Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I'll try to make this as short as I can.

Bought a computer with ME on it. After awhile the PC slowed to an absolute
crawl. Took it in and the guy said it was corrupted and he fixed it up for
$69. Broughtit home and it worked fine as it was like having a brand new
computer. It took only two weeks or so and it was slowing down again and now
it goes at a crawl. The resources are 60% to 70% free running as it is. Even
taking off a couple items off of running in the background doesn't seem to
help.

Is this an ME problem? Is it easily infected? what? Any help would be
appreciated.

Thanks

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"sj" <sj@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I'll try to make this as short as I can.
>
>Bought a computer with ME on it. After awhile the PC slowed to an absolute
>crawl. Took it in and the guy said it was corrupted and he fixed it up for
>$69. Broughtit home and it worked fine as it was like having a brand new
>computer. It took only two weeks or so and it was slowing down again and now
>it goes at a crawl. The resources are 60% to 70% free running as it is. Even
>taking off a couple items off of running in the background doesn't seem to
>help.
>
>Is this an ME problem? Is it easily infected? what? Any help would be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks

With 60% to 70% free system resources then your problems have
absolutely nothing to do with system resources. With Windows Me
system resources have to get well below the 20% free level before they
become any sort of a cause for concern.

Sound like you may have some sort of virus/trojan/spyware infestation
on your machine, which is an extremely common occurrence these days.

Make certain that your antivirus software is completely up to date,
with the virus definitions not more than a week old and do a complete
virus scan of your hard drive. Then get a "second opinion" about
possible virus infestations by doing a free online virus scan at one
of the following sites:
http://housecall.trendmicro.com
http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/
http://www.ravantivirus.com/scan/

Then go to MVP Jim Eshelman's free online spyware test at
http://aumha.org/a/noads.htm and if there is any spyware found then
use Jim's Spyware Quick Fix procedure at
http://www.aumha.org/a/quickfix.htm

If the problems persist then post another response back here, and
include with that response a list of the items that you have loading
at Startup as per the Startup tab in MSCONFIG.

There are some additional checks and other things we can do, but let's
make sure that we have the virus/trojan/virus aspect under control
first.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:09:01 -0700, sj wrote:

> I'll try to make this as short as I can.
>
> Bought a computer with ME on it. After awhile the PC slowed to an absolute
> crawl. Took it in and the guy said it was corrupted and he fixed it up for
> $69. Broughtit home and it worked fine as it was like having a brand new
> computer. It took only two weeks or so and it was slowing down again and now
> it goes at a crawl. The resources are 60% to 70% free running as it is. Even
> taking off a couple items off of running in the background doesn't seem to
> help.
>
> Is this an ME problem? Is it easily infected? what? Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks

Is this an ME problem? No.
Is it easily infected? It depends on the security settings used in
certain applications.

The major application which can lead to infections is MS Internet Explorer.
Most people like it to do fancy things, and tend to lower the default
security settings slightly to make fun sites, which rely on ActiveX
controls to do fun things, work right.

People who know raise the security settings slightly in the Internet zone,
then place those fun sites that they trust in the Trusted sites zone;
lowering the security settings in that zone enough to let them do the fun
things.

You should follow the advice given by Ron Martell. And, in the case that
none of the sites mention the zones, consider my comments about them.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:06:27 -0700, "N. Miller"
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:09:01 -0700, sj wrote:
>
>> I'll try to make this as short as I can.
>>
>> Bought a computer with ME on it. After awhile the PC slowed to an absolute
>> crawl. Took it in and the guy said it was corrupted and he fixed it up for
>> $69. Broughtit home and it worked fine as it was like having a brand new
>> computer. It took only two weeks or so and it was slowing down again and now
>> it goes at a crawl. The resources are 60% to 70% free running as it is. Even
>> taking off a couple items off of running in the background doesn't seem to
>> help.
>>
>> Is this an ME problem? Is it easily infected? what? Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Is this an ME problem? No.
>Is it easily infected? It depends on the security settings used in
>certain applications.
>
>The major application which can lead to infections is MS Internet Explorer.
>Most people like it to do fancy things, and tend to lower the default
>security settings slightly to make fun sites, which rely on ActiveX
>controls to do fun things, work right.
>
>People who know raise the security settings slightly in the Internet zone,
>then place those fun sites that they trust in the Trusted sites zone;
>lowering the security settings in that zone enough to let them do the fun
>things.
>
>You should follow the advice given by Ron Martell. And, in the case that
>none of the sites mention the zones, consider my comments about them.

Or better still , use Firefox.
Why increase the risk of infection by staying with IE when there is a
better and safer free browser available?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
news:mmg191tg5tr9qj25vf83bk7te0pn8ag7p5@4ax.com...

> Or better still , use Firefox.
> Why increase the risk of infection by staying with IE when there is a
> better and safer free browser available?

Better? - debatable, but possibly true depending on your definition
Safer?? - almost certainly not true, judging by the number of updates
they've had to produce for it in recent months

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel and Pete:

I don't understand people's displeasure with Internet Explorer, no matter
which version. I have tried Firefox (twice), Netscape and others, there is
none like IE. Of course you have to abide by it's rules, but that is not
unique.
In the end it is a matter of personal preference IMO.
And that preference in my case is definitely for IE, because it is the most
versatile and userfriendly browser around.

Harry.


"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
newsxhzwEwXFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
> news:mmg191tg5tr9qj25vf83bk7te0pn8ag7p5@4ax.com...
>
> > Or better still , use Firefox.
> > Why increase the risk of infection by staying with IE when there is a
> > better and safer free browser available?
>
> Better? - debatable, but possibly true depending on your definition
> Safer?? - almost certainly not true, judging by the number of updates
> they've had to produce for it in recent months
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

sj, in addition to the good advice from Ron Martell and Norman Miller, I
recommend doing the elementary disk maintenance, by running Disk Cleanup
followed by Scandisk and Defrag on all your volumes.

Ask Ron about how to purge your Startup list to obtain more system resources
(which are not a problem, as you describe) and more computer power.

Obtain the free process viewer, Process Explorer, to report cpu usage:
www.sysinternals.com
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [...] ichol.mspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsad9kjdpaopz$.dlg@discussions.microsoft.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:09:01 -0700, sj wrote:
>
> > I'll try to make this as short as I can.
> >
> > Bought a computer with ME on it. After awhile the PC slowed to an
absolute
> > crawl. Took it in and the guy said it was corrupted and he fixed it up
for
> > $69. Broughtit home and it worked fine as it was like having a brand new
> > computer. It took only two weeks or so and it was slowing down again and
now
> > it goes at a crawl. The resources are 60% to 70% free running as it is.
Even
> > taking off a couple items off of running in the background doesn't seem
to
> > help.
> >
> > Is this an ME problem? Is it easily infected? what? Any help would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Is this an ME problem? No.
> Is it easily infected? It depends on the security settings used in
> certain applications.
>
> The major application which can lead to infections is MS Internet
Explorer.
> Most people like it to do fancy things, and tend to lower the default
> security settings slightly to make fun sites, which rely on ActiveX
> controls to do fun things, work right.
>
> People who know raise the security settings slightly in the Internet zone,
> then place those fun sites that they trust in the Trusted sites zone;
> lowering the security settings in that zone enough to let them do the fun
> things.
>
> You should follow the advice given by Ron Martell. And, in the case that
> none of the sites mention the zones, consider my comments about them.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:05:30 +0100, Noel Paton wrote:

> "valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
> news:mmg191tg5tr9qj25vf83bk7te0pn8ag7p5@4ax.com...
>
>> Or better still , use Firefox.
>> Why increase the risk of infection by staying with IE when there is a
>> better and safer free browser available?
>
> Better? - debatable, but possibly true depending on your definition
> Safer?? - almost certainly not true, judging by the number of updates
> they've had to produce for it in recent months

MS Internet Explorer can be locked down to be sufficiently safe. It took
MSFT until version 6 to start installing updates in a moderately safe mode.
Unfortunately, most people immediately thought something was "broken", and
began tweaking the safety down. ActiveX is the worst culprit for infection,
and most people won't take the trouble to use the MSIE zones to segregate
the trustable sites from the general Internet. MSIE is, inherently, unsafe.

Opera, the Mozilla suite, and Firefox install in a safer state than MSIE,
and most users tweak the security up, not down. Most of the exploits
addressed by the Mozilla group have been pretty tame, compared with MSIE.
Whereas MSIE, when tweaked to people's expectations, opens up the browser
to ActiveX driven drive-by downloads, Opera, the Mozilla suite, and Firefox
mostly have addressed weaknesses pertaining to "phishing". The worst of the
vulnerabilities also afflicted MSIE.

I would say that Firefox is, indeed, safer than MSIE; in a default
installation. But I would also point out that MSIE can be made safer
through custom tweaks (however, most users don't), and Firefox can be made
more dangerous through custom tweaks (however, most users don't). At its
best, MSIE is as safe as Firefox; at its worst, Firefox is as dangerous as
MSIE. Everything else is a matter of personal preference.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:28:02 -0400, webster72n wrote:

> Noel and Pete:
>
> I don't understand people's displeasure with Internet Explorer, no matter
> which version. I have tried Firefox (twice), Netscape and others, there is
> none like IE. Of course you have to abide by it's rules, but that is not
> unique.
> In the end it is a matter of personal preference IMO.
> And that preference in my case is definitely for IE, because it is the most
> versatile and userfriendly browser around.
>
> Harry.

While you are right about personal preference, you are wrong about Firefox
being the most versatile and user friendly browser around. One measure of
versatility is customizability. I find it easier to customize Firefox to my
tastes. User friendliness is dependent a lot on familiarity. People who
have only ever used MSFT products, especially Windows, will find any
product which does not do things "The Microsoft Way" a bit unfriendly.
Anybody who has used other products than MSFT products, won't have nearly
as much trouble getting used to Opera, the Mozilla suite, or Firefox.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsgrb9ubxmgx6.dlg@discussions.microsoft.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:05:30 +0100, Noel Paton wrote:
>
> > "valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
> > news:mmg191tg5tr9qj25vf83bk7te0pn8ag7p5@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Or better still , use Firefox.
> >> Why increase the risk of infection by staying with IE when there is a
> >> better and safer free browser available?
> >
> > Better? - debatable, but possibly true depending on your definition
> > Safer?? - almost certainly not true, judging by the number of updates
> > they've had to produce for it in recent months
>
> MS Internet Explorer can be locked down to be sufficiently safe. It took
> MSFT until version 6 to start installing updates in a moderately safe
mode.
> Unfortunately, most people immediately thought something was "broken", and
> began tweaking the safety down. ActiveX is the worst culprit for
infection,
> and most people won't take the trouble to use the MSIE zones to segregate
> the trustable sites from the general Internet. MSIE is, inherently,
unsafe.
>
> Opera, the Mozilla suite, and Firefox install in a safer state than MSIE,
> and most users tweak the security up, not down. Most of the exploits
> addressed by the Mozilla group have been pretty tame, compared with MSIE.
> Whereas MSIE, when tweaked to people's expectations, opens up the browser
> to ActiveX driven drive-by downloads, Opera, the Mozilla suite, and
Firefox
> mostly have addressed weaknesses pertaining to "phishing". The worst of
the
> vulnerabilities also afflicted MSIE.
>
> I would say that Firefox is, indeed, safer than MSIE; in a default
> installation. But I would also point out that MSIE can be made safer
> through custom tweaks (however, most users don't), and Firefox can be made
> more dangerous through custom tweaks (however, most users don't). At its
> best, MSIE is as safe as Firefox; at its worst, Firefox is as dangerous as
> MSIE. Everything else is a matter of personal preference.
>

Firefox installs with scripting enabled, sites allowed to install software,
cookies enabled (with "originating site only" unchecked and until expiry).
In trying to compete with Internet Explorer they've become more like it.

Shane

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I unchecked Enable Javascript in Firefox tools and I wasn't even able to
continue on this site because it uses JavaScript. If I disable JavaScript I
can't logout of my web mail account.

How am I supposed to tighten security if it means I can't do anything?

Does Firefox have any Restricted or Trusted sites or ActiveX blocking
capabilities?

Mike

"Shane" wrote:

>
> Firefox installs with scripting enabled, sites allowed to install software,
> cookies enabled (with "originating site only" unchecked and until expiry).
> In trying to compete with Internet Explorer they've become more like it.
>
> Shane
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"mdf" <mdf@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87E32945-8ECD-412C-A7EA-8EED782D5E2F@microsoft.com...
> I unchecked Enable Javascript in Firefox tools and I wasn't even able to
> continue on this site because it uses JavaScript. If I disable JavaScript
I
> can't logout of my web mail account.
>
> How am I supposed to tighten security if it means I can't do anything?
>
> Does Firefox have any Restricted or Trusted sites or ActiveX blocking
> capabilities?

If you look in the Advanced section of the Javascript options you'll find
settings you can disable without entirely disabling javascript. I have all
the individual .js options disabled.

On the other hand you don't need to access this newsgroup via the website,
it's a far superior experience viewed with a newsreader, eg Outlook
Express.

Cut/paste/whatever the url below into the address bar to open this group in
Outlook
Express:

news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsme.general

To block ActiveX, uncheck the option allowing sites to install software.
Occasionally you might need to re-enable that for a particular site, but by
far and away most of the time you're better off with it disabled.

SpywareBlaster: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html protects
Firefox against a no. of sites. If you don't already use SpywareBlaster, I
strongly
recommend it. Just install it, download updates, enable all protection and
forget about it other than to occasionally check for updates. There are
other measures you can take within SpywareBlaster,
but the basic protection is good, and safe, not a drain of resources (it
doesn't run in the background).

There is an extension (plugin) for Firefox that puts an entry in the r-click
context menu that will open the page in Internet Explorer. It works and
means you can browse with Firefox in a secure configuration, then at a site
you trust, that requires scripting, you can simply r-click and open it in IE
rather than
mess about altering settings.

There's another extension that aims to give per-site scripting control in
Firefox, but when I installed 1.04 over 1.03 with the plugin already
present, it caused FFx to crash
immediately on opening. So I don't recommend it (yet).


Shane

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Shane" wrote:

Well, whaddaya know!

There really is a first and last time for everything!


Shane

>
> "mdf" <mdf@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:87E32945-8ECD-412C-A7EA-8EED782D5E2F@microsoft.com...
> > I unchecked Enable Javascript in Firefox tools and I wasn't even able to
> > continue on this site because it uses JavaScript. If I disable JavaScript
> I
> > can't logout of my web mail account.
> >
> > How am I supposed to tighten security if it means I can't do anything?
> >
> > Does Firefox have any Restricted or Trusted sites or ActiveX blocking
> > capabilities?
>
> If you look in the Advanced section of the Javascript options you'll find
> settings you can disable without entirely disabling javascript. I have all
> the individual .js options disabled.
>
> On the other hand you don't need to access this newsgroup via the website,
> it's a far superior experience viewed with a newsreader, eg Outlook
> Express.
>
> Cut/paste/whatever the url below into the address bar to open this group in
> Outlook
> Express:
>
> news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsme.general
>
> To block ActiveX, uncheck the option allowing sites to install software.
> Occasionally you might need to re-enable that for a particular site, but by
> far and away most of the time you're better off with it disabled.
>
> SpywareBlaster: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html protects
> Firefox against a no. of sites. If you don't already use SpywareBlaster, I
> strongly
> recommend it. Just install it, download updates, enable all protection and
> forget about it other than to occasionally check for updates. There are
> other measures you can take within SpywareBlaster,
> but the basic protection is good, and safe, not a drain of resources (it
> doesn't run in the background).
>
> There is an extension (plugin) for Firefox that puts an entry in the r-click
> context menu that will open the page in Internet Explorer. It works and
> means you can browse with Firefox in a secure configuration, then at a site
> you trust, that requires scripting, you can simply r-click and open it in IE
> rather than
> mess about altering settings.
>
> There's another extension that aims to give per-site scripting control in
> Firefox, but when I installed 1.04 over 1.03 with the plugin already
> present, it caused FFx to crash
> immediately on opening. So I don't recommend it (yet).
>
>
> Shane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>