In article <4889c146$0$4012$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "Leigh" <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>Ben,
>
>Thanks! I agree with you comment on the doofus programmers in HP's printer
>software division.
>
>Going though the registry looking for Print Mirror would be long task.
It shouldn't be too hard to search for it in Regedit *if* it has a
sensible name based on either that "Print Mirror" function or related
to the printer model you're using.
> Is there any reason to do the update or not to do it?
If you have an older system that's been running Windows XP for a
while, and it seems a little bit shaky at times--I'd definitely think
twice about doing it.
On the other hand, if your system is running fine, I can't think of a
reason not to. Either way, definitely make a backup of anything that's
important. And don't install the service pack unless you know that
spending some time troubleshooting your computer if something goes
wrong will not be a problem.
Use the "network" installer package, not the updater from Windows
Update. If you have IE7 and think you might want to remove it later,
uninstall it before installing SP3.
I've installed SP3 on everything from a Dell Dimension L566cx system
to a Dell Dimension E521. None of these machines have had a problem.
"RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68jj84164hodhdfbe7oanmdefeghh1jpgi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:04:09 -0500, "Leigh" <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>
>>Ben,
>>
>>Thanks! I agree with you comment on the doofus programmers in HP's printer
>>software division.
>>
>>Going though the registry looking for Print Mirror would be long task. HP
>>techs just did not know what to say other than they have had problems with
>>SP3. I will just let it go and see if HP offers another driver at some
>>point
>>in time. And I know that may never happen. Since I can still print in the
>>Normal Print mode I will stay with that.
>>
>>Thanks for your comments and observations. Of course I could reinstall the
>>OS and all software including the printer software and be back to normal
>>before the SP3 installation but that too is a long task. Printer ink only
>>costs a little over $5,000.00 per GALLON so I have heard. : )
>>
>>Leigh
>>
>
> Leigh, I haven't followed this entire thread so pardon me if I missed
> something but maybe if you use "autoruns" you could find that Print
> Mirror ??? Might be worth a shot. And I agree that printer ink
> is expensive, kinda ridulous IMO.
RnR,
Autoruns was an interesting program to use. However, I could not find what I
was looking for. Thanks for your help and comments.
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eu2m1F8r3k9U4@mid.individual.net...
> In article <4889c146$0$4012$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "Leigh"
> <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>>Ben,
>>
>>Thanks! I agree with you comment on the doofus programmers in HP's printer
>>software division.
>>
>>Going though the registry looking for Print Mirror would be long task.
>
> It shouldn't be too hard to search for it in Regedit *if* it has a
> sensible name based on either that "Print Mirror" function or related
> to the printer model you're using.
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>
Phred,
Great comment. Regedit did not have a sensible name. There was lots of
information for HP but not for printing in mirror image.
Leave it to HP and many others to make the registry even more obscure than it
has to be by picking keys and values that do not make sense to real people (as
compared to software developers, who often are not real)... Ben Myers
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:55:37 -0500, "Leigh" <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>
>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6eu2m1F8r3k9U4@mid.individual.net...
>> In article <4889c146$0$4012$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "Leigh"
>> <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>>>Ben,
>>>
>>>Thanks! I agree with you comment on the doofus programmers in HP's printer
>>>software division.
>>>
>>>Going though the registry looking for Print Mirror would be long task.
>>
>> It shouldn't be too hard to search for it in Regedit *if* it has a
>> sensible name based on either that "Print Mirror" function or related
>> to the printer model you're using.
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.
>>
>> --
>> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>
>
>Phred,
>
>Great comment. Regedit did not have a sensible name. There was lots of
>information for HP but not for printing in mirror image.
>
>Thanks for your help and comments.
>
>Leigh
>
I enjoy your comments in this newsgroup. You have an interesting insight and
a "thoughtful" and unique way of presenting your comments. HP's registry
keys and values are filled with cryptic numbers and values that did not
relate to printing choices in the preference section of the print dialogue
window for HP printers. They must keep consumers baffled so real people
become confused and move on with out a resolution to their needs. Leave it
to their programmers to pursue their esoteric ways of writing their software
programs.
Yikes!
Leigh
"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0s5l8418mlbct7iimhujd8h742it2rqtgq@4ax.com...
> Leave it to HP and many others to make the registry even more obscure than
> it
> has to be by picking keys and values that do not make sense to real people
> (as
> compared to software developers, who often are not real)... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:55:37 -0500, "Leigh" <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:6eu2m1F8r3k9U4@mid.individual.net...
>>> In article <4889c146$0$4012$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "Leigh"
>>> <lgh@cts.org> wrote:
>>>>Ben,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks! I agree with you comment on the doofus programmers in HP's
>>>>printer
>>>>software division.
>>>>
>>>>Going though the registry looking for Print Mirror would be long task.
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be too hard to search for it in Regedit *if* it has a
>>> sensible name based on either that "Print Mirror" function or related
>>> to the printer model you're using.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>>
>>
>>Phred,
>>
>>Great comment. Regedit did not have a sensible name. There was lots of
>>information for HP but not for printing in mirror image.
>>
>>Thanks for your help and comments.
>>
>>Leigh
>>
you are comparing apples and oranges. i am talking about sp3 breaking
windows update for ie7. your article is talking about being able to
uninstall ie7.
"MZB" <moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
news:Qw4ik.43536$NU3.385@newsfe01.iad...
> Chris:
>
> Are you sure? I got this information, and it makes it sound like I am
> better off keeping IE 6.0 BEFORE installing SP3. Am I missing something?
>
> Mel
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Internet Explorer 6 Users
>
> XPSP3 will continue to ship with IE6 and contains a roll-up of the latest
> security updates for IE6. If you are still running Internet Explorer 6,
> then XPSP3 will be offered to you via Windows Update as a high priority
> update. You can safely install XPSP3 and will have an updated version of
> IE6 with all your personal preferences, such as home pages and favorites,
> still intact.
>
> If you are currently running IE7 or IE8 on Windows XP SP2 (XPSP2) and you
> are thinking of upgrading to XPSP3, read on.
>
> Internet Explorer 7 Users
>
>
> If you are currently running IE7 on XPSP2, Windows Update will offer you
> XPSP3 as a high priority update. If you choose to install XPSP3, Internet
> Explorer 7 will remain on your system after the install is complete. Your
> preferences will be retained. However, you will no longer be able to
> uninstall IE7. If you go to Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs, the Remove
> option will be grayed out.
>
> This behavior is by design and here is why. When we install IE7 on Windows
> XP SP2, we backup the existing IE6 files in an uninstall directory. Those
> IE6 files are the ones that shipped on XPSP2 plus all the security updates
> you've installed while using IE6. Windows XP SP3 contains a newer version
> of the Internet Explorer 6 files. If you have XPSP3 on your system and
> uninstall IE7, your system would revert to the backed up (older) version
> of the IE6 files rather than the newer XPSP3 version. You would end up in
> a mixed file state in Windows where most files would be the upgraded
> XPSP3, except for the IE6 files restored when uninstalling IE7. This state
> is not supported and is very bug prone. To ensure a reliable user
> experience, we prevent this broken state by disabling the ability to
> uninstall Internet Explorer 7.
>
> If you must uninstall IE7 after you have upgraded to XPSP3, then you have
> to first uninstall XPSP3, and then uninstall IE7. After this series of
> uninstalls, you will be reverted back to a XPSP2, and a stable version of
> IE6, so feel free to upgrade to XPSP3 again.
>
> If you install IE7 after you install XPSP3, then you will be able to
> uninstall IE7 at any point and be reverted to the newer IE6 version that
> ships in XPSP3. The restriction on uninstalling only applies to when you
> install a Windows Service Pack release on top of a standalone IE release.
>
> Keeping this in mind, you might want to uninstall IE7, upgrade to XPSP3
> and then install IE7 again so you can uninstall IE7 in the future if need
> be.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:GPGdncOxDeyDWhXVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>> the only problem i have encountered with windows xp sp3 is that is it can
>> result in older windows updates from being applied. for example, if you
>> install ie7 after sp3 then you will not be able to update ie7 unless you
>> re-register the older windows update utility. so, if installing windows
>> from scratch, be sure to install ie7 and update it before installing
>> windows sp3. if you already have ie7 and all other updates applied then
>> this is not an issue.
>>
>> "MZB" <moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:lk0ik.10671$Dw3.3491@newsfe04.iad...
>>> I've been hesitant to install this update as it appears to be a major
>>> one and I don't want things to get ******* up.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to do the update or not to do it?
>>>
>>> Mel
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
when notified via windows update (as opposed to you specifically visiting
windowsupdate.microsoft.com or update.microsoft.com), once you selected the
items it then goes and fetches them... since sp3 is huge it is probably
working in the background downloading this massive update. sounds like
normal behaviour to me.
"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.22f2ff304e06fb509898a4@news.motzarella.or g...
>> I'll also note in passing that Microsoft's XP Update has gotten flakier
>> lately.
>
> My missus got notification of a batch of updates the other day - I
> deselected the useless ones like the lookOut spam filter and the
> malicious software util, but left another XP update and SP3 ticked.
>
> As soon as I hit "install" the update option disappeared, and nothing
> was installed. It hasn't reappeared, and they can **** off if they
> think i'm going to install their own malware (WGA) to get it.
>
> This is on a legit system btw, but I don't want to be forced to jump
> through hoops that didn't exist when the system was purchased to
> update.
>when notified via windows update (as opposed to you specifically visiting
>windowsupdate.microsoft.com or update.microsoft.com), once you selected the
>items it then goes and fetches them... since sp3 is huge it is probably
>working in the background downloading this massive update. sounds like
>normal behaviour to me.
I was on two different computers and SP3 autoupdate was about 66 megs
for both.
Apparently MS takes a look around and gives you what they think is
missing.
>"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
>in message news:MPG.22f2ff304e06fb509898a4@news.motzarella.or g...
>>> I'll also note in passing that Microsoft's XP Update has gotten flakier
>>> lately.
>>
>> My missus got notification of a batch of updates the other day - I
>> deselected the useless ones like the lookOut spam filter and the
>> malicious software util, but left another XP update and SP3 ticked.
>>
>> As soon as I hit "install" the update option disappeared, and nothing
>> was installed. It hasn't reappeared, and they can **** off if they
>> think i'm going to install their own malware (WGA) to get it.
>>
>> This is on a legit system btw, but I don't want to be forced to jump
>> through hoops that didn't exist when the system was purchased to
>> update.
>
Re: OT--SP3? 
Linear Mode
