VITAL - SWITCH OFF the UPDATES

If you have Vista, do the following test:

Switch off the modem, or better, remove the plug.

Make sure you have no wireless Internet connections.

You are now running OFF-LINE.

Close the system down, wait and reboot. Use the machine for a time.
Keep doing this for a few days.

If you are interrupted at any time by the announcement "Updates are
being configured", followed by "Section 2 of 3 28% completed",
followed by a crash, followed by a reboot and "Section 3 of 3 98%
completed", then you have a Microsoft BUG.

That bug takes random bytes from NOWHERE (because your Internet
connections had been disconnected). It uses a RANDOM address, and puts
a RANDOM number of RANDOM bytes into the RAM. This is just like a
"Trojan virus" in that the smaller bug creates bigger bugs by
overwriting the good bits of code.

Fortunately, it is not saved on the hard disk. The copy of the
operating system on the hard disk only has the original bug.

It is no use trying to download Service Pack 1, which is purported to
fix the fault. It doesn't work. Obviously, Microsoft have never tested
it. It reports "already installed" on a NEW machine where it was not
already installed, and refuses to go further.

The "Updates" are similarly impossible to download.

So if you have this bug, turn off the updates. The operating system
may take five days before it stops the fake "Updates", but after it
does the system will be cleaner.

Charles Douglas Wehner

"Little Charlie" <> wrote:

>You are very much mistaken. You are giving really BAD ADVICE based on
>alleged strange behavior on your PC alone.
>
>You have constructed in your mind a scenario that is not real. It is
>also painfully apparent your PC savvy is sorely lacking.
>
>Worst though is the BAD ADVICE you give that some may actually comply
>with out of similar ignorance.
>
>
>
>"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message

The guy is a whack job. Check out some of his posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...9hFg&scoring=d

All new machines with Vista installed already have SP1. If you download SP1
and try to install it, you'll be told that it's already installed.
I strongly suggest you get some computer education and stop your misleading
posts.

Tyro

"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
news:120e5fda-0000-48ba-a463-...
> If you have Vista, do the following test:
>
> Switch off the modem, or better, remove the plug.
>
> Make sure you have no wireless Internet connections.
>
> You are now running OFF-LINE.
>
> Close the system down, wait and reboot. Use the machine for a time.
> Keep doing this for a few days.
>
> If you are interrupted at any time by the announcement "Updates are
> being configured", followed by "Section 2 of 3 28% completed",
> followed by a crash, followed by a reboot and "Section 3 of 3 98%
> completed", then you have a Microsoft BUG.
>
> That bug takes random bytes from NOWHERE (because your Internet
> connections had been disconnected). It uses a RANDOM address, and puts
> a RANDOM number of RANDOM bytes into the RAM. This is just like a
> "Trojan virus" in that the smaller bug creates bigger bugs by
> overwriting the good bits of code.
>
> Fortunately, it is not saved on the hard disk. The copy of the
> operating system on the hard disk only has the original bug.
>
> It is no use trying to download Service Pack 1, which is purported to
> fix the fault. It doesn't work. Obviously, Microsoft have never tested
> it. It reports "already installed" on a NEW machine where it was not
> already installed, and refuses to go further.
>
> The "Updates" are similarly impossible to download.
>
> So if you have this bug, turn off the updates. The operating system
> may take five days before it stops the fake "Updates", but after it
> does the system will be cleaner.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner

"The Internet is fast becoming a cesspool where false information
thrives".

These are the words of Eric Schmidt of Google.

http://www.clickthrough-marketing.co...ing-a-cesspool

One could say also that it is the playground of graffitti "artists".

However, this is a serious matter. I will not repeat the long history
of how I came to discover the bug on countless machines from various
manufacturers. I will not describe my 46 years of experience in the
computer industry.

I stress that you should DO THE TEST.

If your Vista machine is "updating" OFF-LINE, then it CANNOT be
updating.

So ignore the background noises of malicious hecklers, and do the
test.

Charles Douglas Wehner

"Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
news:5f004885-edda-4320-8ef6-...
> "The Internet is fast becoming a cesspool where false information
> thrives".
>
> These are the words of Eric Schmidt of Google.
>
> http://www.clickthrough-marketing.co...ing-a-cesspool
>
> One could say also that it is the playground of graffitti "artists".
>
> However, this is a serious matter. I will not repeat the long history
> of how I came to discover the bug on countless machines from various
> manufacturers. I will not describe my 46 years of experience in the
> computer industry.
>
> I stress that you should DO THE TEST.
>
> If your Vista machine is "updating" OFF-LINE, then it CANNOT be
> updating.
>
> So ignore the background noises of malicious hecklers, and do the
> test.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner

"I will not describe my 46 years of experience in the
computer industry."

Oh, but please do! It would be fascinating to hear what you did that
left you totally lacking in computer skills after 46 years!

Chris S.

Chris S. wrote:
>
> "Charles Douglas Wehner" <> wrote in message
> news:5f004885-edda-4320-8ef6-...
>> "The Internet is fast becoming a cesspool where false information
>> thrives".
>>
>> These are the words of Eric Schmidt of Google.
>>
>> http://www.clickthrough-marketing.co...ing-a-cesspool
>>
>>
>> One could say also that it is the playground of graffitti "artists".
>>
>> However, this is a serious matter. I will not repeat the long history
>> of how I came to discover the bug on countless machines from various
>> manufacturers. I will not describe my 46 years of experience in the
>> computer industry.
>>
>> I stress that you should DO THE TEST.
>>
>> If your Vista machine is "updating" OFF-LINE, then it CANNOT be
>> updating.
>>
>> So ignore the background noises of malicious hecklers, and do the
>> test.
>>
>> Charles Douglas Wehner
>
> "I will not describe my 46 years of experience in the
> computer industry."
>
> Oh, but please do! It would be fascinating to hear what you did that
> left you totally lacking in computer skills after 46 years!
>

Well 46 years would have put the OP in punchcards, punchtape and such
like stuff. He's obviously still there.


--
Asking a question?
Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
your OS, Service Pack level
and the FULL contents of any error message(s)

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
snip
> Well 46 years would have put the OP in punchcards, punchtape and such like
> stuff. He's obviously still there.
>
>

Gordon,
Ahhh, the memories of walking into a large room in the factory office and
seeing rows of women key-punch operators, lot's of good looking ones too.
:-D
And the days I ran a drill-press that operated from punchtape. (I can't be
that old.)
Thanks for the memories.
Dave

As I say, ignore the inane prattle of Internet graffittists.

The White House is using XP. This report, By Chris Crum, is reliable.
It says "If you haven't noticed, most people still prefer XP over
Microsoft's clunky, buggy, annoying new Vista".

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

If you have done the test, of running Vista offline, and have still
been getting "Updates", here is the reason:

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

As it says, there is an "inconsistency" in the "Windows servicing
store" which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates.

The "servicing store" may well be the modem buffer, but it will take
further research to explain this bit of Microsoft internal jargon.
Ignore the graffittists on this matter. They are just silly children
showing off. They will say anything. This update relates to random
bytes in random quantities being patched to random places in memory.

The most vital update seems to be this one:

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

There was another that was issued the day before, but it may not be so
advanced. This one is KB949939.

Note the words:

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

You CANNOT install this update, because updates do not install.

It is "Catch 22". It is the "chicken and egg" situation. It is the
Russell Paradox - the "set of all sets that does not include itself".
It is the update of all updates that does not include itself.

Just as a set of sets is a "superset", so this "update" is something
that embraces "future updates" without being a "FUTURE update" itself.
"Future" means updates that are installed AFTER this one has.

The answer comes from OUTSIDE the Vista environment. Using some OTHER
operating system, you download it and save it on a chip, such as an SD
card or a USB stick.

You check it for viruses, with as many virus checkers as possible.
This is because although it comes from Microsoft, it may be
contaminated by a virus on the computer used to download it.

Now that you have got it, you might run it. I myself have got this
"Update of updates", but am waiting until it is thoroughly tested for
viruses before I install it.

The theory is, that if this "update" - used as a patch, rather than an
update - is installed, all the other updates might become available to
anybody who is online. That would enable other problems with the
"clunky, buggy, annoying new Vista" to be overcome.

A report on the Internet describes Service Pack 1 as "turning Firewire
into a snail". I intend to take my time over these problems,
installing the MINIMUM of updates. In that way, the disadvantages of
these products can be kept to a minimum.

By the way, I used the terms "patch" and "updates" in different
contexts. "Patch" in this report means a program that overwrites buggy
bytes with good ones, whilst an "update" is something DELIVERED OVER
THE INTERNET, to do the same.

By downloading first, and using the program to patch later, one has
time to check whether it has arrived, and whether the number of bytes
is correct - in addition to the virus check.

After the system has been patched, one can turn the updates on again,
and test offline.

Only if the fake updates fail to appear does one go back online with
the updates enabled.

There are many more updates on the Microsoft site. They are designed
to overcome a multitude of problems. Some are only for the 64-bit
version. Others are for the 32- bit or for both. The Vista upgrade
pack for XP has the same bugs as native Vista, so the updates for "all
versions of Vista" seem to be the one to use here.

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

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)

That was "User Agent" for Vista 32 on a Dell.

Charles Douglas Wehner