It is settled SBv1.5 does not work for me!

[caterwaul]

After spending a couple of days solving 2 issues I gave up on v. 1.5 since this version is clearly related to a Fatal Exception (blue screen) error (05) each time I shutdown.

I tried installing twice the second time using cleansweep which removed even more residual code not found uninstalling the first time but still my problem remained.

Why it is settled that SB1.5 is clearly related to crashes on my computer?

I have been using SB1.3 for years without any issues at all. In the over ten years I've had the computer it has NEVER crashed shutting down.

When I install SB v1.5 (after finally solving the issues with "Unresponsive Scripts" and cookie exceptions problems each time) I still will get "Fatal Exception OE has occurred @ 0028.C02987A8 in VxD Vwin32(05) 000012D0 - The current application will be terminated" (infamous Blue Screen).

The "current application" is SB1.5.

Further proof it is SpyBot1.5
1. If SpyBot teatime is running then my computer will ALWAYS CRASH (tried six times).
2. If I Exit SpyBot Resident then my computer WILL NOT CRASH at all (tried 4 times).

Also it is worth noting that if I Turn the Resident OFF but do not EXIT teatimer the shutdown will either "freeze" or crash one or the other but it will ALWAYS crash if I have do nothing and just leave teatimer alone and running.

So since I crash with "Fatal Exceptions" (Blue Screen) errors with teatimer and do not without teatimer and the fact that Spybot1.3 works with no problems at all clearly is evidence that Spybot1.5 has to be related to the crashes on my computer.

As far as I understand it VxD errors are "Virtual Device Driver errors" and can be related to wrong code accessed or corrupted O.S. or can also be related to memory issues among other so many other issues as well.

I also understand that others most assuredly do not have WIN98SE computer crashes and it is uniquely my problem but since SB1.3 works fine and my O.S. seems to work fine I have to wonder if it is a combination of limited resources (96 RAM) and other applications I have running. Possibly on shutdown SpyBot1.5 is trying to access code no longer available since I have a memory manager that clears cache. I have read where a program can have a "stack problem" and be an array location outside of a valid range for example is "out of range". I haven't really been able to nail down the specific address of the error and thus do not know the direct cause... but...

considering that SB1.3 works and SB1.5 running is related to "Fatal Exception" crashes and I've spent so much time with this and other issues installing SB1.5 I have not the time to check further.

If anyone has advise or information it would be appreciated but at this point it is clear that in my case SB1.5 will not work at this time.

[Rapid Dr3am]

Are you really running Win98SE? If so you should upgrade anyway, simply because 9x has reached end of life cycle. I would never write software for 9x these days. I think (not checked) that 1.5 probably uses an API call to windows that was changed in the Windows NT code.

Without having access to the code and a 98SE sandbox I'd struggle to say which call, chances are you simply cannot use the new software without a new box to run it on.

----------------
Now playing: Less Than Jake - Nervous In The Alley
via FoxyTunes

[PepiMK]

96 MB of RAM is not a lot though, Spybot-S&D has been optimized over the time by for example caching some things, which means that it uses more memory to become faster. 1.6 would already use more than half of that memory.

Anyway, Spybot-S&D actually tries to be backwards compatible back to Win95, all specific newer calls are dynamically linked only (we even struggled with Borland, the compiler maker, and I published some inofficial patches for their RTL and VCL to be able to get it that way). So, problems would most likely not be because of missing OS calls, but some call that might be behaving differently in newer OS versions (should not happen, but is rarely encountered).
But maintaining 9x compatibility is becoming harder because of various other reasons, not just newer calls. Using a "sandbox" or "virtual machine" means that we have nearly all OS versions at hand, but Windows 95 for example doesn't even boot in a virtual machine, which is much slower than its host system anyway, unless you slow it down even further by running something else that is taking away most CPU power from the virtualization during boot. Much like the old "Turbo" button you have to use to play even older games like "North & South"

Having an OS that takes up only 100 MB of harddisk space is surely something that sounds good, and I hate some of the bloated newer stuff, but even "back in the days" of 9x height, I preferred NT4 / Win2K for their stability.

[caterwaul]

Are you really running Win98SE? If so you should upgrade anyway, simply because 9x has reached end of life cycle. I would never write software for 9x these days. I think (not checked) that 1.5 probably uses an API call to windows that was changed in the Windows NT code.

Without having access to the code and a 98SE sandbox I'd struggle to say which call, chances are you simply cannot use the new software without a new box to run it on.

----------------
Now playing: Less Than Jake - Nervous In The Alley
via FoxyTunes

WIN98SE which is significantly better in many ways that the initial WIN98.

After hearing from PepiMK my concerns regarding the limited resources more specifically 96 RAM are supported.

This is why had been posting questions as far as which was the oldest SB version that "immunized" Firefox, but was not getting specific answers to my question. I then tried posting a more specific thread addressing just this question to try and get a specific answer rather than I should just "upgrade to 1.5" for example because of my concerns regarding memory limitations I have. Of course then I was "scolded" by another logger (not mentioning any screen names) for posting "duplicate" threads when they really weren't since one was directly addressing the question posed by a logger and the other my specific question...

No matter... I don't think WIN98SE is an issue at all but clearly the 96 RAM could be considering that SB1.3 works without any problems.

It appears that since I now know SB1.4 does not immunize Firefox,thanks to PepiMK's clarification, I will have to put up without Firefox immunization until I get another box which will likely be some time.

Btw, I still like a lot of the advantages based on some versatility that WIN98SE has over 2000 or XP actually.

I find that WIN98SE to allow me better access to internals and is very stable as I've now been using it nearly 12 years without any problems of any kind.

Issues with IE6 is another story however which is why I have installed FF2 browser.

[caterwaul]

One thing in regards to my problems with SB1.5.2 as far as shutting down the teatimer running process causing my computer to crash with a Fatal Exception error 05 which btw is due to a problem closing the teatimer process in SB1.5.2 at shutdown time only in my case with WIN98SE (since teatimer has no problem "exiting" by user decision).

This tells me that something different is happening between when I "exit" teatimer (no problem) which stops the process and is clearly closing files properly versus when an attempt by WIN98SE to "close" the teatimer process at shutdown time.

Something is not done in the proper sequence possibly when WIN98SE attempts to exit the teatimer program and close the process as opposed to how the process is closed when "exiting" the teatimer program by the user.

To my question (first some further background to the question):

The only place I could find info as to upgrades is in a link that has to do with uninstalling SB. (http://www.safer-networking.org/en/howto/uninstall.html)

Instructions for upgrading versions is to remove the prior SB version.

The instructions then say this is what you do to upgrade (besides unistallling).

There is mention of the "backup" files which are left behind on an "uninstall" and speaks of how the user will have to "manually" remove this "hidden" files.

I had left these "backup" files when upgrading from SB1.2 to SB1.3 thinking that the upgrade version will still have access to past changes by doing so.

The instructions do not make this clear however and do not say whether it is better to leave these files or remove them on upgrades.

I would assume newer versions should access the same "backup" (quarantined files etc) files so users can still have the option to "undo" changes in the upgraded version that was done in the older version.

Again I did not have issues going from SB1.2 to SB1.3 but....

I am going from SB1.3 to SB1.5.2 and am leaving these "backup" files and folders from past versions by not deleting these past "backup" files and folders. A JUMP OF ONE MAJOR VERSION CHANGE (v1.4 had different issues w/ teatimer).

Could this be a problem as far as SB1.5.2 pointing to incorrect files or other issues as far as when the WIN98SE closes the SB1.5.2 process on shutdown? - (because of the change from SB1.3 to SB1.5 in regards to backup files I leave behind).

Just a thought that occurred to me.

Also I would suggest to the SB crew to put a permanent link with clear and conscise instructions on how to upgrade to new versions on the SB support home page and include minimum requirements so that users don't have to dig all around to try and find this stuff which is really not complete anyway.

Oh and btw, can users "undo" changes that were done on an older using a newer version? (which would be why these hidden files should be left alone in the case of upgrades). These things REALLY need clarification for users when either upgrading or just unistalling.

[Terminator]

When ever I un-install ANYTHING I always deep clean the system and completely remove ALL traces of the program and I keep on cleaning until every last trace it is gone.

[caterwaul]

^ I did a deep clean including using CleanSweep which got a whole bunch more stuff left behind after using Windows Add/Remove.

The dilemma here is that if the "hidden" folder that SB keeps for all backup (quarantined files) is deleted then in each case of upgrading SB this would preclude the the ability to "undo" any changes done prior to installing the upgraded version of SB.

I'm not sure if this is advised by SpyBot support really? So then you deleted these "hidden" files yourself? This would to have had to have been done manually by you, btw.

The ONLY instructions (see link in prior post) I can find regarding installing has the instruction to install upgrades following standard uninstall and the referernce to the "hidden" back-up files (to recover from changes, "undo" changes) is referenced in a way that appears to be an after thought and mentioned later on after refering to "upgrading" and since it is a part of the "uninstall link" I interpret this to mean that this should be done only if the user intends to un-install SB and not for upgrades. At least that is the way it appears in the instructions (admittedly not clear however).

By doing what you suggest and deleting files and folders that SB has there for "undoing" or recovering from changes then as I said the user loses the ability to "recover" from changes they have done once the user upgrades SB. This would be a problem for some users if a change they had done caused problems later.

I would agree that a doing what you suggest will be better at avoiding problems with conflicts on upgrades however.

One answer I suppose is to do an "undo" for any changes done and then install the upgrade and then make all the changes again.

In any case SB really needs to clarify whether these "hidden" backup files for older versions are compatible and/or used by upgraded versions. ---- By deleting the "hidden" backup files the user looses all history of changes made by SB.

[Terminator]

^ I did a deep clean including using CleanSweep which got a whole bunch more stuff left behind after using Windows Add/Remove.

The dilemma here is that if the "hidden" folder that SB keeps for all backup (quarantined files) is deleted then in each case of upgrading SB this would preclude the the ability to "undo" any changes done prior to installing the upgraded version of SB.

I'm not sure if this is advised by SpyBot support really? So then you deleted these "hidden" files yourself? This would to have had to have been done manually by you, btw.

The ONLY instructions (see link in prior post) I can find regarding installing has the instruction to install upgrades following standard uninstall and the referernce to the "hidden" back-up files (to recover from changes, "undo" changes) is referenced in a way that appears to be an after thought and mentioned later on after refering to "upgrading" and since it is a part of the "uninstall link" I interpret this to mean that this should be done only if the user intends to un-install SB and not for upgrades. At least that is the way it appears in the instructions (admittedly not clear however).

By doing what you suggest and deleting files and folders that SB has there for "undoing" or recovering from changes then as I said the user loses the ability to "recover" from changes they have done once the user upgrades SB. This would be a problem for some users if a change they had done caused problems later.

I would agree that a doing what you suggest will be better at avoiding problems with conflicts on upgrades however.

One answer I suppose is to do an "undo" for any changes done and then install the upgrade and then make all the changes again.

In any case SB really needs to clarify whether these "hidden" backup files for older versions are compatible and/or used by upgraded versions. ---- By deleting the "hidden" backup files the user looses all history of changes made by SB.

In MY opinion you should delete the hidden files and folders as I've had problems with hidden files in the past with other programs and only AFTER removing them did I solve my problems.

[129260]

When ever I un-install ANYTHING I always deep clean the system and completely remove ALL traces of the program and I keep on cleaning until every last trace it is gone.

Amen to that! first lesson that anyone should do if they have problems with reinstalling software, etc.

[wyrmrider]

Dear Cat
Typing this on a windows 98se machine with 1mb via cacheman optimizations
running latest spybot- no problems
I have several machines with 24 (old laptop) to 256 mb of ram with 98SE
some machines just do not run well with Windows 2000 which I have a site license for
so all you guys that want us to install vista 64 or something on these still useful machine lighten up
they work fine as long as you run the software they were designed for or similar.