How can I get my hardware manager back?

[Shadow]

Windows XP SP3 Pro.

Windows KEY+PAUSE/BREAK
Click on hardware --> hardware manager:

//
MMC could not create the snap-in
The snap-in might have not been installed correctly

Name: Hardware manager
CLSID: {74246BFC-4C96-11D0-ABEF-0020AF6B0B7A}
//

The registry key is there:

//
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}]
"NameStringIndirect"="@C:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\devmgr.dll,-5"
"NameString"="Gerenciador de dispositivos" #That's "Hardware Manager"
in Portuguese.
"Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
"Version"="1.0"
"About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}\StandAlone]

//

I've tried all the M$ "official" suggestions:

Regsvr32 Msxml.dll - No errors

Regsvr32 Msxml2.dll - No errors

Regsvr32 Msxml3.dll - No errors

Turned on plug and play

sfc /scannow - No errors

and rebooted lots of times

All my other snap-ins work fine.

Hardware manager worked fine about a week ago. Even tried loading a
saved registry from a month ago. Nothing worked.
Any ideas?
TIA
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

[Auric__]

Shadow wrote:

> Windows XP SP3 Pro.
>
> Windows KEY+PAUSE/BREAK
> Click on hardware --> hardware manager:
>
> //
> MMC could not create the snap-in
> The snap-in might have not been installed correctly

[snip]

> I've tried all the M$ "official" suggestions:
>
> Regsvr32 Msxml.dll - No errors
>
> Regsvr32 Msxml2.dll - No errors
>
> Regsvr32 Msxml3.dll - No errors
>
> Turned on plug and play
>
> sfc /scannow - No errors
>
> and rebooted lots of times
>
> All my other snap-ins work fine.
>
> Hardware manager worked fine about a week ago. Even tried loading a
> saved registry from a month ago. Nothing worked.
> Any ideas?

What happens if you run devmgmt.msc? Have you run virus scan, just in case?

--
- Are you questioning my judgment?
- Is your judgment so perfect that it may never be questioned?

[Shadow]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 05:24:56 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>Shadow wrote:
>
>> Windows XP SP3 Pro.
>>
>> Windows KEY+PAUSE/BREAK
>> Click on hardware --> hardware manager:
>>
>> //
>> MMC could not create the snap-in
>> The snap-in might have not been installed correctly
>[snip]
>> I've tried all the M$ "official" suggestions:
>>
>> Regsvr32 Msxml.dll - No errors
>>
>> Regsvr32 Msxml2.dll - No errors
>>
>> Regsvr32 Msxml3.dll - No errors
>>
>> Turned on plug and play
>>
>> sfc /scannow - No errors
>>
>> and rebooted lots of times
>>
>> All my other snap-ins work fine.
>>
>> Hardware manager worked fine about a week ago. Even tried loading a
>> saved registry from a month ago. Nothing worked.
>> Any ideas?
>
>What happens if you run devmgmt.msc?

Same message as clicking on Device Manager.
When I open MMC and try to add devmgmt, it's the only one
without an icon. All the others have icons and work.

<https://postimg.cc/jCnj84JL>

If I click on it, it says it "cannot be started".
I must be missing a file, but filemon does not show what it
is. No relevant "NOT FOUND".
Eventvwr --> no relevant messages.

>Have you run virus scan, just in case?

No malware.
Only things introduced to my system were three 128GB
pendrives(brand new Kingston Datatravellers). I traced them, but they
only altered the usual registry keys(mount points and classes).

And Uwe Sieber's latest USB Device Info/Tree Viewer. Which I
trust, but scanned on Jotti "just in case".

I use XP for Usenet and games. Linux for just about anything
else.

[Auric__]

Shadow wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 05:24:56 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"

[snip]

>>What happens if you run devmgmt.msc?
>
> Same message as clicking on Device Manager.
> When I open MMC and try to add devmgmt, it's the only one
> without an icon. All the others have icons and work.
>
> <https://postimg.cc/jCnj84JL>
>
> If I click on it, it says it "cannot be started".
> I must be missing a file, but filemon does not show what it
> is. No relevant "NOT FOUND".
> Eventvwr --> no relevant messages.
>
>
>>Have you run virus scan, just in case?
>
> No malware.
> Only things introduced to my system were three 128GB
> pendrives(brand new Kingston Datatravellers). I traced them, but they
> only altered the usual registry keys(mount points and classes).
>
> And Uwe Sieber's latest USB Device Info/Tree Viewer. Which I
> trust, but scanned on Jotti "just in case".
>
> I use XP for Usenet and games. Linux for just about anything
> else.

It sounds like the .msc file is the problem. I would extract a new copy from
the install media and see if that fixes it.

--
If you're looking for a successful business model,
you might consider the tried and true model of satisfied customers.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 16:00:06 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>Shadow wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 05:24:56 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
>[snip]
>>>What happens if you run devmgmt.msc?
>>
>> Same message as clicking on Device Manager.
>> When I open MMC and try to add devmgmt, it's the only one
>> without an icon. All the others have icons and work.
>>
>> <https://postimg.cc/jCnj84JL>
>>
>> If I click on it, it says it "cannot be started".
>> I must be missing a file, but filemon does not show what it
>> is. No relevant "NOT FOUND".
>> Eventvwr --> no relevant messages.

<slight snip>

>
>It sounds like the .msc file is the problem. I would extract a new copy from
>the install media and see if that fixes it.

Extracted:

Name: devmgmt.msc
Size: 31.96kB (32,724 bytes)
Type: XML 1.0 document, ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators
MD5: 2dd6a1e73d1f9ae7d73df5ad82a7c9aa
SHA1: e85748814b593a056e5619cbbdedb82fd607bae1
Status: Scan finished. 0/14 scanners reported malware.
Scan taken on: January 27, 2024 at 8:07:28 PM GMT+1

Same checksums as the one in /windows/system32

Not sure if it's relevant, but my c:\documents and
settings/username/appdata/Microsoft contains an empty folder called
devmgmt. Should it contain anything?
The same folder contains one called MMC with 3 entries:
secpol, mscorcfg and dfrg, all rather hefty UTF-8 encoded text files.
TIA

[Auric__]

...huh.

> Not sure if it's relevant, but my c:\documents and
> settings/username/appdata/Microsoft contains an empty folder called
> devmgmt. Should it contain anything?

I don't have that folder, even with devmgmt.msc open.

> The same folder contains one called MMC with 3 entries:
> secpol, mscorcfg and dfrg, all rather hefty UTF-8 encoded text files.

My %APPDATA%\MMC folder is empty, even with MMC running.

What I would do is delete %APPDATA%\devmgmt, and *MOVE* those text files out
of %APPDATA%\MMC -- put them on your desktop. Then retry devmgmt and see
what you get.

--
See if you can undelete God's word.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:54:52 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"

OK. Done. Same error message.
Running out of ideas...

This is the first time I've "lost" my device manager in over 2
decades.
Google is *NEVER* friendly when you really need it. And M$
treats XP like it was a contagious disease.
LOL

PS I'll try rebooting into safe mode and running it. Maybe a
driver or service is conflicting somehow. Maybe tomorrow. Have stuff
to do.

[AugustA]

Hello Sh!

** On Saturday 27.01.24 - 14:19, Sh wrote to :

>> It sounds like the .msc file is the problem. I would extract a new copy
>> from the install media and see if that fixes it.

> Extracted:

> Name: devmgmt.msc
> Size: 31.96kB (32,724 bytes)
> Type: XML 1.0 document, ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators
> MD5: 2dd6a1e73d1f9ae7d73df5ad82a7c9aa
> SHA1: e85748814b593a056e5619cbbdedb82fd607bae1
> Status: Scan finished. 0/14 scanners reported malware.
> Scan taken on: January 27, 2024 at 8:07:28 PM GMT+1

> Same checksums as the one in /windows/system32

Mine is..

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\system32

03/31/2003 07:00 AM 33,079 devmgmt.msc

C:\WINDOWS\system32>fciv -both devmgmt.msc
//
// File Checksum Integrity Verifier version 2.05.
//
MD5
--------------------------------
36f28a9f92b0c5940898b6ea34381f30

SHA-1·
----------------------------------------
6d2a6e4a1293ce482991f2ce397493dd03d9dd78

> Not sure if it's relevant, but my c:\documents and
> settings/username/appdata/Microsoft contains an empty folder called
> devmgmt. Should it contain anything?
> The same folder contains one called MMC with 3 entries:
> secpol, mscorcfg and dfrg, all rather hefty UTF-8 encoded text files.
> TIA
> []'s

No emtpy devmgmt dir here.

[Shadow]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 13:56:00 -0500, "AugustA" <nos...@nospam.net>
wrote:

Mine is the Brazilian version, which might explain the
difference in checksums. All my *.msc files are dated 2001, except
certificates.msc (2021) , mscorcfg(2007) and pkiview.msc(2003).

BTW, I rebooted in safe mode this morning, and it still does
not work. So no interference there.

If I could find a technical document explaining exactly how
snap-in are "made valid", I'd have a better chance at solving the
issue.
But Glugle is not my friend, See sig.

[Auric__]

Shadow wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:54:52 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:

[snip]

>>What I would do is delete %APPDATA%\devmgmt, and *MOVE* those text files
>>out of %APPDATA%\MMC -- put them on your desktop. Then retry devmgmt and
>>see what you get.
>
> OK. Done. Same error message.
> Running out of ideas...
>
> This is the first time I've "lost" my device manager in over 2
> decades.
> Google is *NEVER* friendly when you really need it. And M$
> treats XP like it was a contagious disease.

I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet *is* an
infectious disease.

> PS I'll try rebooting into safe mode and running it. Maybe a
> driver or service is conflicting somehow. Maybe tomorrow. Have stuff
> to do.

That's certainly possible. Or some program running in the background or
something. Just remember: If all else fails, reinstalling Windows generally
fixes anything except hardware failure. It sucks, but before Win7 I generally
reinstalled 2-3 time per year.


On an unrelated side note, please do me a favor and add a space after your
sig delimiter. "-- " and not "--". Newsreaders generally can recognize the
form with the space and automatically remove it from replies; Xnews (at
least) doesn't recognize the version without the space.

--
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth.

[Shadow]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:16:17 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"

<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>Shadow wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:54:52 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
>> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>What I would do is delete %APPDATA%\devmgmt, and *MOVE* those text files
>>>out of %APPDATA%\MMC -- put them on your desktop. Then retry devmgmt and
>>>see what you get.
>>
>> OK. Done. Same error message.
>> Running out of ideas...
>>
>> This is the first time I've "lost" my device manager in over 2
>> decades.
>> Google is *NEVER* friendly when you really need it. And M$
>> treats XP like it was a contagious disease.
>
>I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet *is* an
>infectious disease.

I scan it with a Linux-based USB-booted AV (usually
Kaspersky). It's never found anything. Or rather, when it does it's
something I've deliberately downloaded as a test.

>
>> PS I'll try rebooting into safe mode and running it. Maybe a
>> driver or service is conflicting somehow. Maybe tomorrow. Have stuff
>> to do.

I did that, and posted about it yesterday. It didn't change
anything.

>
>That's certainly possible. Or some program running in the background or
>something. Just remember: If all else fails, reinstalling Windows generally
>fixes anything except hardware failure. It sucks, but before Win7 I generally
>reinstalled 2-3 time per year.

Well, I've been using "this" since DOS 6.0. I shift the old OS
to another partition DOS 6.0 --> DOS 6.2 --> Win 3.1 upgraded to Win
3.11 --> 95 --> 98 upgraded to 98SE --> XP. (I didn't like the look of
ME)
I've had to clone to larger and larger hard disks. And expand
the partitions.
Not a single re-install since the 90's.
Backups (and disk clones) and a firewall helped.

>
>
>On an unrelated side note, please do me a favor and add a space after your
>sig delimiter. "-- " and not "--". Newsreaders generally can recognize the
>form with the space and automatically remove it from replies; Xnews (at
>least) doesn't recognize the version without the space.

I thought Forte Agent did that automatically when I specified
my sig. OK, done.

[Sjouke Burry]

Tssk.... My XP PRO works fine, and devmgmt
started in a dos box, works quite well.......

[Shadow]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:17:17 +0100, Sjouke Burry
<burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

>Tssk.... My XP PRO works fine, and devmgmt
>started in a dos box, works quite well.......

Works in mine too. Pops up a box with "MMC cannot create the
snap-in".
Though I have to type in "devmgmt.msc"

"devmgmt" is not recognized as a blablabla....

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:16:17 -0000 (UTC)

"Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote:

> Shadow wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:54:52 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
> > <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>What I would do is delete %APPDATA%\devmgmt, and *MOVE* those text files
> >>out of %APPDATA%\MMC -- put them on your desktop. Then retry devmgmt and
> >>see what you get.
> >
> > OK. Done. Same error message.
> > Running out of ideas...
> >
> > This is the first time I've "lost" my device manager in over 2
> > decades.
> > Google is *NEVER* friendly when you really need it. And M$
> > treats XP like it was a contagious disease.
>
> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet *is* an
> infectious disease.

Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!

>
> > PS I'll try rebooting into safe mode and running it. Maybe a
> > driver or service is conflicting somehow. Maybe tomorrow. Have stuff
> > to do.
>
> That's certainly possible. Or some program running in the background or
> something. Just remember: If all else fails, reinstalling Windows generally
> fixes anything except hardware failure. It sucks, but before Win7 I generally
> reinstalled 2-3 time per year.
>
>
> On an unrelated side note, please do me a favor and add a space after your
> sig delimiter. "-- " and not "--". Newsreaders generally can recognize the
> form with the space and automatically remove it from replies; Xnews (at
> least) doesn't recognize the version without the space.
>
> --
> Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Auric__]

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:16:17 -0000 (UTC)
> "Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote:

[snip]

>> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet *is*
>> an infectious disease.
>
> Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!

Yeah, but I think we all know that XP was never all that great with security,
and now with almost 10 years out of support, putting an XP box on the
internet without some sort of mitigating factor is just begging to make it a
biohazard box.

--
When even Duke Nukem is disgusted by your actions,
you know you've probably gone too far.

[Sjouke Burry]

On 30.01.24 20:04, Auric__ wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:16:17 -0000 (UTC)
>> "Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet *is*
>>> an infectious disease.
>>
>> Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!
>
> Yeah, but I think we all know that XP was never all that great with security,
> and now with almost 10 years out of support, putting an XP box on the
> internet without some sort of mitigating factor is just begging to make it a
> biohazard box.
>

In the twenty years I have been using XP PRO,
no hazards have attacked me..................
Install date:woensdag 30 juni 2004, 21:47:08

[R.Wieser]

John,

>> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet
>> *is* an infectious disease.
>
> Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!

Meh, don't worry about it.

I've been reading that kind of FUD forever, always about the previous
Windows version whenever a new one came out, but have never heard about a
single outbreak that was tracked back to XP itself mucking up - any more
than Win7, Win8, Win10 or Win11 did/do that.

I've been using XP for at least the last 15 years, and have never
experienced it to be(coming) any kind of "an infectious disease". And that
without it running any kind of AV product ever (other than the one I've got
loaded into my wet-ware :-) ).

And oh yeah, for over a decade I oversaw a room full of XP machines, used by
kids. Never have seen them get ill or infectious by themselves either.


The funny thing is that most people looking down on older Windows versions
seem to have zero problem with their machines being on a continuous, weekly
drip of regular and security updates. Personally, if I would know a human
who would need that kind of TLC I would consider them to be quite ill ...
:-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Auric__]

R.Wieser wrote:

> John,
>
>>> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet
>>> *is* an infectious disease.
>>
>> Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!
>
> Meh, don't worry about it.
>
> I've been reading that kind of FUD forever, always about the previous
> Windows version whenever a new one came out, but have never heard about
> a single outbreak that was tracked back to XP itself mucking up - any
> more than Win7, Win8, Win10 or Win11 did/do that.

It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates any more so
if a new vulnerability is found, MS will just say "That's nice, we told you
so." And I'm not willing to pay a third party for security updates.

Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered during
XP's lifetime. Do you really think there aren't any more undiscovered and/or
unreported?

> I've been using XP for at least the last 15 years, and have never
> experienced it to be(coming) any kind of "an infectious disease". And
> that without it running any kind of AV product ever (other than the one
> I've got loaded into my wet-ware :-) ).
>
> And oh yeah, for over a decade I oversaw a room full of XP machines,
> used by kids. Never have seen them get ill or infectious by themselves
> either.

Then count yourself lucky. I cannot tell you the number of times I've had
client machines that were "mysteriously" infected. (Yes, stupid people do
stupid things. Not the point.)

> The funny thing is that most people looking down on older Windows
> versions seem to have zero problem with their machines being on a
> continuous, weekly drip of regular and security updates. Personally, if
> I would know a human who would need that kind of TLC I would consider
> them to be quite ill ...

That "continuous, weekly drip" means that MS is fixing issues. No updates =
no fixes. If you find an issue with XP, your choices are fix it yourself, or
pay someone else to do it for you, or else do nothing and just live with it.

I'm not saying I don't use older versions of Windows -- I do; I would prefer
2000 but I got used to XP -- but they run under emulation and don't get
internet access. (I have 10 on the bare metal.) With all the crapware out
there, I feel it would be foolish to do otherwise. This isn't 2008, with MS
still on top of XP's issues and vulnerabilities, and with about 3-4 out of
every 1000 computers still running XP [*], threat actors likely still
consider it a viable target.


[*] Source (watch the wordwrap): https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-
market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide

--
C4 is just angry Play-Doh.

[Shadow]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:48:17 -0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>R.Wieser wrote:

>> I've been reading that kind of FUD forever, always about the previous
>> Windows version whenever a new one came out, but have never heard about
>> a single outbreak that was tracked back to XP itself mucking up - any
>> more than Win7, Win8, Win10 or Win11 did/do that.

+1

>
>It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates any more so
>if a new vulnerability is found, MS will just say "That's nice, we told you
>so."

They tell you that for Win 11 too. Has anyone ever
successfully sued M$ for the deliberate backdoors and vulnerabilities
introduced with practically every "update"?

At least I know (and block) all of my XP's backdoors.

Anyway, all OT.

------------------------------

I managed to fix the problem, partially. I simply deleted the
"Hardware Manager" Snapin key.

//
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}]

//

Now WinKey+PAUSE/BREAK ---> Hardware --> Hardware manager
brings up my hardware manager again.
I didn't even need to reboot.

On the downside, hardware manager no longer appears as a
snap-in option for the MMC console. Not that I ever used that much.

TY all for the attempted help.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:38:10 -0300
Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

[]

>
> I managed to fix the problem, partially. I simply deleted the
> "Hardware Manager" Snapin key.
>
> //
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}]
> //
>
> Now WinKey+PAUSE/BREAK ---> Hardware --> Hardware manager
> brings up my hardware manager again.

On my box (XP3SP3)
WinKey+PAUSE/BREAK gives 'System Properties' Box, chosing "Hardware' tab
I have 'Device Manager', not 'Hardware Manager'

Using regeditx I navigated to

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns
\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}

Exporting that key I get

------------------
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns

\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}] "NameStringIndirect"="@C:\\WINDOWS

\\system32\\devmgr.dll,-5" "NameString"="Device Manager"

"Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
"Version"="1.0"
"About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns

\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}\StandAlone]

------------------

> I didn't even need to reboot.
>
> On the downside, hardware manager no longer appears as a
> snap-in option for the MMC console. Not that I ever used that much.
>
> TY all for the attempted help.
> []'s
>
>


--

Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[R.Wieser]

Auric,

> It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates
> any more

Yes, and ? Neither does Win7 or Win8, but you still use the former.

> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered
> during XP's lifetime.

for which it, over its lifetime, got security updates. I could argue that
XP is better off security wise than Win11 is, as thats has got just a few
years of them.

> Do you really think there aren't any more undiscovered and/or
> unreported?

And that differs for XP in regard to Win7, win8, win10 and win11 ... how
exactly ?

> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered
> during XP's lifetime. Do you really think there aren't any more
> undiscovered and/or unreported?

Again, you're singling XP out for problems that exist in all Windows
versions.

Mind you, you where trying to tell us that XP is .. how did you put it ...
"an infectious disease". Currently all I see you post is FUD that is
applicable to all Windows versions.

> Then count yourself lucky.

No, I don't. Not with more than a decade of kids working on XP computers
and having zero problems with it. Besides my own 'puter which I've been
using for 15+ years.

> I cannot tell you the number of times I've had client machines
> that were "mysteriously" infected.

I could counter that with people who "did nothing" with/on their computers
before it went all bad, only to discover that they did plenty, but
conveniently forgot all about having done it - even if they did it just
hours before.

> (Yes, stupid people do stupid things. Not the point.)

Actually, yes, it is. With it you're telling me that its (most always) the
user which is the cause of the puter becoming "an infectious disease" - not
the OS itself.

> That "continuous, weekly drip" means that MS is fixing issues.

To me it means that that new version of Windows has got a gazillion of
security holes, and MS is playing whack-a-mole, hoping that they can plug a
hole before it gets exploited.

In comparision any version that has been EOL-ed after having gotten security
updates upto that point (like XP and your Win7) must be much more secure,
don't you agree ?

> If you find an issue with XP, your choices are fix it yourself, or pay
> someone else to do it for you, or else do nothing and just live with it.

Which is true for any EOL-ed version (and often even for non-EOL-ed
versions). Again, nothing XP specific.

And thats ofcourse beside the issues that are never fixed because of "works
as intended, not a bug" ones, which you always have to deal with (or work
around) yourself.


Bottom line, you've been claiming that XP connected to the internet is "an
infectious disease", but I've not seen you support that stance anywhere.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Shadow]

Well, I do a backup of any registry key I delete:
(please excuse the Portuguese)

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns
\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}]

"NameStringIndirect"="@c:\\windows\\system32\\devmgr.dll,-5"

"NameString"="Gerenciador de dispositivos"

"Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
"Version"="1.0"
"About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns\{74246bfc-4c96-11d0-abef-0020af6b0b7a}\StandAlone]

Which is identical to yours. "Namestring" is just an alias.

Since it referenced {94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}
I deleted that key too:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns

\{90087284-d6d6-11d0-8353-00a0c90640bf}]
"NameString"="Extensão do 'Gerenciador de dispositivos'"

"Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
"Version"="1.0"
"About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"

Notice, no ""NameStringIndirect". Which usually refers to a
.dll.

Is yours the same?

PS I loosely translated 'Gerenciador de dispositivos' as
"Hardware Manager". Seems I should have said "Device Manager"
TIA
[]'s

>> I didn't even need to reboot.
>>
>> On the downside, hardware manager no longer appears as a
>> snap-in option for the MMC console. Not that I ever used that much.
>>
>> TY all for the attempted help.
>> []'s
--

[car...@invalid.com]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 21:42:01 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@is.invalid>
wrote:

The only reason MS has tons more versions of Windows is because they
have to keep the $$$ coming in. They took simple XP, fk'd it up,
called it Win 7. The fk up process continues with Windows new
versions ad ininitum.

For some years now, I've used a small freebie program which keeps my
C: in a type of virtual mode which dumps everything
collected/done/screwed up when I reboot. I have no av or any type or
other "security" proggie on my C: except for a firewall to keep
programs from calling home. I have never been infected in any way by a
virus or other malware in the past years of using the freebie.
Unfortunately, the freebie, Toolwiz's Time Freeze is no longer
available. However, there are other programs which will do the same as
Time Freeze but they cost money.

[Auric__]

R.Wieser wrote:

> Auric,
>
>> It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates
>> any more
>
> Yes, and ? Neither does Win7 or Win8, but you still use the former.

Under emulation. Without internet access. For testing only, not day-to-day
use.

>> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered
>> during XP's lifetime.
>
> for which it, over its lifetime, got security updates. I could argue
> that XP is better off security wise than Win11 is, as thats has got just
> a few years of them.

I don't use 11 outside of testing so I can't really speak to that, but any
system that currently receives bugfixes and security patches scores higher
in my book than one which doesn't.

>> Do you really think there aren't any more undiscovered and/or
>> unreported?
>
> And that differs for XP in regard to Win7, win8, win10 and win11 ... how
> exactly ?

If they get discovered on 10 or 11 they get fixed. Previous systems, not so
much.

>> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered
>> during XP's lifetime. Do you really think there aren't any more
>> undiscovered and/or unreported?
>
> Again, you're singling XP out for problems that exist in all Windows
> versions.

(You quoted the same line twice.)

> Mind you, you where trying to tell us that XP is .. how did you put it
> ... "an infectious disease". Currently all I see you post is FUD that
> is applicable to all Windows versions.

You misread it. I didn't say that XP is a disease, I said that "XP connected
to the internet is an infectious disease." Please note the part you left
out: "CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET". I use XP frequently, for a number of uses.
But it is NEVER connected to the internet. Or even my LAN.

>> Then count yourself lucky.
>
> No, I don't. Not with more than a decade of kids working on XP
> computers and having zero problems with it. Besides my own 'puter which
> I've been using for 15+ years.

Shrug. I've had different experiences than you, I guess.

>> I cannot tell you the number of times I've had client machines
>> that were "mysteriously" infected.
>
> I could counter that with people who "did nothing" with/on their
> computers before it went all bad, only to discover that they did plenty,
> but conveniently forgot all about having done it - even if they did it
> just hours before.
>
>> (Yes, stupid people do stupid things. Not the point.)
>
> Actually, yes, it is. With it you're telling me that its (most always)
> the user which is the cause of the puter becoming "an infectious
> disease" - not the OS itself.

Possibly, yes.

>> That "continuous, weekly drip" means that MS is fixing issues.
>
> To me it means that that new version of Windows has got a gazillion of
> security holes, and MS is playing whack-a-mole, hoping that they can
> plug a hole before it gets exploited.

Look into how many issues XP had during its lifetime. What do you think
would have happened if MS hadn't played "whack-a-mole" with XP?

> In comparision any version that has been EOL-ed after having gotten
> security updates upto that point (like XP and your Win7) must be much
> more secure, don't you agree ?

No. And again, please reread, I switched to 10 the day 7 EOL'd. (Well, I did
Linux for a little while, but Windows works better for my day-to-day desktop
usage.)

>> If you find an issue with XP, your choices are fix it yourself, or pay
>> someone else to do it for you, or else do nothing and just live with
>> it.
>
> Which is true for any EOL-ed version (and often even for non-EOL-ed
> versions). Again, nothing XP specific.
>
> And thats ofcourse beside the issues that are never fixed because of
> "works as intended, not a bug" ones, which you always have to deal with
> (or work around) yourself.
>
>
> Bottom line, you've been claiming that XP connected to the internet is
> "an infectious disease", but I've not seen you support that stance
> anywhere.

Shrug. Fine. You do you. If I'm using Windows online, it's going to be a
system that's kept current.

--
As you know, appearances can be deceiving.

[R.Wieser]

Carson,

> The only reason MS has tons more versions of Windows is because
> they have to keep the $$$ coming in.

Can you blame them for that ? But that would not be much of a problem, if
they didn't turn their OS into a big glob of spyware, turned into an
advertising surface, and keep messing with the users preferences (verriding
their browser and privacy choices). And keep changing the UI ofcourse.
And lets not forget that the later versions of that "OS" take away the
computer-owners control over it away, degrading them to mere users (taking
themselves the right to nose around in the users computers, adding and
removing software/other as they see fit).

There *is* a reason why I decided to stay on XP. Besides my "if it works
than don't change it" stance, the above is are (later) additional reasons.

But, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutily. And I think you
can say that MS is powerfull in an absolute sense.

> Toolwiz's Time Freeze is no longer available.

I can imagine that, as Windows (as far back as XP) has got a "time freeze"
method build-in - to make copying of a HD possible while the os is running
on, and modifying it.

> However, there are other programs which will do the same as Time
> Freeze but they cost money.

:-) I take it you work for your boss for free.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Auric,

>>> It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates
>>> any more
>>
>> Yes, and ? Neither does Win7 or Win8, but you still use the former.
>
> Under emulation. Without internet access. For testing only, not
> day-to-day use.

Ah yes, you have zero idea how I use my XP, but you are certain that you are
using your Win7 in a much more secure fashion. Got it. :-p

> I don't use 11 outside of testing so I can't really speak to that,
> but any system that currently receives bugfixes and security patches
> scores higher in my book than one which doesn't.

You have not actually understood the first thing of what I said there, did
you.

>> Mind you, you where trying to tell us that XP is .. how did you put
>> it ... "an infectious disease". Currently all I see you post is FUD
>> that is applicable to all Windows versions.
>
> You misread it. I didn't say that XP is a disease, I said that
> "XP connected to the internet is an infectious disease."

Yes, you did. And I posted my reponse inside that "connected to the
internet" context.

Though a question to you : do you think that an XP 'puter thats *not*
connected to the internet can - scratch that - *is* "an infectious disease"
? If you think it is, why the distinction of it being connected to the
internet ?

Also, I take it you are unaware of the existence of thumbdrives ? Yes, old
school, but you would be a fool to ignore them as an infection/attack
vector.

But I see that you've again skirted what I said there : that you effectivily
lied by omission, by singling out XP and ignoring that the same problem
exists in every other version of Windows.

>>> Do you really think there aren't any more undiscovered and/or
>>> unreported?
>>
>> And that differs for XP in regard to Win7, win8, win10 and win11 ...
>> how exactly ?
>
> If they get discovered on 10 or 11 they get fixed. Previous systems,
> not so much.

Are they ? How can you tell ? The last time I checked MS had decided that
they would not include a description of what their updates are changing on
your OS anymore - for /your/ security ofcourse (as if a hacker could not do
a DIFF of their previous and updated files to figure out what changed, and
from there figure out the vunerability).

And ofcourse that weekly drip could contain anything - and in the case of,
IIRC, Win7 it was abused to force a download of Win10 (regardless of if the
download was on a metered connection or not. Did cost a number of people
quite a bundle).

IOW, as much as those updates (general or security) could be beneficial to
you, MS has already proven that it has no problems with abusing that method.

But, feel free to feel more healty because you are on that drip - even
though it might suddenly kill you(r OS as you currently have it).

> Look into how many issues XP had during its lifetime. What do you think
> would have happened if MS hadn't played "whack-a-mole" with XP?

You should be asking yourself why they had to play that game to begin with -
and why they still need to do it, even with Win11, which is at least 5
versions after XP. Its almost as if they refuse to learn from their
mistakes ...

>> In comparision any version that has been EOL-ed after having
>> gotten security updates upto that point (like XP and your Win7)
>> must be much more secure, don't you agree ?
>
> No. And again, please reread, I switched to 10 the day 7 EOL'd.
> (Well, I did Linux for a little while, but Windows works better
> for my day-to-day desktop usage.)

Try re-reading that yourself. It's definitily not about if you are using
Win7 as your main OS.

>> Bottom line, you've been claiming that XP connected to the internet
>> is "an infectious disease", but I've not seen you support that stance
>> anywhere.
>
> Shrug. Fine. You do you. If I'm using Windows online, it's going to be
> a system that's kept current.

Thats your choice, and you're welcome to it.

Just don't try to spew that "your old OS is /so/ much of a problem (when its
connected to the internet)" claim when you have nothing to show for it.

And I suggest you also refrain from trying to make it sound as if some
problem is unique to a certain version of an OS when it isn't.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:39:41 -0300
Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:44:07 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:38:10 -0300
> >Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >>
> >> I managed to fix the problem, partially. I simply deleted the
> >> "Hardware Manager" Snapin key.
> >>



>

> Since it referenced {94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}
> I deleted that key too:
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns
> \{90087284-d6d6-11d0-8353-00a0c90640bf}]
> "NameString"="Extensão do 'Gerenciador de dispositivos'"
> "Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
> "Version"="1.0"
> "About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"
>
> Notice, no ""NameStringIndirect". Which usually refers to a
> .dll.
>
> Is yours the same?

Barring the Portugese translation, yes

So it doesn't seem to be the registry at fault (or at least not these
entries).

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:04:37 +0100
"R.Wieser" <add...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Auric,
[]

>
> But I see that you've again skirted what I said there : that you effectivily
> lied by omission, by singling out XP and ignoring that the same problem
> exists in every other version of Windows.
>

[]


Please calm down both. If you (either/both) want an interminable flame war
simply head over to one of the cesspit NGs such as alt.checkmate.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:28:32 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>

wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:39:41 -0300
>Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:44:07 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:38:10 -0300
>> >Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>> >
>> >[]
>> >>
>> >> I managed to fix the problem, partially. I simply deleted the
>> >> "Hardware Manager" Snapin key.
>> >>
>
>
>
>>
>> Since it referenced {94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}
>> I deleted that key too:
>>
>> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MMC\SnapIns
>> \{90087284-d6d6-11d0-8353-00a0c90640bf}]
>> "NameString"="Extensão do 'Gerenciador de dispositivos'"
>> "Provider"="Microsoft Corporation"
>> "Version"="1.0"
>> "About"="{94abaf2a-892a-11d1-bbc4-00a0c90640bf}"
>>
>> Notice, no ""NameStringIndirect". Which usually refers to a
>> .dll.
>>
>> Is yours the same?
>
>Barring the Portugese translation, yes
>
>So it doesn't seem to be the registry at fault (or at least not these
>entries).

I restored an ERUNT backup from when I knew it was working,
One of the first things I did before I started this thread.
And I've scanned all the relevant DLLs and EXEs with Jotti**.
No malware detected, not that it came as a surprise, after all, this
is a hardened XP.
:)
TY
[]'s

** I don't use a resident AV. Most of them have gone rogue and are
worse than the Trojans they claim to protect you from.

[mar...@invalid.com]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:41:44 +0100, "R.Wieser" <add...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Carson,
>
Del

>> Toolwiz's Time Freeze is no longer available.
>
>I can imagine that, as Windows (as far back as XP) has got a "time freeze"
>method build-in - to make copying of a HD possible while the os is running
>on, and modifying it.
>

That is called making a backup. If you've downloaded malware while in
n the virtual mode, the malware gets backed up, too. That's not how
one expects a "virtual" mode system to protect one. Even Web pages can
infect one's comp. Save that page and you're screwed. Virtual mode
only works if you don't allow bad stuff to get from your C: drive to
another drive.

If you are to going to save a download from C: to a second disk, you
better dang well double check and triple check the download for
malware/viruses. I rarely download stuff. When I do, I use certain
Web sites such as VirusTotal and some others to check the download.

I've been totally safe that way for years.


>Rudy Wieser
>

[R.Wieser]

Marcus,

>>Carson,
>>
> Del

???

>>I can imagine that, as Windows (as far back as XP) has got a "time
>>freeze" method build-in - to make copying of a HD possible while the
>>os is running on, and modifying it.
>>
>
> That is called making a backup.

Not quite.

Try to make copy all files from a drive which is activily in use and all you
will get is something which /looks/ right*, but will effectivily be
garbage - as some files will be changed after others have already been
backed up. IOW, the files will be out of sync with each other.

* ignoring the problems you will run into because of not being allowed to
copy files which are in use by other processes.

No, the "time freeze" (or "shadow copy" as its officially called) is
/preceeding/ the copying process, to make it *possible* to make a usefull
backup of an HD thats currently in use.

The trick would be to, on shutdown, instead of releasing the time-frozen
branch of files, release the other branch (the modified by the still running
OS files).

Full disclosure (of sorts): I'm a hobby programmer. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser