Vista - opening attachments

Since downloading IE 8 i can no longer open any attachments oyher than by
using google chrome and going to my isp?

I have uninstalled IE 8 but the problem still persists, the problem seems to
be linked in with AVG 8.5 which will not uninstall by any normal means!

can anyone advise or should I await the google os to run my computer.
Regards Mally

[crosspost to IE General]

What anti-virus application or security suite is installed, is your
subscription current, and is it supported in IE8? What anti-spyware
applications (other than Defender)? What third-party firewall (if any)?
Were any of these applications running in the background when you installed
IE8?

Has a Norton or McAfee application ever been installed on this machine
(e.g., a free-trial version that came preinstalled when you bought it)?

Just asking for now!! Do NOT use such a Restore Point yet!! => Do you have
an available Restore Point which predates the install of IE8?

NB: Uninstalling IE8 (cf. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700) should
resolve the behavior but you should not have encountered it in the first
place if IE8 was installed properly; cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...7d79493eac253d

--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002


Mally wrote:

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
<snip>

Original newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.mail
Added newsgroups: microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
Effector/Respondent: PA Bear

This is to warn that Effector has copied [only a subthread of] an
existing discussion to other groups by cross-posting their reply to
groups not originally specified by the OP (original post[er]). There
may be additional replies back under the original post in its original
group(s) than just those shown under the subthread for the Effector's
cross-posted reply. If the OP and others wish to ensure that they see
ALL replies then they must visit the original groups to check if there
are subthreads *other* than under the Effector's reply.


<rant_start>
If the OP wishes to move or copy their discussion to another group, that
should be *their* choice and not as an UNSOLICITED action enforced by
another *user*. Despite his pretense, the Effector is not a moderator
or admin but just another user who is propagating the OP's discussion to
different group(s) that he has divined are more appropriate and to
enlarge the audience or hopefully provide a more focused community on
the topic but which may not be a correct action (since the source of the
problem may not be relevant to those other groups simply based on where
the OP reported the symptoms). If the OP wants to move or copy their
discussion to another group, that should be THEIR choice and not of the
Respondent. The Respondent should only recommend to the OP that there
may be more appropriate or useful groups to which the OP should repost
or cross-post their message, not enforce the propagation of the OP's
discussion to other groups.

There are times when the Newsgroups header should be modified to a
different set of groups than was originally specified by the user.
Examples are: using a *.test group to redirect negative or expository
replies into the bit bucket (common with spammers or trolls); removal of
completely unrelated groups (i.e., the OP cross-posted to invalid
groups), an attempt to flame a smaller community or low-bandwidth group
with a rash of replies from other groups (i.e., an intentional attempt
to vengefully or maliciously flood forward into other groups), inclusion
of *.kook or other groups with the intention to flame the other groups
with the inflamed responses (i.e., attempt to flood backward into other
groups), responding to a spam exhibit or announcements but discussions
about them belong in another group, and so on. A misguided need to
enlarge exposure for a discussion based on a choice made by the
Respondent is not an adequate reason to alter the Newsgroups header.

Recommend the OP should move. Do not SHOVE them over. It should be the
OP's choice in what communities to focus on their post, not a forced
change made by the Respondent.
<rant_end>

"VanguardLH" <V@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h3al8h$fpr$1@xxxxxxNeither are you. You have less authority since you have not contributed much
here.
Does "may" mean can or does it mean might? It is an ambiguous word that many
people use too often. Assuming you mean might and accoding to what you say,
the action might be correct.
Who's discussion? Do you mean Sue at MC Access's discussion or Mally's
discussion? Note that Mally is not the OP. So nothing that you say about the
OP is valid for Mally. If you are referring to Mally then Mally should have
created a new discussion. If you can get people to create new discussions
instead of hijacking other's discussions then many people will appreciate
that. Otherwise I think the best response to posts such as Mally's is to
ignore them except to explain that they need to create a new thread. The
people here that do help are very tolerant; much more tolerant than you. The
helpful ones provide assistance even when people do not cooperate.
Do a little analysis yourself. If you read a week or more worth of messages,
you will see that it is very rare for the action you are criticizing to be
done. You will see that there are many other things to complain about that
people do when they ask for help that has much more affect on this group.
By what authority do you say that? Can you provide an authoritative
statement of that?
Unless you can provide an authoritative statement saying that, it is all
your opinion with no authority. I doubt you will get support from the
regulars.