Andavari

Immunet in my opinion was bleh from the get go. I remember when it was first released and it was impossible to register to even use it and allot of people had the same issue, which was why I never bothered attempting to get it to work ever again.

.Net Framework updates alone take forever to complete on XP because of that god awful service Microsoft .NET Framework NGEN v4.0.30319_X86 ("mscorsvw.exe"), it can literally just sit there "optimizing" for 45 minutes, then restart the computer and it's doing it again - it's more noticable if .Net Framework has had too many updates and has become corrupted, although corruption in it can also cause updates to completely fail. That's why that service on my system is set to Manual, along with another service .Net Framework 4 installs and annoyingly always wants running which is Windows Presentation Foundation Font Cache 4.0.0.0. Hence the reason Razz why I stated allot of people try to avoid it, it can cause a ton of issues let alone all the updates for it. I've often been on download sites and seen software that requires it, and then read the user comments and many state they won't download it because it requires .Net Framework.

I don't know if Win7 has it by default, but if it doesn't realize allot of people dislike it - to the point they won't install it or software that requires it, sort of in the same disliked boat as Java.

I used to think that way until very recently and only ran a Full Scan when I was about to make a disk image of the system. My thinking changed since some malware can just sit on the system waiting for some time to become active, and if not running a Full Scan it won't be found. Or worse like some zero day ransomware, and I'd bet those people who got the recent WannaCry/WannaCrypt ransomware probably didn't run malware scans regularly either. I personally defrag daily and have done so since I started using a Windows PC. However what mta stated would likely be what I'd recommend but only if they were letting in for example Win10 take care of the defragmenting/optimizing and then at 6 or 12 months run a real defrag tool that will actually do something like Defraggler, Puran Defrag (what I use because it has very good exclusions, and it's fast), Auslogics Defrag (I also use it because sometimes Puran Defrag just gives up, and it's fast), or whatever. But to go a full 6 to 12 months without any defragmenting is a long time if you think about it with all those never ending automatic OS and software updates (Windows updates, antivirus updates, anti-malware updates, etc.,) which do create a hellish amount of fragmentation on older technology hard disks which also make scanning with for example an antivirus take longer - of course if someone is using an SSD on an OS that can automatically use SSD Trim on it that's not a concern. If I were to go 6-12 months between defragmenting my system would be frustrating to use, but more likely unusable.

Quick Scan: Depending upon how fast an antivirus & anti-malware scanner's Quick Scan is (say less than 5 minutes) that could be done daily. On a multi-user PC definitely daily. Full Scan: With antivirus & anti-malware at least once per week. Once per month is too huge of gap in my opinion because of how much malware is coming out daily/weekly. Defrag / Optimize: If modern Windows versions such as Win10 why even bother? It will automatically do that job on its own without any user interaction (albeit not a very good job).

It's a pop up notification. More about it here: https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/notifiers/toasts.html Nothing to do with "talkie toaster", or bread.

While it can't reboot your PC it can shutdown your PC if you have any shortcuts or tasks with the /shutdown parameter it in. The command line parameters: https://www.piriform.com/docs/ccleaner/advanced-usage/command-line-parameters

Stalking?

That KB4012598 is to protect against WannaCrypt ransomware yet the resulting download page unlike the original when it was first released doesn't even mention it's to protect against WannaCrypt. Microsoft is making things unnecessarily confusing in my opinion, that WannaCrypt patch has matching SHA-256 hashes but they've changed the filename: Original: KB4012598-x86-WindowsXPSP3.exe Now: WindowsXP-KB4012598-x86-Custom-ENU.exe That explains why it wouldn't install again on my system, when I ran the new installer name without realizing it was the same patch for WannaCrypt it finished in about 1 second - doing nothing.

Did some digging: KB958644 is an old one they're supposedly re-releasing but why? It's dated 10/22/2008 (22 October 2008): I don't need it as it's already installed when I did a search with RegEdit, it's for netapi32.dll located in C:\Windows\System32: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3205 KB2347290 results into a broken error page - but it's for an old 2010 or 2011 patch for the print spooler: http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB2347290%20windows%20xp KB4012598 is new as of 5/15/2017 (15 May 2017): When I checked it is NOT available via Automatic Updates / Microsoft Updates / Windows Updates: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=55245 KB4012583 is new as of 6/13/2017 (14 June 2017): When I checked it is NOT available via Automatic Updates / Microsoft Updates / Windows Updates: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=55460 I wonder whey they're re-releasing very old patches like the last one which was a telephony patch that any XP system would already have applied because it was when they supported the OS with updates. The old re-releases doesn't help but instead makes it confusing.

That article states "you can get them through Windows Updates", although they weren't listed as available on my XP system, and Automatic Updates doesn't list them either. And like Trium stated what 3 updates? That Microsoft page is confusing the way they have it layed out which was why I instead tried to get them via Windows Updates ("Microsoft Updates") and Automatic Updates but as I mentioned they weren't available.

10K talk already? Kind of makes me think I'll just wait a bit longer and not even bother with a 4K TV since it will likely be outdated as soon as I'd buy one or within one to two years. Then again if waiting as I plan to do may make 4K more affordable or cheap for the masses if something higher end exists - but good luck getting any over the air TV services that go over 1080p HD (which already look very compressed in certain dark or black scenes). Also having a good enough Internet connection in the U.S.A. (which is behind the EU) to even stream something above 1080p HD reliably will be interesting - especially over Wi-Fi for example gaming consoles such as a PS4 that don't allow you to adjust any caching parameters such as; download for 60 seconds then start playback, or download 300MB then start playback. Unless services start but probably reluctantly or more likely impossible due to DMCA and allow large cache saving to storage medium to download big chucks of data allot of people may be disappointed. A large cache could allow viewing without further degradation, or a forever spinning loading icon (which seems so 2010 or earlier) or worse in my opinion when an HD stream in particular 1080p HD starts out at an abysmal looking highly compressed standard definition resolution (perhaps 240p SD or 360p SD) for several seconds up to a minute or so (here's looking at you Amazon Prime). Most people are still on 1080p HD, however 4K is the big talk with gaming consoles PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Then again why bother with a TV if someone has a PC that can do everything.

3.1.2.1733 has been released twice! Only reason I know is because the checksums were different between both installers, and the latest release of the installer was slightly bigger than the previous one. I don't know what they changed in the re-release of it.

Right-click anywhere in the list being shown and select: Save List to Text File...

Another thing to avoid is using the Windows.old cleaner built into CCleaner (and possibly other 3rd party cleaning tools), it has been shown to damage something resulting in the need to reinstall Win10 but nothing has been done to fix the issue even though it has been reported multiple times.

Malwarebytes states that with version 3 you can run it alone, but in my opinion you still need a traditional AV that has years worth of signatures to fall back on.

There is no "back then", ransomware is still an on going threat.

How many file fragments is it stating for that 158 GB file? If for instance the file is in 2 or whatever amount of fragments you may not gain any performance by having it be defragmented (so perhaps that's why it's being skipped and left alone). Also defragmenting a 158 GB file will take a very long time and possibly stress your hard disk.

It's part of the OS therefore even if you don't open the IE browser yourself its back-end is still getting used for things on the system. Whenever you open for instance a folder, etc., it can also cache in History.IE5. Just run CCleaner to keep those areas clean.

If the only place you're finding it on your system is in the folders for $hf_mig$ and $NtUninstallKB982316$, that's why it wouldn't be on mine since my batch cleaner automatically removes those folders. That first update they released to protect against that ransomware virus was the one I tracked the installation of, being that it was new and I was waiting for a new update to screw something up just like in years past with so many botched updates. I however didn't bother tracking the installation of that old re-released update since it was already installed.

I did install it again, but it was done in about 1 second as if it skipped the update since it was already installed all those years ago. Also the reason that dll isn't present on my system is because my batch file cleaner has code in it to delete $hf_mig$ and those $NtUninstallKB* folders - being as XP was never intended to get any more updates from Microsoft.

Also I didn't find it inside my Macrium Reflect disk image I had made on the same day hours before installing that update. I looked in the usual places: C:\Windows C:\WINDOWS\Driver Cache\i386 C:\Windows\System C:\Windows\System32 I noticed that file also doesn't exist inside of the sp3.cab located at: C:\WINDOWS\Driver Cache\i386\sp3.cab

Nirsoft SearchMyFiles didn't find it anywhere on my system, so no the physical file doesn't exist on my system. I did however restart after that supposed "needed update", even though it never prompted to do so. RegEdit however found it listed in the registry with this information - notice the build date that it lists (June 14, 2010): [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP4\KB982316] "Description"="Security Update for Windows XP (KB982316)" "InstalledDate"="5/23/2017" "InstalledBy"="YourUserNameWillBeHere" "Type"="Update" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP4\KB982316\Filelist] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP4\KB982316\Filelist\0] "FileName"="tapicust.dll" "Version"="5.1.2600.5996" "BuildDate"="Mon Jun 14 04:06:12 2010" "BuildCheckSum"="13f91" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP4\KB982316\Filelist\1] "FileName"="tapicust.dll" "Version"="5.1.2600.5996" "BuildDate"="Mon Jun 14 04:06:12 2010" "BuildCheckSum"="13f91"

You could be running different plugins ("extensions") which aren't fully compatible with each other, meaning some could be doing more-or-less some of the same things. As an example of two plugins that aren't fully compatible with each other are: Avira Browser Protection, and uBlock Origin.

Worked for me in a quick test using winapp2.ini, with this in it - change it to suit your needs: [Word ~$volution_species.docx*] LangSecRef=3025 Detect=HKLM\Software\Microsoft Default=True FileKey1=%SystemDrive%\Test|~$*.docx