"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Boatwright <Wayne Boatwright
> >> wrote:
>
>> On Wed 26 Mar 2008 11:09:43p, Sqwertz told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright <Wayne Boatwright
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, Steve, I think it is *you* who take things too seriously and make
>> way
>>>> too much of things.
>>>
>>> Uh, you're the one that had the hissy fit(s) over this, not I.
>>>
>>> Sheesh.
>>
>> Uh, you started it with you're the one that had the hissy fit(s) over
>> Bronwyn's post (with no damn good reason).
>
> Did not. There's nothing hissy about my post at all. I was even
> trying to be helpful.
>
> I don't get hissy, you thilly boy.
>
You mean, "hithy." Thupid.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:09:43 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:55:06 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:06:16 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:40:38 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The same applies to other leaders. Just think what would happen
>>>>if someone bumped off our current great leader so that he was
>>>>succeeded by his veep!
>>>
>>>Cheney is better protection than body armor. <shudder>
>>
>>cheney has been to the naval medical hospital for his heart so often,
>>there's a parking space there with his name painted on it.
>>
>But it hasn't been written in stone yet.

if you mean chiseled *in* stone, i'm with you, sister.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:54:14 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
>
>> will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that be
>> the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac users.)
>
>Microsoft got quite a kickback from the hardware manufacturers for
>making consumers go out and buy all new hardware to run that POS.
>
>It appears Vista is dead already. It'll be filed right next to
>Windows ME shortly.
>
>-sw

well, i'm so out of it i'm still running millennium.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:11:28 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:51 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:45:03 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-03-26, sf <sf> wrote:
>>>
>>>> now I'm back to wavering again
>>>
>>>Don't forget the class action lawsuit against M$ because much of the "Vista
>>>Capable" labeling is bogus:
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/39lja9
>>>http://tinyurl.com/2elkld
>>>
>>>nb ....wavering back at sf
>>
>>will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that be
>>the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac users.)
>>
>Was it just a problem with the upgrade? We have quite a few posters
>here using full Vista now and I'm not seeing complaints.

the complaints i've seen were general pokiness and the inability to
run fairly mainstream auxiliary software and hardware that the
previous o.s. handled with no problem. i saw an email from a
microsoft exec bitching that he couldn't get his printer to work (and
this was not just some goofy board of directors member).

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:00:03 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:09:43 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:55:06 GMT, blake murphy >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:06:16 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:40:38 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The same applies to other leaders. Just think what would happen
>>>>>if someone bumped off our current great leader so that he was
>>>>>succeeded by his veep!
>>>>
>>>>Cheney is better protection than body armor. <shudder>
>>>
>>>cheney has been to the naval medical hospital for his heart so often,
>>>there's a parking space there with his name painted on it.
>>>
>>But it hasn't been written in stone yet.
>
>if you mean chiseled *in* stone, i'm with you, sister.
>
Yeah, but I was trying to be delicate.... sensitive human being that I
am.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On 2008-03-27, Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> slrn (and two other clients): http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html

I cut an pasted your slrn lines into my ~/News/Score filed and it didn't
work.

-------

[rec.food.cooking,comp.os.linux.misc]
Sco =-9999
%Expires:

Message-ID: googlegroups
Message-ID: webtv

--------

Two dozen googlegroups spams on my next refresh (yes, I rebooted
slrn). I'm going back to my old config:

--------

[rec.food.cooking,comp.os.linux.misc]
Sco =-9999
%Expires:

Organization: http://groups.google.com

--------

.........which works just fine.

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2008-03-27, Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>
>> slrn (and two other clients):
>> http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html
>
> I cut an pasted your slrn lines into my ~/News/Score filed and it didn't
> work.

Not according to what you show below, you didn't copy/paste it into you
score file.

> -------
>
> [rec.food.cooking,comp.os.linux.misc] Sco =-9999 %Expires:
>
> Message-ID: googlegroups
> Message-ID: webtv
>
> --------

It doesn't work because - unlike with the UIP example - you only have one
colon after "Score". That means "and" -- to trigger the filter BOTH
google groups and webtv would have to be in the Message-ID header. You
want two colons (as in the UIP example): two colons means "or", so the
filter will trigger if *either* of those strings is in the Message-ID
header.

Put the Score instruction on its own line, as the UIP example shows.

Remove the expires line; there's none in the UIP example.

> --------
>
> [rec.food.cooking,comp.os.linux.misc] Sco =-9999
> %Expires:
>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com

That's expensive filtering; it requires a second dowload of headers.

Message-ID filtering is not expensive.

And there's no need for that rule if you do the main one the way it is
supposed to be done.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:54:14 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
> >
> >> will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that be
> >> the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac users.)
> >
> >Microsoft got quite a kickback from the hardware manufacturers for
> >making consumers go out and buy all new hardware to run that POS.
> >
> >It appears Vista is dead already. It'll be filed right next to
> >Windows ME shortly.
> >
> >-sw
>
> well, i'm so out of it i'm still running millennium.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>


I'm running XP SP2 with no issues. I'm avoiding Vista because I don't
feel that what Microsoft is charging for it is justified by the
features. Vista is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.

When they first started developing it I was excited about the new Win-FS
but that isn't in Vista.

T wrote:
>
> I'm running XP SP2 with no issues. I'm avoiding Vista because I don't
> feel that what Microsoft is charging for it is justified by the
> features. Vista is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.
>
> When they first started developing it I was excited about the new Win-FS
> but that isn't in Vista.

Scott just bought a new laptop that uses Vista and we hate it. I'm glad
my lappy has XP instead.

--
Leah: That were a wee bit repulsive.
Buffy: Went okay. 'Cept I feel a little wierd about using a
crucifix to kill someone.
Leah: Yeh dinno much about religion, do yeh?

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:11:28 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:51 GMT, blake murphy >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:45:03 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2008-03-26, sf <sf> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> now I'm back to wavering again
> >>>
> >>>Don't forget the class action lawsuit against M$ because much of the "Vista
> >>>Capable" labeling is bogus:
> >>>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/39lja9
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/2elkld
> >>>
> >>>nb ....wavering back at sf
> >>
> >>will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that be
> >>the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac users.)
> >>
> >Was it just a problem with the upgrade? We have quite a few posters
> >here using full Vista now and I'm not seeing complaints.
>
> the complaints i've seen were general pokiness and the inability to
> run fairly mainstream auxiliary software and hardware that the
> previous o.s. handled with no problem. i saw an email from a
> microsoft exec bitching that he couldn't get his printer to work (and
> this was not just some goofy board of directors member).
>
> your pal,
> blake
>

It's interesting but it's like Microsoft completely dropped the ball on
the HAL in Vista.

T <T >> wrote:

> Vista is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.

A _few_ more OK buttons? Every damn program you try and run it asks
you "Are you sure you want to run this?". And then when you say
"OK" it asks, "Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY sure?"

The first thing I did was turn off all that crap. Then it ran
mostly OK. But I didn't try running all my apps and devices before
I put XP back on it.

-sw

T wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:54:14 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that
>> >> be the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac
>> >> users.)
>> >
>> >Microsoft got quite a kickback from the hardware manufacturers for
>> >making consumers go out and buy all new hardware to run that POS.
>> >
>> >It appears Vista is dead already. It'll be filed right next to Windows
>> >ME shortly.
>> >
>> >-sw
>>
>> well, i'm so out of it i'm still running millennium.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>>
>
> I'm running XP SP2 with no issues. I'm avoiding Vista because I don't feel
> that what Microsoft is charging for it is justified by the features. Vista
> is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.

And don't forget its main purpose -- it's very friendly to the digital
rights crowd.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

On 2008-03-28, Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> And there's no need for that rule if you do the main one the way it is
> supposed to be done.

OK, I see what I did. I cut a pasted just the msg ID's and used the
previous "Score" with the single colon because the previous rule only had
one msg ID. I see how that works, now. Thanks for the clarification.

nb

On 2008-03-28, notbob > wrote:

> OK, I see what I did. I cut a pasted just the msg ID's and used the
> previous "Score" with the single colon because the previous rule only had
> one msg ID. I see how that works, now. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, the way I had it would have worked if I'd left out the web-tv
line, right? Does web-tv even still exist?

nb

On 2008-03-28, Sqwertz > wrote:

> The first thing I did was turn off all that crap. Then it ran
> mostly OK. But I didn't try running all my apps and devices before
> I put XP back on it.

XP is no saint. How do you kill that damn msg srvc thingie. Grrrr! I've
tried everything. Delete the file, delete the whole damn directory, etc,
but no matter what I do, next hard boot and it's all back like it never
left. M$ dirtbags have init files that rewrite all that crap. That's what
I hate about Micorsoft. I'm not in contol. The damn software does what
Bill's Boys want, not what I want. Who would want their computer to do
that? As for useabilty, Window hasn't done anything new since NT4 except
add bloat.

nb

notbob <notbob >> wrote:

> On 2008-03-28, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> The first thing I did was turn off all that crap. Then it ran
>> mostly OK. But I didn't try running all my apps and devices before
>> I put XP back on it.
>
> XP is no saint. How do you kill that damn msg srvc thingie.

First thing I do is go through and disable all non-essential
services and background apps.

Right click on My Computer -> Manage -> Services & Applications ->
Services -> Double-Click Messenger:

Startup Type: Disable
Click Stop
Apply

Plus I disable about 8-10 other things here. This is the single
most important thing you can do to speed up XP and free up memory.

> Grrrr! I've
> tried everything. Delete the file, delete the whole damn directory, etc,
> but no matter what I do, next hard boot and it's all back like it never
> left. M$ dirtbags have init files that rewrite all that crap. That's what
> I hate about Micorsoft. I'm not in contol. The damn software does what
> Bill's Boys want, not what I want. Who would want their computer to do
> that? As for useabilty, Window hasn't done anything new since NT4 except
> add bloat.

XP is really pretty decent once you spend a half hour beating it
into submission.

Another essential utility for getting rid of all those other startup
programs is to download and use:

http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml

Between system services (above), and this control panel plug-in, you
can disable 100% of what ails you (including most
malware/annoyware).

-sw

notbob wrote:

> On 2008-03-28, notbob > wrote:
>
>> OK, I see what I did. I cut a pasted just the msg ID's and used the
>> previous "Score" with the single colon because the previous rule only
>> had one msg ID. I see how that works, now. Thanks for the
>> clarification.
>
> Actually, the way I had it would have worked if I'd left out the web-tv
> line, right? Does web-tv even still exist?

Limiting my response to just your boolean YES/NO issues, yes. Both AND and
OR work for only one term.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

In article .net>,
lid says...
> T wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:54:14 -0500, Sqwertz >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that
> >> >> be the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac
> >> >> users.)
> >> >
> >> >Microsoft got quite a kickback from the hardware manufacturers for
> >> >making consumers go out and buy all new hardware to run that POS.
> >> >
> >> >It appears Vista is dead already. It'll be filed right next to Windows
> >> >ME shortly.
> >> >
> >> >-sw
> >>
> >> well, i'm so out of it i'm still running millennium.
> >>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I'm running XP SP2 with no issues. I'm avoiding Vista because I don't feel
> > that what Microsoft is charging for it is justified by the features. Vista
> > is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.
>
> And don't forget its main purpose -- it's very friendly to the digital
> rights crowd.
>
>
>

Completely forgot about that 'feature'. It's so laden with DRM that I
don't want to ever touch it.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:55:15 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>How do you kill that damn msg srvc thingie.

What's that?

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>it's very friendly to the digital
>rights crowd.


??? Insider joke?

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:54:22 -0400, T >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:54:14 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> will there come a time when vista actually works well, or will that be
>> >> the time for the next p.o.s. operating system? (cue smug mac users.)
>> >
>> >Microsoft got quite a kickback from the hardware manufacturers for
>> >making consumers go out and buy all new hardware to run that POS.
>> >
>> >It appears Vista is dead already. It'll be filed right next to
>> >Windows ME shortly.
>> >
>> >-sw
>>
>> well, i'm so out of it i'm still running millennium.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
>
>I'm running XP SP2 with no issues. I'm avoiding Vista because I don't
>feel that what Microsoft is charging for it is justified by the
>features. Vista is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.
>
>When they first started developing it I was excited about the new Win-FS
>but that isn't in Vista.

it seems like they released vista in a beta version and allowed
everyone to become testers.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:21:13 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>T <T >> wrote:
>
>> Vista is mostly eye candy, and a few more OK/Cancel buttons.
>
>A _few_ more OK buttons? Every damn program you try and run it asks
>you "Are you sure you want to run this?". And then when you say
>"OK" it asks, "Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY sure?"
>
>The first thing I did was turn off all that crap. Then it ran
>mostly OK. But I didn't try running all my apps and devices before
>I put XP back on it.
>
>-sw

it definitely sound like the greatest triumph since 'new coke.'

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:17:03 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:00:03 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:09:43 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:55:06 GMT, blake murphy >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:06:16 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:40:38 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The same applies to other leaders. Just think what would happen
>>>>>>if someone bumped off our current great leader so that he was
>>>>>>succeeded by his veep!
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheney is better protection than body armor. <shudder>
>>>>
>>>>cheney has been to the naval medical hospital for his heart so often,
>>>>there's a parking space there with his name painted on it.
>>>>
>>>But it hasn't been written in stone yet.
>>
>>if you mean chiseled *in* stone, i'm with you, sister.
>>
>Yeah, but I was trying to be delicate.... sensitive human being that I
>am.

**** that. you could skip the gravestone completely and put his head
on a pike on pennsylvania avenue as far as i'm concerned.

your pal,
blake

On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:

> What's that?

OK, I really meant the svchost.exe file, which I understand is XP's IM
client. Chrystonacrutch, you can't kill it and it's a resource hog of
epidemic proportions.

nb

notbob > wrote:

> On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:
>
>> What's that?
>
> OK, I really meant the svchost.exe file, which I understand is XP's IM
> client. Chrystonacrutch, you can't kill it and it's a resource hog of
> epidemic proportions.

svchost runs and monitors services, one of which is messenger. It's
a generic process that runs - 'Hosts' - other programs/features.

-sw

notbob > wrote:

> On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:
>
>> What's that?
>
> OK, I really meant the svchost.exe file, which I understand is XP's IM
> client. Chrystonacrutch, you can't kill it and it's a resource hog of
> epidemic proportions.

BTW: You don't want to kill any of the svchosts - they're what's
making a large part of your operating system function like it does.
They'll just restart themselves anyway.

You can turn off individual services, though. Most are necessary,
and some will eat up more memory than others. But most of them are
pretty lightweight as far as CPU usage goes.

-sw

On 2008-03-29, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> svchost runs and monitors services, one of which is messenger. It's
> a generic process that runs - 'Hosts' - other programs/features.

What services? If I want a service running, I'll start it. Otherwise, keep
the Hell off my computer! What's the damn service that keeps XP dogging
along with intermittent non-response cutouts for the first few minutes after
the desktop is up? Drives me crazy. The mouse cursor just goes dead for 15
secs, works for 15 secs, dies again, back and forth for 2-3 minutes.

I'm monitoring network traffic, but can't seem to corral the system. Never
had this prob with w95/98 or NT. Grrr.... (BTw, I did kill that service
thing in the processes thingie. Kept throwing up 'your computer may be
compromised so you need this software' crap.)

nb ...XP dummie

notbob > wrote:

> On 2008-03-29, Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>> svchost runs and monitors services, one of which is messenger. It's
>> a generic process that runs - 'Hosts' - other programs/features.
>
> What services? If I want a service running, I'll start it. Otherwise, keep
> the Hell off my computer! What's the damn service that keeps XP dogging
> along with intermittent non-response cutouts for the first few minutes after
> the desktop is up? Drives me crazy. The mouse cursor just goes dead for 15
> secs, works for 15 secs, dies again, back and forth for 2-3 minutes.

When the computer first boots up, it starts several programs that
can make it lag for the first few seconds, but it shouldn't do that
for 2-3 minutes except on slow computers with a lot of (usually
unnecessary) background stuff being loaded.

> I'm monitoring network traffic, but can't seem to corral the system. Never
> had this prob with w95/98 or NT. Grrr.... (BTw, I did kill that service
> thing in the processes thingie. Kept throwing up 'your computer may be
> compromised so you need this software' crap.)

Can you describe that one a little more? I remember when I install
XP, it automatically throws up a messenger box and mentions some
specific piece of software, but I forget what that is. That's my
cue to go into serves and disable all the bloat in services.

It should have been disabled by what I mentioned in the other
message.

If you're getting other popups then it may be spyware/adware.
If you want to send me the proc.txt and services.txt files generated
by issuing the commands:

tasklist > proc.txt
sc query > services.txt

Both run from the command prompt ( C:/> ), for example, then I can
give it a quick once-over and let you know if there's crap there
that shouldn't be there.

XP, when trimmed down, shouldn't really run any slower than 98 or
NT. It some cases it's even faster.

-sw

On 2008-03-29, Sqwertz > wrote:

> When the computer first boots up, it starts several programs that
> can make it lag for the first few seconds, but it shouldn't do that
> for 2-3 minutes except on slow computers with a lot of (usually
> unnecessary) background stuff being loaded.

This is my mom's Sony VAIO, a piece of crap in the 1st degree. Good
hardware (2.4Hz cpu), but Sony bogs it down with crapware and other Sony proprietary
garbage. I can't get to the bios to save my life. Also, the keyboard, M$'s
beautifully ego "Natural", but nightmare software, is a pain. I doesn't
even work correctly without loading the dedicated software. ARrrghhh!



> Can you describe that one a little more? I remember when I install
> XP, it automatically throws up a messenger box and mentions some
> specific piece of software, but I forget what that is. That's my
> cue to go into serves and disable all the bloat in services.

Yes, I killed that one, OK.

> tasklist > proc.txt
> sc query > services.txt

I'll give it a try.

> XP, when trimmed down, shouldn't really run any slower than 98 or
> NT.

You would think! XP, after all, is just NT with bloat. Oh, wait....

> It some cases it's even faster.

I should think so. As it is, it's about as fast as my 450 PII with
Slackware. I have no doubt the Sony crap is a major part of the prob. Did
you see where Sony was going to charge $50 to not load the crapware on new
VAIO's? Major outrage ensued and nixed it, and it's now free. But, you
have to specify.

nb

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:06:35 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:
>
>> What's that?
>
>OK, I really meant the svchost.exe file, which I understand is XP's IM
>client. Chrystonacrutch, you can't kill it and it's a resource hog of
>epidemic proportions.
>

I have svchost.exe-35oF672.pf in Windows\Prefetch and swchost in
windows\systems32 Did you delete both... at the same time?

Anyway, why worry about it? Just stop it from booting up with your
computer. If it's not running, it's not hogging any resources.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:

> Anyway, why worry about it? Just stop it from booting up with your
> computer. If it's not running, it's not hogging any resources.

Easier said than done. I've run across all kinds of websites that tell how,
and I've tried them all, but svchost.exe is always rewritten during boot up.


nb

notbob > wrote:

> On 2008-03-29, sf <sf> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, why worry about it? Just stop it from booting up with your
>> computer. If it's not running, it's not hogging any resources.
>
> Easier said than done. I've run across all kinds of websites that tell how,
> and I've tried them all, but svchost.exe is always rewritten during boot up.

It *has* to be there. If you really want to keep it from starting, then
don't log in ;-) It's started by the login process and can't be
circumvented.

You probably just have a bunch of third-party bloatware installed. IN
most caes it's not proprietary exact for in ther case of laptops. Some of
it is *required* in that case, such as touchpad and keyboard utilities.

Send me a lit of what's running. And don't forget that other utility I
mentioned - to disable all that crap.

That utility id nice because it allows you to re-enable things easily if
you find you disabled something that should have been disabled.

A clean process list should look like this:



Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem Usage
========================= ====== ================ ======== ============
System Idle Process 0 Console 0 16 K
System 4 Console 0 220 K
smss.exe 680 Console 0 404 K
csrss.exe 748 Console 0 4,228 K
winlogon.exe 776 Console 0 7,060 K
services.exe 820 Console 0 3,320 K
lsass.exe 832 Console 0 1,304 K
svchost.exe 1012 Console 0 4,652 K
svchost.exe 1092 Console 0 4,160 K
svchost.exe 1192 Console 0 36,652 K
svchost.exe 1248 Console 0 3,308 K
explorer.exe 1476 Console 0 39,024 K
svchost.exe 1500 Console 0 6,668 K
spoolsv.exe 1732 Console 0 5,428 K
svchost.exe 412 Console 0 3,320 K


That is all you need to run Windows XP. The num,ber of SVCHOSTS running
will vary. You can of course have other things running, but they should
be of your own choice and you should know what they are.

Here's another must have utility for examining what's running:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb896653.aspx

This actually shows you the command line/source of the program so you can
identify programs that are masquerading as other programs.

ObFood: Dinner last night was spicy Korean pork & noodles:
http://i32.tinypic.com/euet5j.jpg

-sw

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:11:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>it's very friendly to the digital
>>>rights crowd.
>>
>>
>> ??? Insider joke?
>
>Not a joke, and only meant for insiders if one defines "insiders" as
>"those who sometimes read about computing news".

Ah, ok.... now I get it.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

sf wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark >
> wrote:
>
>>it's very friendly to the digital
>>rights crowd.
>
>
> ??? Insider joke?

Not a joke, and only meant for insiders if one defines "insiders" as
"those who sometimes read about computing news".


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:09:13 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:11:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>it's very friendly to the digital
>>>>>rights crowd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ??? Insider joke?
>>>
>>>Not a joke, and only meant for insiders if one defines "insiders" as
>>>"those who sometimes read about computing news".
>>
>> Ah, ok.... now I get it.
>
>(Or wonder why stealing movies and songs apparently isn't quite as easy
>with Vista.)

frankly that has never been on my agenda, so I'm completely clueless.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

sf wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:11:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>it's very friendly to the digital
>>>>rights crowd.
>>>
>>>
>>> ??? Insider joke?
>>
>>Not a joke, and only meant for insiders if one defines "insiders" as
>>"those who sometimes read about computing news".
>
> Ah, ok.... now I get it.

(Or wonder why stealing movies and songs apparently isn't quite as easy
with Vista.)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

sf wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:09:13 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:11:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:30 -0800, Blinky the Shark >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>it's very friendly to the digital
>>>>>>rights crowd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ??? Insider joke?
>>>>
>>>>Not a joke, and only meant for insiders if one defines "insiders" as
>>>>"those who sometimes read about computing news".
>>>
>>> Ah, ok.... now I get it.
>>
>>(Or wonder why stealing movies and songs apparently isn't quite as easy
>>with Vista.)
>
> frankly that has never been on my agenda, so I'm completely clueless.

Not that I was implying anything. Just completing my answer a little
belatedly.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net