Ian Betts wrote:
>
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:#NxauZd1HHA.5772@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Ian read and understood it perfectly. He also gave a good possibility
>>> to fixing the issue that the OP is experiencing.
>>> The Op has perfectly stated his\her issue and you do not need any or
>>> is there any error message with that issue of the red X.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The OP appears to be under the impression that he / she HAS installed
>> the necessary software, what else is the reference to "Sun's Java
>> software".
>>
>> What is achieved by telling them to download it again?
>>
> Everything is achieved by reassurance
>


So he / she repeats a procedure that apparently has already failed
twice. The implication being that you wish to reassure the user that he
/ she can't get it right?

Now, this week I was informed of a "Java" update that I downloaded and
installed, however in the listing it is named differently than other JRE
versions and so it's not clear whether the old JRE should be uninstalled
or simply left. It has been common practice to remove such leftover
runtimes since they can sometimes, if left installed, be called by
malware and the exploits the update was intended to stop can still be used.

I had not had time to research this, and I don't have access to that
machine at the moment and probably won't until Monday. It therefore
occurred to me that the OP's problem might be related, which is why I
read the reply.

So, I don't yet know the answer which is why I didn't reply to the OP,
but would it not be a good idea to find out if the old JRE should be
removed and the OP advised accordingly?