IOW plonk.

HTH,
Freudi