Jump to content

BillH99999

Honorary Members
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BillH99999

  • Rank
    Elite Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If the scan didn't run while the computer was off then why would it show that it had been scanning for 50 minutes after it was started back up.
  2. It looks like it is a "bad" site. This is what Virus Total show:
  3. I have tried a couple other org.uk sites that I use and they are blocked as well. If this TLD block was put in intentionally then we need the ability to whitelist an entire TLD as well. It would be crazy to have to whitelist them a site at a time. There are too many legitimate org.uk sites. I'm hoping this was unintentional and it will be fixed soon. Bill
  4. This didn't work for me. It appeared to work until I closed Chrome and reopened it and then the site was blocked again. Bill
  5. I am not blocked in Firefox, only in Chrome. So... we have one person blocked only in Chrome, one blocked only in Firefox, and one not blocked in either. Very strange. Bill
  6. I'm still getting blocked also. I am not running Bitdefender on my PC. Also those posts on the forum are from 2018 and 2019. I just starting being blocked today. It worked fine for me for years until today. Bill
  7. I was trying to go to was the forum. The URL is https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/. Bill
  8. Please whitelist this site. It is a user group for the software Family Historian. I have been using this site for over 10 years. Browser guard has never blocked it until today.
  9. @mightaswell OK, well I've never paused updates so I don't think that was my problem. Bill
  10. I thought these settings only controlled how long you could pause a hold for. I didn't think they actually caused the hold to pause. To do that I thought you had to actually select a date in the drop down. I did't think having 1 in that box would in itself cause you to not get an update. I've had mine set to 30 for a couple years and I still get quality updates. Bill
  11. @Maurice Naggar I'm a bit confused. As you will note in my attached screen print, the above did not move me to 592. That was installed before Christmas... long before this patch was available. It was the application of patch KB4528760 which I downloaded and installed from the link you provided which actually moved me to 592. This screen print shows what my Windows Update History shows. Bill Applying patch
  12. These two issues which were reported back in November are not fixed by the new beta 1.0.801. Since we don't get any details as to what is fixed in the beta, I am reporting these just in case they were supposed to have been fixed. Bill
  13. @Porthos I tried the stand alone installer on my wife's machine. It said she already had KB4528760 installed. So it must have already been in the 1903 update she installed yesterday morning. Again, thanks for all your help. Bill
  14. @Porthos First thing this morning I did another manual Windows update check on my PC and it still said I was up to date. So I downloaded the stand alone installer and installed KB4528760. Now doing a winver shows I am on 592. I guess I really don't understand why I was not being offered this update via Windows update since it had supposedly been available since Tuesday. Next I'll verify my wife's PC already has it installed by trying to run the stand alone installer. Thanks, Bill
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.