Replies

The problem may have nothing to do with IE9, because I may have made any number of identical program changes on both machines.

I was positive the post that suggested drive errors were the problem was correct, because when I tested them both showed drive errors. That seemed odd to me, until I remembered how many changes were made in a short period of time. When I corrected the drive errors the problem remained.

I got the cure thanks to a little trick that was posted by Joe in a different context. That was a thread on restore points in which he suggested putting a shortcut on the desktop. I realized that I would have a pre-IE9 restore point, but without Explorer, how do you get to your restore points? For that I used Joe’s shortcut (which I obviously had to have before the fact). Because it is a shortcut, it bypasses Explorer completely. Now Explorer works perfectly, with IE8 restored. IE9 is fine on my other 64-bit computer, but I can’t afford to experiment with these two.

Do you mean Windows Explorer or Internet Explorer?

What do you mean by “quit working properly”

Have you tried uninstall IE9? Is this the beta or RC?

Have you checked the Event Logs?

Joe

Thanks Joe,

Windows Explorer

Start|Computer (or Games, for example, or worst of all, Control Panel: it restarts Explorer, but Explorer crashes again when you invoke it again) = “Windows Explorer Has Stopped Working”. So much for uninstalling via Control Panel.

RC (Beta was never installed). The computer that does work is full 64-bit Office.

Haven’t tried your suggestions yet, but I will do so. I have this on two machines (one desktop and one laptop) so I’m very surprised to be the only one with the problem. The computers are as different as day and night so far as installed applications are concerned, and one is Windows 7N and the other Windows 7. I do have a prior backup of one but not an immediate backup of the other.

The download page asks for the OS version, so that it will install both 32 and 64 bit version if you are running Windows 7 x64. It’s not a trap.

That is correct. I caught it after I posted it, and tried to post the correction but without success on the machine I was working on. (It is also a reflection of the mutual availability of 32 and 64-bit versions previously available.)

It looks very good to me so far, and I will be most interested to see how refined the 64-bit version turns out to be, as one post has already suggested.

Look at the wording of the download box. It appears to ask if you are running 64-bit or 32-bit Windows, as if the selection had to correspond to the ‘bitness’ of your O/S. It is technically a part of Windows, but do you really want to run 64-bit IE just because you have 64-bit Windows? (I have both, and strongly recommend the 32-bit version no matter what version your Windows happens to be.)

You might also putter about Insert – Quick Parts – Field (Date) and Building Blocks in general. (I’m looking through some of that at present myself but can’t offer a specific answer to your post.)

I do not have a vested interest in the suggestion made in this post.

You are arguing about a new interface, and nothing more. I mentioned several sorts of under-the-hood improvements that are independent of the interface but make it a better product exclusive of appearances. If you really crave efficiency I can suggest an additional investment that might take your minds off that, and that is voice input.

So far as I know it is a one-horse race, it is initially expensive, you need a fairly powerful computer, and the higher the quality of the input device that goes with the software, up to a point, the better. I am still just getting used to it. It is faster than anything I normally do with the keyboard, and the machine will follow commands in addition to transcribing dictation. I can’t type nearly as fast as I can talk.

If you have never considered it before (or had a bad experience and qualify for an upgrade), the latest generation is sufficiently refined to put it on your mental map or next year’s list for Santa. If you’re in business, it’s presumably tax-deductible. I don’t know if there is a way you can try it without buying it, but maybe there is a demo online. (If you find one, please post a link so that I can pick up some pointers.)

Word is the topic and productivity the subtopic (or modifier or something), but I would be intrigued to know what percentage of Word sales are not Word-as-a-part-of-Office sales, and the same holds true for WordPerfect. We have gone from applications to suites, from the triumvirate of WordPerfect 5.1-Lotus 1-2-3-dBase IV to apps within apps within suites. It is driven by the economics of it for most professional users: Office anything (MS or WordPerfect) is designed to serve the diverse needs of an office environment. You get a lot for your money, but whether you get your own money’s worth depends on your own needs.

There is nothing wrong with having a glorified typewriter – the spellchecker, grammar checker, and research resources, including translation if they improve upon that feature, saves an enormous amount of labour and improves communications, and all of those capabilities were extremely primitive or nonexistent in an earlier era. Refine the setup for things that matter to you and put them to use. Go through every option in spelling, grammar and (maybe) style and fulminate about some of the defaults in that area.

A while back, Fred Langla posted this about XP. XP’s No-Reformat, Nondestructive Total-Rebuild Option
Can the same thing be done witn Win 7?

Can you link us to the article?

Hi Peter :

To “confirm” any WOT “Warning”, would recommend using the M86
Security FREE URL Analysis Tool, available at
http://www.m86securi…rl-analysis.asp and/or
the FREE Exploit Prevention Labs Online Web Safety Scan at
http://linkscanner.e…er/default.aspx

These are new to me and they both look like dandy links.

As for spam, both Outlkook and Kasperski seem to do a fine job of filtering it or warning you, at least until it is time to renew your Kasperski subscription, at which point the floodgates open, and I am reminded every time I so much as open an application that my Kasperski subscription is about to expire. They flag all spam but their own, it seems, and this time around one of my two subscriptions will be allowed to expire. They are their own worst enemies in that department.

As for WOT it is the visual violence of the warning screen that I object to. Surely there is no need to give you such a jolt as to make you think your computer has been hijacked already and is about to go up in a puff of smoke.

I think I am close, but I could use some help. I found an excellent tutorial from an online source, but it appears that they have a security problem that set off alarms. I received a suspicious email after that, and I have been running virus scans ever since. I won’t give you the source because of that, but the idea for this isn’t my own.

In order to do this you will need to have your Developer tab installed. In the Controls section of the tab you will find the Date Picker Control in the lower left corner, and if you use it to insert a date and then go to the right-hand portion of the Controls section and click on Properties, you will find that you can set date display properties in that. You can change other settings by right-clicking the date itself. My problem is that I don’t know how to save it to make it available in Word, especially for Insert Date & Time.

I should explain the non-standard date itself. I avoid short-form dates like the plague, since there is no universal standard, and my most frequent need for a date is for the date in a letter, dates in headers or footers, or a date on a document. All of these are standalone dates and not part of a sentence, and for this purpose I consider two commas to be one too many. If the date is in a sentence, then two commas are appropriate and I can switch to that as needed.

You are not alone in your worry about the skewed results from free search engines. Here, for example, is a link toGoogle Modifies Search Algorithm to Discourage Aggressive Search Optimization

At the risk of drawing attention to it, WordFlood is one example of a company that specializes in exploiting (if you care to call it that), Google for, let us say, promotional purposes.

For serious searches I recommend Copernic Agentfor which a free version is available. I have the Pro version, but I also have their Summarizer and Desktop Pro, which may make a difference in capabilities, and I don’t really know the differences among the versions and combinations of versions.

It is highly configurable, you can pick your search engines, it will rank results, and it will give you an outline of the source and the contents. That makes it very easy to skip over hits that you can see at a glance don’t interest you.

I have never heard of Web of Protection. I do use, as many others do, Web of Trust (WOT).I would be suspect of Web of Protection. Even WOT allows me to choose to go to a suspect site if I wish. It first informs me of a suspect site. When I try to search for Web Of Protection I get this site.

Yes, it was WOT; I had the name wrong. (I googled it with correct name after encountering it, but had the name wrong in the post.) I’ll putter about to see if I can get a better idea of what the astounding screen was for, but I didn’t know whether to start scanning the machine with every malware detector in the book or what to do. I do know that there is a scam people use to intentionally get a legitimate site blacklisted, although in this case the name of the site might be sufficient to trigger a warning. The thing that shocked me was the shock value of the WOT screen, which was enough to blow you off your chair, and I think it excessive in an application that will inevitably give false positives.

Peter, greets.

I had this stump too as I wanted the french format. I had to change from the English US to the English Canada. That did it.

Be good………Jean.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had already tried assorted combinations including this before posting, but you did make me hit myself on the head and realize that I have other computers running 2010 under Win 7, and all I have to do is search the many settings to match this computer with a ‘known good’ configuration on one of those until I get it right. What I hope to do while I am at it is learn what all those other settings do, some of which may prove to be extremely powerful for my purposes. On the other hand I might just use field codes to see if using it will add it to the list of selectable formats.

For those who didn’t explore the Grant Gibson blog, I might add a quote taken directly from one and which might help explain what is really going on (according to that source) with ReadyBoost:

Many people have asked on forums how this could possibly be effective – after all, flash memory has a much slower data transfer rate than most hard disks. That’s true, but the trick is that good flash memory has a much lower seek time than a hard disk. By placing many small files on the USB drive, Windows can randomly access these files much more quickly than is normally possible from a hard disk.

The key point is that the USB drive must have very fast seek times. Many USB flash memory devices, even those with high data transfer rates, don’t have sufficiently fast seek times to make them useful for ReadyBoost. Unfortunately, manufacturers don’t normally publish random seek times for flash memory like they do for hard disks. This makes shopping for a ReadyBoost compatible flash drive a bit of a lottery.

Thank you all for the help. I am glad I asked the question.