I have a new computer at work and am now receiving this error message from weather watcher. I have read through other forums and have tried many of the suggestions to no avail. The link to the dl.exe that was suggested earlier is no longer active. Did that not work? Please advise how I can get rid of this error message. I am able to access all other websites without any problems.
Have you checked your firewall?
Are you using WW 5.5 or 5.6?
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
ver 5.5e
I am not personally running a firewall on my computer, although its possible they are running one on the network. However, I have had many other things running on my system and never had a problem so I would doubt it. I do not have a problem with WW at home.
Are you running Windows XP SP2? It has a firewall though it’s mostly for incoming rather than outgoing 'net access.
And you can access http://www.weather.com via IE ok?
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
XP 2002 service pack 1
Weather.com can be accessed without any problems, as can every other site I have tried. I checked the system settings and there does not appear to be anything set up for a firewall unless I am not checking correctly.
When you open a WW Forecast page and click on the Update Weather Now icon what happens, what do you see?
BTW Is this a current download of 5.5? Mike refreshed it a while ago.
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
It says downloading weather data and then Error - server not found.
As I mentioned, it is version 5.5e and I downloaded it about a week or two ago.
quote:
I downloaded it about a week or two ago.
Well, that can’t be it then. Mike’s repackage was in June.
http://www.singerscreations.com/RSS/Posts/241.asp
Can you get the weather for a different location? Can you try City Code USPA0679? If you post your City Code I will see if I have the problem accessing it with 5.6.
PS Why are you on SP1 still??
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
No, I cannot get any weather for any location. I get the same error. I am in Chicago - zip 60601 - so I doubt that is the problem.
As for SP1 - don’t know. I work for a major corporation and they set up all of our laptops. Mine was just given to me 2 months ago.
What about the dl.exe that was being tested for others with this problem?
quote:It worked, solved the problem and was what Mike put into the WW refreshes. Everyone has the new DL.exe who downloaded WW since the end of June. That was why I asked when you got your download.
What about the dl.exe that was being tested for others with this problem?
I have no problem accessing the weather for 60601 with 5.6b. It’s possible that your network at work has stops in it to prevent unauthorized programs from getting out. They don’t stop IE since it is a part of Windows but the DL.exe might trigger a flag. You might ask them if that’s being done and how you can get DL.exe authorized. (And ask why you don’t have SP2 on your notebook. [:)] )
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
quote:
[i]Originally posted by EdP[/i]
[quote] (And ask why you don't have SP2 on your notebook. [:)] )
Ed, many WinXP users have opted not to update to SP2…basically, because SP2 has been the cause of multiple problems and headaches. If one runs Windows Update on a regular basis, all of the security patches (contained in SP2) should have been downloaded and applied well before the release of of SP2. In addition, all of the Microsoft touted “new” features contained in SP2 are virtually worthless…for instance, the new, improved firewall is just more of the same old garbage…you may as well not run a firewall. The most prominent problem is that many applications no longer function properly and the user must search for and download more patches to fix the patch. Personally, I have not and will not download SP2 and I recommend the same to anyone that asks me.
Bill
Well, Bill McMurry I couldn’t disagree with you more.
quote:SP2 was release approximately a year ago and there have been many more Windows security updates released since then, many of which require SP2 modules in order to be implimented. You are also unable to use Microsoft's new free Antispyware tool, which is excellent. And you will be unable to upgrade to IE 7 which will also require SP2. So basically your OS is frozen in time, unfortunately time marches on and stops for noone.
If one runs Windows Update on a regular basis, all of the security patches (contained in SP2) should have been downloaded and applied well before the release of of SP2.
When you bought Windows XP or a pc that had Windows XP installed on it, part of your purchase price was for ongoing maintenance. In that you’ve paid for the updates you might as well get your money’s worth. Not using what you’ve paid for is like removing the spare tire and jack from a car you buy since you don’t plan on using them either.
Any problems with applications conflicting with SP2 initially have long been resolved by the reputable companies whether big or small. And for those that haven’t the hand writing is on the wall for them so it’s time to change. I personally do not recall having any problems with any apps when I upgraded last year.</font id=“size2”>
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
quote:Me neither.
[i]Originally posted by EdP[/i] I personally do not recall having any problems with any apps when I upgraded last year. [b]Ed[/b]
Ed, I sense you have succumbed to the Microsoft sales pitch.
Ensuing Windows updates since SP2 are not dependent upon the installation of SP2, although Microsoft did block updates to anyone without SP1. Eventually SP2 will be required…but not because it is necessary.
The Microsoft Antispyware tool is based on a poorly conceived and poorly rated (Giant) antispyware tool…Microsoft has done nothing to the tool except change the GUI to their own. If you want protection from spyware and adware, I suggest (as do 99% of all others knowledgeable on the subject) Ad-aware or Spybot Search & Destroy (Spybot is free). Read about the subject…the Microsoft tool has only gained any attention for its attempts to shut-down the Spybot application.
You must understand the company you apparently hold in such high esteem…the same company that designed the platform for adware and spyware and built it into their operating systems. Why, you ask? Elementary, Watson…Microsoft saw an opportunity to make a lot of money selling pop-up ads and tracking your behaviour on the internet and then selling your browsing data to would be pop-up ad buyers. This has been documented.
Microsoft has an ongoing policy…when software is released, it doesn’t necessarily have to work properly…it can be patched later. That was true with the very first operating system Bill Gates designed for IBM and it has held true since. If they made an effort to make it right the first time, there would be no need for patch after patch.
In so far as Microsoft’s new browser is concerned, who really cares? The buying public is hungry for new products to replace everything Microsoft sells.
quote:Hmmm... I'm not sure about this one. I've released many versions of Weather Watcher that had bugs, but I never intended to do so. I'm not saying Microsoft isn't doing that, but rather suggesting that it's hard to create one program that will run on any PC.
[i]Originally posted by Bill McMurry[/i]
when software is released, it doesn't necessarily have to work properly...it can be patched later. That was true with the very first operating system Bill Gates designed for IBM and it has held true since.
quote:Personally I think it's a miracle.
[i]Originally posted by Mike Singer[/i]
it's hard to create one program that will run on any PC.
I use to work with IBM mainframes with IBM peripherals running IBM software and we received PTF (patch) tapes EVERY month. If a company can’t create software to run on it’s own hardware without problems how hard do you think it is to create software to run on an unlimited variety of independent hardware configurations?
quote:No, I have sucumbed to what works best for me.
[i]Originally posted by Bill McMurry[/i]
I sense you have succumbed to the Microsoft sales pitch.
I use Adaware and Spybot and SpywareBlaster and HiJackThis. And have for quite some time but they don’t compare to MS’s (Giant’s) Antispyware. It is very impressive. You should try it, after you upgrade.
quote:Apparently not hungry enough to buy Macs and Linux machines both of which have been around awhile. If you don't like Windows, you can choose something else. But you haven't. The buying public have been freely voting for what they want in a pc for a long time and the winner is Windows.
[i]Originally posted by Bill McMurry[/i]
The buying public is hungry for new products to replace everything Microsoft sells.
People attack Windows pcs because it is so easy to do. Windows wasn’t designed to be a fortress, it was designed to be user friendly and thus is an easy target, the same way subways and buses are. But as the idiots of the world try to destroy rather than build the rest of us will have to spend time and money building walls and barriers and paying extra for security and a loss of convenience and maybe even a little personal freedom but evenually the idiots will have to grow up and get jobs and then the world will be safe again.
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
I am a little surprized at both of you…Mike, especially you. It has been well documented, on a number of occasions and in all media, that Bill Gates and Microsoft, from the very beginning, have released software that they knew was not complete nor fully functional, but they claimed it to be. Mike, that is not quite the same as beta testing.
Ed, once again you are incorrect, SP2 is not necessary to load and run Microsoft’s Antispyware. As a matter of fact, I never make a judgement on software or hardware until I have tried it myself. I downloaded and installed the Microsoft offering about six to eight weeks ago. I found several issues that weren’t to my liking. Most important, (1) it did not detect possible threats that Ad-aware and Spybot quickly uncovered and, (2) like most other Microsoft offerings, it is bloated, fat and sloppy…uses an unnecessairly large chunk of system resources. I found nothing impressive about it.
I am not going to engage in any further verbal battle on this subject in this forum…but Ed, it is apparent your opinions are not based on research and education. Go watch TV, Ed.
quote:That is true [b]Bill McMurry[/b]. They are based on my personal experiences. I don't believe everything I simply read, no matter who wrote it. [:)]
Ed, it is apparent your opinions are not based on research and education.
Adaware and SpyBot are quick to list mere cookies as spyware. I don’t agree with that finding. Things that execute I am concerned with, text files, which cookies are, don’t execute. If some website that I visit doesn’t want to show me the same ad repeatedly by using cookies I thank them for their efforts. [:)]
BTW Thank you for the correction on the MS Antispyware supported OSs. It does indeed run on XP SP1 and even W2K systems. I have a W2K system that I will add it to tonight.
PS Consumer Reports September issue rates Microsoft’s Antispyware as #1. In that you like to read, you can read about it here: Product Reviews and Ratings - Consumer Reports</font id=“size1”>
Ed</font id=“blue”></font id=“size2”>
quote:[b]Bill[/b], I'm not sure why you are surprised at me? I never said and/or suggested Microsoft did or did not release software that they claimed to be complete but was not. I was just generally speaking about writing software using the experience that I gained over the years that I've been writing software.
[i]Originally posted by Bill McMurry[/i]
I am a little surprized at both of you...Mike, especially you. It has been well documented, on a number of occasions and in all media, that Bill Gates and Microsoft, from the very beginning, have released software that they [i][b]knew[/b][/i] was not complete nor fully functional, but they claimed it to be. Mike, that is not quite the same as beta testing.
Ok Ed, I’ll bite. It appears Consumer Reports rated the applications based mostly on features. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but Consumer Reports is not, nor has it even been, noted as a software authority. A report such as this one is food for thought, nothing more. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, based upon my own testing, Microsoft Antispyware did not measure up to Ad-aware’s or Spybot’s performance. That is not to say the Microsoft application is bad, just not impressive. Considering the enormous amount of system resources consumed by MS Antispyware, it becomes even less impressive. To wit, the memory resident modules of Ad-aware (Ad-Watch) and Spybot (TeaTimer), when run simultaneously, actually consume, in total, well less than half that of Microsoft’s Antispyware module. As I have stated earlier, like most other Microsoft offerings, Antispyware is bloated, fat and sloppy.
I am using Ad-aware SE Professional v1.06 and I find it slightly superior to the current version of Spybot. I cannot attest to the performance of the lesser versions of Ad-aware. I can report this: both current versions of Ad-aware SE Pro and Spybot out-perform Microsoft Antispyware in critical areas.
Mike, perhaps I was a bit too defensive. Apologies.