Artificial Mendacity (Vista)

We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
Now we have "artificial mendacity".

VISTA IS A LIAR.

How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.

Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
and errors.

The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++

RETURN 0

This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.

SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
reports that all is well.

In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
things right. They will not.

A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.

Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
so.

Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
there.

I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
pronounced it to have been repaired.

Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
it would indeed access the directory.

The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.

When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
deliver a stable product.

Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.

If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.

The solution must come from OUTSIDE.

I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.

However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:

HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)

So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
repair Vista.

With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.

I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
Pack was uncorrupted.

I took it home, to install on the new machine.

Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".

It LIED.

Charles Douglas Wehner

in the future, you can
cross post your communications,
instead of multi posting.

for example, in the
newsgroups field you could
have entered a single line
like the below:

microsoft.public.windows.vista.general, microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces



"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
news:9609eb58-0a18-4268-9637-...
> We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
> Now we have "artificial mendacity".
>
> VISTA IS A LIAR.
>
> How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
> expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.
>
> Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
> Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
> and errors.
>
> The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++
>
> RETURN 0
>
> This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
> trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
> have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.
>
> SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
> registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
> announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
> reports that all is well.
>
> In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
> 1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
> things right. They will not.
>
> A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
> may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
> fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
> battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
> manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.
>
> Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
> the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
> So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
> machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
> was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
> so.
>
> Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
> manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
> even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
> there.
>
> I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
> dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
> Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
> machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
> Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
> pronounced it to have been repaired.
>
> Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
> faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
> those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
> before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
> directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
> it would indeed access the directory.
>
> The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
> DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
> revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
> machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.
>
> When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
> the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
> of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
> deliver a stable product.
>
> Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
> include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
> Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
> driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
> Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.
>
> If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.
>
> The solution must come from OUTSIDE.
>
> I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
> bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
> extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
> because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.
>
> However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
> agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
> competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:
>
> HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)
>
> So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
> use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
> repair Vista.
>
> With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
> downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
> One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.
>
> I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
> Pack was uncorrupted.
>
> I took it home, to install on the new machine.
>
> Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".
>
> It LIED.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner
>
>

Sounds like you have a programming problem, not an OS problem. And BTW such
a long winded rambling post is in no way appreciated.

Tyro

"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
news:9609eb58-0a18-4268-9637-...
> We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
> Now we have "artificial mendacity".
>
> VISTA IS A LIAR.
>
> How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
> expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.
>
> Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
> Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
> and errors.
>
> The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++
>
> RETURN 0
>
> This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
> trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
> have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.
>
> SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
> registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
> announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
> reports that all is well.
>
> In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
> 1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
> things right. They will not.
>
> A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
> may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
> fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
> battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
> manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.
>
> Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
> the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
> So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
> machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
> was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
> so.
>
> Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
> manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
> even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
> there.
>
> I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
> dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
> Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
> machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
> Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
> pronounced it to have been repaired.
>
> Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
> faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
> those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
> before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
> directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
> it would indeed access the directory.
>
> The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
> DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
> revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
> machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.
>
> When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
> the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
> of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
> deliver a stable product.
>
> Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
> include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
> Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
> driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
> Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.
>
> If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.
>
> The solution must come from OUTSIDE.
>
> I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
> bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
> extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
> because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.
>
> However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
> agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
> competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:
>
> HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)
>
> So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
> use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
> repair Vista.
>
> With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
> downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
> One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.
>
> I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
> Pack was uncorrupted.
>
> I took it home, to install on the new machine.
>
> Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".
>
> It LIED.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner
>
>

On 12 Jan., 23:58, db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . <databaseben at hotmail
dot com> wrote:
> in the future, you can
> cross post your communications,
> instead of multi posting.


No, I sent out only two copies. This is because it is important to
owners of Vista, but also to those with XP who are thinking of
"upgrading".

This operating system is delivered BROKEN.

There is a "SERVICE PACK 1", which refuses to install itself. The
existing bug in Vista leads to the LIE that it is already installed.
The machine announces "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED", and with
that it aborts.

What is going on is that internally Vista is sending a code to the
Service Pack. This is a flag to say that it is NOT already installed.
Due to some form of register corruption, the flag arrives at the
Service Pack saying it IS already installed.

I was on the Internet some weeks ago, involved in a discussion with
somebody who had installed a Vista "update" onto an XP machine. It had
worked BEFORE the "upgrade", but did not work after. This is an
important warning to the XP community.

BTW, as Tyro says:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tyro

I do not have a programming problem. I have written megabytes of code,
including an operating system. I have never had any programming
problem. On these machines, I did not run my code. They just
malfunctioned before I could begin.

A tyro would not understand that an OS problem IS a programming
problem. It is a problem with what Microsoft have programmed.

These machines have malfunctioned from the start. I have experience of
seeing the fault - including the PALE SCREEN OF DEATH - on several
Dell machines, on Asus, on Samsung and many more whose names I did not
bother to note.

The same fault, different machines. All Vista.

So it is a Vista problem.

Worldwide.

Charles Douglas Wehner


Obviously, Microsoft have not tested it.

On 14 Jan., 23:38, Rob Talley <rjtal...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:31:56 -0800 (PST),Charles Douglas Wehner
>
> <charlesweh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 12 Jan., 23:58, *db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . <databaseben at hotmail
> >dot com> wrote:
> >> in the future, you can
> >> cross post your communications,
> >> instead of multi posting.
>
> >No, I sent out only two copies. This is because it is important to
> >owners of Vista, but also to those with XP who are thinking of
> >"upgrading".
>
> Two copies is multi-posting. *ONE copy with both newsgroups in the
> "Newsgroup" area is cross-posting.
>
> The former separates the replies, while the latter combines them so
> everyone sees what others have had to say.

I am not an anorak, and do not give a damn about the fine points of
obsolescent terminology.

What I did was RIGHT.

On the XP site, I posted a warning about Vista because people
sometimes "upgrade" from XP to vista. The bugs in Vista are also in
the upgrade. So they have to be warned.

Another XP issue is how XP can be used to download the Vista service
pack. So XP users can discover an obscure but important use for their
operating system.

I am quite aware that the XP community will not be replying on this
thread to questions of the XP to Vista "upgrade". That is because such
discussions are of limited use to the Vista community.

Starting with the same set of facts about Vista, one tackles the issue
of Vista problems here. The only XP issue raised here was the use of
XP to download the service pack.

I posted the two copies separately exactly for this reason - the
divergence of interests of the two communities.

The most important point for the Vista community is that the error-
handler bug of Vista acts as a kind of "Trojan". At unexpected
moments, sometimes several times a day, Vista announces that it is
"configuring" updates. However, there are not very many updates. I
think there is only one. According to the Microsoft website, Service
Pack 1 contains the latest update.

Anyway, due to the bug it refuses to load.

When you are offline, the machine takes "bytes" from nowhere, and
OVERWRITES the operating system with those. Most patching systems of
this kind have a number for the starting address of the section, and
then a number for the quantity, followed by the bytes. The "Updates"
have three sections. However, it the machine is offline, the addresses
and quantities are ARBITRARY, so fake "Updates" corrupt your operating
system.

Switch them off.

On my brand-new laptop, the "Updates" continued for five days, but
finally stopped.

Charles Douglas Wehner

http://www.yourdictionary.com/windbag




"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
news:3245554f-61de-4c5b-8f24-...
> On 14 Jan., 23:38, Rob Talley <rjtal...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:31:56 -0800 (PST),Charles Douglas Wehner
>>
>> <charlesweh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 12 Jan., 23:58, db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . <databaseben at hotmail
>> >dot com> wrote:
>> >> in the future, you can
>> >> cross post your communications,
>> >> instead of multi posting.
>>
>> >No, I sent out only two copies. This is because it is important to
>> >owners of Vista, but also to those with XP who are thinking of
>> >"upgrading".
>>
>> Two copies is multi-posting. ONE copy with both newsgroups in the
>> "Newsgroup" area is cross-posting.
>>
>> The former separates the replies, while the latter combines them so
>> everyone sees what others have had to say.
>
> I am not an anorak, and do not give a damn about the fine points of
> obsolescent terminology.
>
> What I did was RIGHT.
>
> On the XP site, I posted a warning about Vista because people
> sometimes "upgrade" from XP to vista. The bugs in Vista are also in
> the upgrade. So they have to be warned.
>
> Another XP issue is how XP can be used to download the Vista service
> pack. So XP users can discover an obscure but important use for their
> operating system.
>
> I am quite aware that the XP community will not be replying on this
> thread to questions of the XP to Vista "upgrade". That is because such
> discussions are of limited use to the Vista community.
>
> Starting with the same set of facts about Vista, one tackles the issue
> of Vista problems here. The only XP issue raised here was the use of
> XP to download the service pack.
>
> I posted the two copies separately exactly for this reason - the
> divergence of interests of the two communities.
>
> The most important point for the Vista community is that the error-
> handler bug of Vista acts as a kind of "Trojan". At unexpected
> moments, sometimes several times a day, Vista announces that it is
> "configuring" updates. However, there are not very many updates. I
> think there is only one. According to the Microsoft website, Service
> Pack 1 contains the latest update.
>
> Anyway, due to the bug it refuses to load.
>
> When you are offline, the machine takes "bytes" from nowhere, and
> OVERWRITES the operating system with those. Most patching systems of
> this kind have a number for the starting address of the section, and
> then a number for the quantity, followed by the bytes. The "Updates"
> have three sections. However, it the machine is offline, the addresses
> and quantities are ARBITRARY, so fake "Updates" corrupt your operating
> system.
>
> Switch them off.
>
> On my brand-new laptop, the "Updates" continued for five days, but
> finally stopped.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/windbag
>
>

That, plus off his meds.

--
Zaphod

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something
big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.

And I get the impression the OP lives in a fantasy.

Tyro

"Zaphod Beeblebrox" <> wrote in message
news:gkq3fj$50h$...
>
> "Dave" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> http://www.yourdictionary.com/windbag
>>
>>
>
> That, plus off his meds.
>
> --
> Zaphod
>
> Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something
> big and sinister going on in the world.
> Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
> universe gets that.
>
>

Ignore the burblings of these graffittists from the slums. The matter
of the bugs in Vista is serious.

Vista was shipped buggy, all over the world. There, it was people like
Samsung in Japan and Dell in the States who put it on board their
hardware and shipped to the stores, such as those in Europe.

There, the machines stood on display until finally sold.

In the meantime, many, many bugs were discovered. Patches were written
to try to overcome the bugs. These patches were supposed to download
over the Internet. However, the bugs DISABLED the Internet patching
system. So they wrote an "update" at Microsoft, which is really NOT an
update, because it cannot load:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

One page on the Microsoft site said that there was just one update, it
is is part of "Service Pack 1". However "Service Pack 1" is reported
to turn Firewire into a snail. It also takes up 455 megabytes, and
takes two hours to run.

I found a page with 42 updates, many for Vista 64, others for Vista 32
and others for both, and I believe for the XP to Vista "upgrade".

The one I have shown here, KB949939, is described as follows:

"Install this update to enable future updates to install successfully
on all editions of Windows Vista".

It is not a "future update" itself. In this context, "future updates"
are those that can be installed online AFTER the system has been
patched to accept online updates by KB949939.

It is like trying to use a car without fuel to fetch fuel. You can
only drive the car AFTER you have got the fuel.

It has to be used as an OFF-LINE patch. Only afterwards will online
patching be possible.

It should be downloaded by means of ANOTHER operating system. However,
Microsoft rejects non-Microsoft operating systems and non-Microsoft
browsers like Firefox.

Then it should be checked for its size, and thoroughly checked for
viruses.

Then it should be transferred by means, for example, of a SD chip, and
run.

I have not got so far yet, because I am not satisfied that I have
virus-checked it adequately. It may tell the lie that Service Pack 1
did, and announce that it is already installed.

That is a silly bit of code. When a program overwrites buggy code with
good code, it does no harm to overwrite the system with the same good
code in the same place. The only sense it makes with Service Pack 1 is
that is saves you waiting for two hours in vain when it really has
already been installed. Vista lied, and said Service Pack 1 was
already installed. I wonder what this patch will do, and whether it
will stop the lying.

The White House got to hear of the bugs in Vista, and refuse to use
it. Here is a report from Chris Crum:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...use-technology

Note the words:

"If you haven't noticed, most people still prefer XP over Microsoft's
clunky, buggy, annoying new Vista".

Here is a first-hand report of a bizarre lie from Vista. "I
photographed" the screen with the "print" button, and saved it as a
GIF file, so I have the evidence.

I was running a Basic program I wrote for computations on a world map.
My machine-code line-drawing program uses anti-alias techniques to
produce lines that are not pixelated. The Basic uses "SHELL" to
command the line-drawing program. So it jumps from Basic to machine-
code and back. It drew many, many thousands of lines successfully.

Suddenly, it misbehaved. I noticed on the screen that my own program
was reporting "WRONG TYPE OF BITMAP".

I immediately went to "FILE" on the commercial image-manipulation
software. I went to "OPEN", and my bitmap was listed. I pointed to it,
right-clicked and selected "DETAILS".

It reported "FILE SIZE -1,285,230,262 BYTES".

MINUS?

More than a BILLION AND A QUARTER?

That's not just a lie - it's a WHOPPER. This is Artificial Mendacity
taken to extremes.

The file size really was about 4.4 megabytes.

Vista was making MY OWN program malfunction.

I know how it works. I have the source code. One puts 42 Hex (66) into
AH, and 2 into AL. Then one calls the SYSTEM. The file size is
delivered in DX:AX. I used that to compare with the size of a correct
file.

The file size is delivered by VISTA.

There is no other way of determining the file size. So ANY program
running under Vista will get crazy reports from Vista, telling it that
a file has MINUS bytes, and HUGE numbers of them. There was no
connection between the image-manipulation software and my own. Yet we
were BOTH being lied to.

I rebooted, and had no further problems - until the next time. These
things happen at random on Vista.

I am getting to the bottom of the problems, and hope that the update
that enables updates will be a good start. When it is property tested,
I will install it.

Charles Douglas Wehner

Latest news:

I tried KB949939, and it replied "Wrong kind of operating system".
This is an OFFICIAL Microsoft update for ALL editions of Windows
Vista.

I tried KB937287, and it did the same. This is an update published one
day before the above.

Both are purported to be updates to make updating possible.

I tried KB947821. It started to load. The green line reached what
looks like 80% of the way. Then it hung up. This is the one that is
supposed to correct an "inconsistency" in the Windows servicing store,
to enable the installation of future updates, service packs and
software.

It is obvious that Microsoft never test the "patching" tools they put
on the Internet.

In addition, Vista and XP announce themselves as NT in the Environment
Variables of the Internet. Small wonder Microsoft products cannot
recognise each other. This is just sloppy work. If they use an old NT
file, they should at least change the name of the system to XP or to
Vista in that file.

HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1)

That was "User Agent" for XP.

Charles Douglas Wehner