Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Operating System

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 4:11:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
perfect!!

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
(2) Western Digital Raptor

Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
out and the new software architecture would be
better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.


Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
adequate power supply?



Thanks!!

More about : operating system

Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 7:00:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and doesn`t fully
understand DDR ram.
XPee likes 512Mb of DDR ram and you would be silly to go the cost of a new
system and then start cutting it back just so you could run 98SE.
Use a good firewall, a decent spyware remover and a top anti virus programme
and you will be fine with XP Pro on your new machine.



"R" <R@nothere.com> wrote in message news:40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com...
> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> perfect!!
>
> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
>
>
> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 7:00:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Canus_Lupis" <old_fart@hotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:EThmc.22630$TT.20965@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and doesn`t fully
> understand DDR ram.

Am running a tri-boot 98SE/98SE/XP. 2.4 GHz / 512MB DDR. Nothig modified
in 98SE to make use of memory.

> XPee likes 512Mb of DDR ram and you would be silly to go the cost of a new
> system and then start cutting it back just so you could run 98SE.

Another 98 OS Urban legend. Problem you're referring to, I guess, usually
begins when exceeding 512MB of physical memory. A couple of system.ini
entries will allow up to1GB.

> Use a good firewall, a decent spyware remover and a top anti virus
programme
> and you will be fine with XP Pro on your new machine.

Same goes for 98SE.

>
>
>

98SE does not understand hyper-thread technology.

> "R" <R@nothere.com> wrote in message news:40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com...
> > I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> > on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> > I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> > perfect!!
> >
> > I'm leaning for the new system to include:
> >
> > Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> > Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> > (2) Western Digital Raptor
> >
> > Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> > XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> > drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> > Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> > hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> > out and the new software architecture would be
> > better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> > successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> > adequate power supply?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> >
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 2:28:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"R" <R@nothere.com> wrote in message news:40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com...
> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> perfect!!
>
> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
>
>
> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
>
>
> Thanks!!
>

Dont know about the PSU (maybee)
98se Would be okay but the HT support wouldnt be there as you say.
There are "unofficial" sites that do serice packs for windows.. and things
like the .NET framework HAVE BEEN ported to work on systems like 98 so in
many ways you can indeed run some of the latest software. I am not saying
that its going to be as easy as just installing a current OS in to your
system BUT if you "enjoy" modding your software settings then I would say
stick with 98se..
One other note if you DO stay with 98se then you can disable the swap file
(it's not as simple as turning it off) but you can force 98 to swap to ram
(sounds weird doesnt it) and it makes 98se BLAZING FAST..
May 6, 2004 3:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"R" <R@nothere.com> wrote in message news:40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com...
> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> perfect!!
>
> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
>
>
> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
Putting 98SE on a modern board is a waste of a good board since the boards
tend to be optomized for XP and have features that only work if W2000 or XP
are installed. New HW and SW are going to require later than W98 so you
might as well get into it now and that includes dealing with viruses and
other annoyances.

The short answer to W98 and the memory is some boards work up to a GB and
others don't regardless of the mods to the ini file and other patches.

Billh
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 3:29:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <EThmc.22630$TT.20965@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
old_fart@hotmail.com.au says...
> Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and

This is utter poppy-cock, Windows 98SE can handle 1GB of ram without
problem: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=304943

> doesn`t fully understand DDR ram.

The OS doesn't understand anything about RAM, it's the job of the
chipset on the motherboards to make memory work, it has nothing to do
with the OS. Memory, other than limitations, is a product/function of
the chipsets used by the MB vendors.

If you've got a new board and 1GB of ram then Windows XP Professional is
the OS to use for a home user, it's fast, easy to use, and it will
detect almost all the hardware you already have without any problems. XP
Prof is the most stable OS that MS has pushed out to home users ever.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 6, 2004 6:29:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi,

In article <40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com>, R <R@nothere.com> wrote:
#Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
#XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
#drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
#Win 98se or go with Win XP?

Don't run Unix on x86, unless you have a specific customer or work
requirement for it. Run Linux. I also suggest you keep whatever Windoze
you run on the primary ("C:") hard drive. This is by no means a
necessity, but it can make things easier.

If you do choose to run a commercial Unix like Solaris or <that other
company>, buy the OS first, then buy only hardware on its compatibility
list. Any other course of action is foolhardy, you'll end up running in
unaccelerated 640x480x16 with half your peripherals unrecogized. Or,
just run Linux, it has MUCH better h/w support.

I wouldn't install 98SE on a MB made after 2002. Again, it's not that it
can't be done, but you'll find the board was tested and optimized for XP
or Win2K. The best debugged drivers will be for XP or Win2K. You'll also
find very little interest from vendors in working on driver bugs for an
obsolete operating system.

#Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
#adequate power supply?

Probably, unless you have a really huge video card in a loaded system,
and/or you want to overclock. Personally, I'm not buying anything under
400W now, not because I need it, but because I don't know what is coming
down the road in 6 months. Some people have had problems with them, but
I consider Antec several steps above the generic 90-day-life chinese
power supply.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Save the environment! Buy US-made
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | heavy industries products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 6, 2004 11:39:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi,

Go with XP and as the others say good firewall, AV and spyware + healthy
computing habits.

Others have recommended the 2.4 / 2.6 / 2.8c chips in preference to the new
E chips in terms of bang for your buck, and reduced heat dissipation.

If you want a silent system start with quiet parts. The raptors are OK - not
much worse than most HDD's, so if this is a factor, then choose your PSU,
graphics and HSF with this in mind.

XP SP2 will be out soon, so don't fork out any dosh for a firewall - make do
with one of the free ones which will probably be about as effective.

- Tim





"R" <R@nothere.com> wrote in message news:40998394.6D95D804@nothere.com...
> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> perfect!!
>
> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
>
>
> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 7, 2004 3:48:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
virus. I'll have to
look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
gather it's
a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.

I thought the E series chips were better and faster (but hotter), but not
sure if there is any reliability issues compaired to the C series pentium?

Thanks again!!

R wrote:

> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
> I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
> perfect!!
>
> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
> successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.
>
> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
> Thanks!!
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 8, 2004 9:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:39:13 +1200, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Tim"
<Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Go with XP
[snip]

No, don't. See my other f'up in this thread for the "why".

> XP SP2 will be out soon, so don't fork out any dosh for a firewall - make
> do with one of the free ones which will probably be about as effective.
>
[snip]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for a
proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
absolute requirement in ALL cases.

Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
marginally close to adequate.

Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is attempting to
protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1125025&gt;
<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1129165&gt;
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data...;
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data...;
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data...;
<http://www.pcpitstop.com/news/nl-200403.asp#A4&gt;
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/z/zonekiller.asp&gt;
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/f/firekiller_2000.as...;
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Firecracker.html&...;
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Killer3.0.html&gt;

Or, to put it more eloquently:

You can't block a port with software that runs on the same machine where
the attacks are aimed. That's like trying to stop bullets by shoving
Kevlar up your backside. By the time the bullet hits the Kevlar, the
damage has been done.
-- Morely 'Spam is theft' Dotes in NANAE, 13-AUG-2003


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 8, 2004 11:45:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

R wrote:
> Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
> it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
> virus. I'll have to
> look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
> gather it's
> a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.

It's a service pack for XP geared around security. The new firewall is
supposed to be quite good. I have the SR release on my computer at work (I
use W2K SP4 at home), and it seems ok.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and
installing them, then you'll probably be ok. Of course, a virus scanner is
almost essential these days, otherwise you just have to not run any programs
or connect to any other machine to be sure of not getting one. Symantec
Antivirus does a good job of looking after my machine.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better. Additionally driver support for
Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've come a long
way.

> I thought the E series chips were better and faster (but hotter), but not
> sure if there is any reliability issues compaired to the C series pentium?


They'll be just as reliable... just harder to keep at sane temperatures,
meaning you'll need louder fans. They're also a lot more expensive for not
that much gain in performance.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 9, 2004 6:54:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> This is utterly *horrid* advice.
>
> First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for a
> proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
> absolute requirement in ALL cases.
>
> Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
> marginally close to adequate.
>
> Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is attempting
to
> protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

Explain yourself (to me it sounds like you dont have a full understanding of
firewalls or software based firewalls)

> You can't block a port with software that runs on the same machine
where
> the attacks are aimed. That's like trying to stop bullets by shoving
> Kevlar up your backside. By the time the bullet hits the Kevlar, the
> damage has been done.
> -- Morely 'Spam is theft' Dotes in NANAE, 13-AUG-2003

I think this backs up my first statement..
It's best to look at it LIKE THIS.. (in VERRY simple terms)
Say that someone is packetflooding port 80 on your pc.. so you block it
locally.. HERE is what happens..
Broadband -> Pc = Flooded PcPort (net is useless)
now..
Broadband -> Router -> PC = Flooded RouterPort (net is useless)

Either way .. the net is .. useless

ZoneAlarm/Symantic/(few others) Firewalls can do the job JUST AS GOOD as a
hardware router (that has a firewall)..
If you dont belive that's the case then You should get the tech docs to your
routers (Linksys would be a good place to start, as their firmware is open
source)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 9, 2004 1:29:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

[Hrmpf... I just noticed several different, and apparently unrelated,
articles sitting in my Agent "Outbox", which for some unknown reason
apparently never got posted. This is one of them. Re-posting. Apologies if
duplicate.]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, R
<R@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
> on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
[snip]

The P3B-F was indeed a great board, for its era; nearly as much so as the
legendary T2P4.

> I'm leaning for the new system to include:
>
> Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
> Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
[snip]

I strongly prefer AMD CPUs, for several reasons; but that is an argument I'll
gladly defer to another day, thank you. <~>

> (2) Western Digital Raptor
>
[snip]

I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
opinions...

Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD model is
(currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale, while still maintaining
"passable" performance. The WD740GD is still bigger, but disproportionately
more expensive (today, anyway; wait an hour or two, and that will surely
change -- life in the ultra-competitive HDD market). And both include a
decent warranty (a relative rarity for WDC), as long as you buy it right. So
I can't say this is a *bad* choice. But if speed is the ultimate goal,
neither Raptor is a match for a good SCSI RAID array.

Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:

> Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
> XP.
[snip]

Windows-specific worms/virii/etc. are by no means limited to XP. As a rule,
they'll just as readily attack any other version of Windows more recent than
WfWG (some are specifically aimed at Windows-based servers, as opposed to
desktops; but that's another matter).

HOWEVER... WinXP, specifically, should be avoided for several *other*
reasons. Far too much to go into here; but see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm&gt;
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm&gt;

and (read all three):
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/14/11winman_1.ht...;
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12winman_1.ht...;
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/28/13winman_1.ht...;

and finally:
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html&gt;

If you want to go with an NT-based (as opposed to DOS-based) version of
Windows, then stick with Win2K/SP4; but be *SURE* to install it using
"2000lite", available here: <http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html&gt;, so you can
tame some of its more egregious excesses (like MSIE, for example).

> I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
> drive,
[snip]

Good move, BUT...

Unless you have some very specific reason to favor a particular vendor's
version of Unix, I *strongly* suggest that for your purposes, "Unix" should
equal "Linux". Beyond that, everyone has their own pet Linux distro, and
rarely will any two randomly chosen penguin-heads agree on which that should
be. But the "bottom line" is that Red Hat is *generally* considered the most
"compromised by commercial marketing concerns" -- which may or may not
actually mean it's suitable to you. Personally, I have a soft spot for
Knoppix <http://www.knoppix.net/&gt;, which is near-certainly the hands-down
winner in terms of easing the transition for long-time Windows users.

> ...but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
> Win 98se or go with Win XP?
[snip]

See above WRT WinXP. As for Win98SE, there's no reason you couldn't install
that beside either Linux or an NT-based Windows (or both); and depending on
what applications and peripherals you plan to use, it may be a very good idea,
at least as a temporary "bridge" while you learn Linux. But if you do go this
route, it is again an "absolute must" to install it via 98lite:
<http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html&gt;, for the same reasons as apply to Win2K.

> Would Win98se even work with
> hyper thread?
[snip]

Presuming that by "work with" you mean "take advantage of", no -- but that's
rather a moot point AFAIAC. You certainly do *NOT* need "HyperThreading" to
use and fully take advantage of Win98SE.

> I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
> out and the new software architecture would be
> better with the newer processors,
[snip]

This is at least mostly Urban Legend.

The best fundamental lesson you can possibly learn, applicable in all sorts of
contexts beyond just this one, is:

"Newer" != "Better".

> Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
> adequate power supply?
>
[snip]

Probably, depending on what else you're putting in the box. The main thing to
keep in mind is that newer P4 systems can really load down the +12V rail, far
beyond what used to be considered "normal". So if you insist on going the
Intel route, look at that spec particularly close.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 9, 2004 7:48:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <2g6jd4F4btmjU1@uni-berlin.de>, spam@hotmail.com says...
> If you were a company with sensitive data to protect, then I would certainly
> recommend a hardware router/firewall. But that is not the case for home
> users. Suggesting home users purchase, set up and use a hardware firewall
> is ridiculous and unnecessary in almost all cases.

Actually, considering that most people never run Windows Update, never
run their AV updates, a NAT router (which is not a firewall) at the cost
of $40 in most places around the US is about as safe as they can get
considering all that they don't do.

Most adults try and keep some banking information on their computers,
so, I would call that as sensitive as company data.

If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 9, 2004 8:17:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, R
> <R@nothere.com> wrote:
> > (2) Western Digital Raptor
> >
> [snip]
>
> I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
> opinions...
>
> Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD
> model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale,

Eh? It's 36GB for like £90, I can get a drive 4 times that size for less
money.

> while still
> maintaining "passable" performance.

Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available.

> The WD740GD is still bigger,

Not a hard task.

> but
> disproportionately more expensive (today, anyway; wait an hour or two,
> and that will surely change -- life in the ultra-competitive HDD market).

Disproportionately? It's £160, less than twice the price of the WD360GD,
and twice the capacity.

> And both include a decent warranty (a relative rarity for WDC), as long
> as you buy it right. So I can't say this is a *bad* choice. But if
> speed is the ultimate goal, neither Raptor is a match for a good SCSI
> RAID array.

No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh...

Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array - in
terms of price/performance. It's probably a tad slower (depending on your
usage patterns) for a tad less money.

> Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:

<snip over-zealous rantings about windows security>

We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to
date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is
generally enough for most people.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 10, 2004 4:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> Actually, considering that most people never run Windows Update, never
> run their AV updates, a NAT router (which is not a firewall) at the cost
> of $40 in most places around the US is about as safe as they can get
> considering all that they don't do.

How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
question)

> Most adults try and keep some banking information on their computers,
> so, I would call that as sensitive as company data.

I doubt that there is much ident theft in those cases (it's not worth the
time and effort when you can pay 5$ to a postial offical for a GoldCC with a
10,000$ limit)

> If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
> place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
> be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

Yea, Highly possible that one..
Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
explanation).. Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
or really run ANY server..

But yea.. It would help..
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 10, 2004 4:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <tRync.115$6b3.59@newsfe1-win>, .@text.news.virgin.net
says...
> How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
> question)

We have more than 100 of them across the country (the Linksys BEFSR41,
and BEFSX41 and BEFVP41) and have never found any trace of anything
getting past them that was not invited by the users. We log the in/out
bound traffic and have scripts that detect unusual items, and we do a
cursory scan by hand once a month.

I used a BEFSR41 for about 3 years myself and never had any problems.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 10, 2004 4:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <tRync.115$6b3.59@newsfe1-win>, .@text.news.virgin.net
says...
> It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
> or really run ANY server..

But most ISP's TOS prohibit that function, so it's not an issue for
most. An if the NAT function was on by default and could be requested to
be disabled, then customers would lose nothing.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 10, 2004 5:24:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b08921039bde55e98a520@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <tRync.115$6b3.59@newsfe1-win>, .@text.news.virgin.net
> says...
> > It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email
server,
> > or really run ANY server..
>
> But most ISP's TOS prohibit that function, so it's not an issue for
> most. An if the NAT function was on by default and could be requested to
> be disabled, then customers would lose nothing.
>

MY Isp doesnt block any port (in or out).
My only limitation is that I cant use it to make money or for illegal stuff
(kiddieporn/warez/mp3z)

I say that IF an isp blocks that stuff then they should do like CenturyTel
do.. and block the port as soon as it's noticed on the network (isp
firewall)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 12, 2004 6:46:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:54:26 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > This is utterly *horrid* advice.
> >
> > First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for
> > a proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
> > absolute requirement in ALL cases.
> >
> > Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
> > marginally close to adequate.
> >
> > Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is
> attempting to
> > protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:
>
> Explain yourself (to me it sounds like you dont have a full understanding
> of firewalls or software based firewalls)
>
[snip]

On the contrary, when you make statements like this:

> ZoneAlarm/Symantic/(few others) Firewalls can do the job JUST AS GOOD as a
> hardware router (that has a firewall)..
[snip]

you belie your own serious misunderstanding of the situation.

In the simplest possible terms... The whole point of a "firewall" -- even the
etymology of the term -- is to form an impenetrable barrier standing *between*
the threat and whatever it is you're trying to protect. The so-called
"software firewalls" you mention *cannot* do that, because (at least some
parts of) the target system is left directly facing (i.e., exposed to) the
threat.

Read the articles I cited earlier. In each case, they document methodologies
by which and incidents where these software pseudo-firewalls have been *shown*
to be about as robust as a tissue-paper screen. And of course, that list is
by no means exhaustive.

But beyond all of this, "Tim" had recommended going without *any* firewall,
which is just too silly for words.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 12, 2004 6:46:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Ben
Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> R wrote:
> > Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
> > it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
> > virus.
[snip]

As you ("R") have hopefully seen by now, that is NOT a good choice -- or even
a rational one, given your acknowledged awareness of at least some of the
problems.

> > I'll have to
> > look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
> > gather it's
> > a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.
>
> It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
[snip]

And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention all
the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).

> The new firewall is
> supposed to be quite good.
[snip]

And life "is supposed to be" fair. It isn't.

> If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and
> installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
[snip]

Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as
opposed to yours.

> Of course, a virus scanner is
> almost essential these days,
[snip]

s/almost/absolutely/

And that's nothing new.

> Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
> multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
[snip]

In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as black-and-white
as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which applications and drivers
one happens to need/use.

> Additionally driver support
> for Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've come a
> long way.
>
[snip]

Perhaps some new batteries for your calculator are in order?

<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/Jun98/98A...;

[2004-05-08] - [1998-06-25] == less than six years. And WRT driver support,
we really *should* be counting from the date new OS licenses ceased being
available from MS:

<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx...;

So that's:

[2004-05-08] - [2004-03-31] == barely over ONE MONTH.

Your gullibility for MS marketing hype is showing.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 13, 2004 12:10:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
> "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
> [snip]
>
> And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
> all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).

Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...

> > The new firewall is
> > supposed to be quite good.
> [snip]
>
> And life "is supposed to be" fair. It isn't.

Who says life is supposed to be fair? Who says you are entitled your
existence? Blimey, stop feeling sorry for yourself and get on with enjoying
it.

> > If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates
> and > installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
> [snip]
>
> Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
> exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as
> opposed to yours.

OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend everybody
switches over to Linux.

You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer". You still
get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.

> > Of course, a virus scanner is
> > almost essential these days,
> [snip]
>
> s/almost/absolutely/
>
> And that's nothing new.
>
> > Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
> > multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
> [snip]
>
> In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
> black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
> applications and drivers one happens to need/use.

Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things like
applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of many
problems on Win9x.

> > Additionally driver support
> > for Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've
> come a > long way.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps some new batteries for your calculator are in order?
>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/Jun98/98A...;
>
> [2004-05-08] - [1998-06-25] == less than six years. And WRT driver
> support, we really *should* be counting from the date new OS licenses
> ceased being available from MS:
>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx...;
>
> So that's:
>
> [2004-05-08] - [2004-03-31] == barely over ONE MONTH.
>
> Your gullibility for MS marketing hype is showing.

OK, separate the "driver support is fading" comment from the "Win9x is old"
comment, it should have been in a separate sentence.

Windows 9x is old... we've come a long way in terms of multitasking support,
memory management etc. OK, so it 8 and 3/4 years old, not 9. And the
memory management was probably tweaked between Win95 and Win98se...

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 16, 2004 1:35:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Thu, 06 May 2004 03:00:52 GMT, "Canus_Lupis"
<old_fart@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

>Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and doesn`t fully
>understand DDR ram.

Utter rubbish!

Cheers,

Guy

** I may not be perfect, but I'm
** English, and that's the next best thing!
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 28, 2004 8:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:17:29 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Ben
Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, R
> > <R@nothere.com> wrote:
> > > (2) Western Digital Raptor
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
> > opinions...
> >
> > Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD
> > model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale,
>
> Eh? It's 36GB for like £90,
[snip]

You're quite right. After looking up the specs, I somehow slipped a decimal
point when doing the arithmetic.

> I can get a drive 4 times that size for less money.
>
[snip]

Yes, but not with anything like that level of performance.

> > while still
> > maintaining "passable" performance.
>
> Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available.
>
[snip]

Which is still only "passable", as compared to a good high-end SCSI drive;
probably less so if compared to an array.

> No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh...
>
> Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array
[snip]

I don't think so. The underlying raw mechanicals may perform similarly; but
the as-installed *system* performance will still suffer due to the extra
overhead imposed by any flavor of IDE (granted, SATA may be *somewhat* less
given to this than the older incarnations; but it's still significant).

> - in terms of price/performance.
[snip]

Well, if you sufficiently weight the comparison by price, then the
three-year-old clunker you pick up for $5.00 at a garage sale can "win"; but
it's a pretty pointless comparison.

> > Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:
>
> <snip over-zealous rantings about windows security>
>
> We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to
> date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is
> generally enough for most people.
>
[snip]

No, it isn't. Not even close. That's why *the* biggest source (by a wide
margin) of spam and virii/worms/trojans are the vast numbers of compromised
WinBoxen hung off "residential broadband" connections.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 28, 2004 8:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Ben
Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
> > "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
> > all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).
>
> Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...
>
[snip]

You "presume" wrong.

> > > If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates
> > and > installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
> > exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires,
> > as opposed to yours.
>
> OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
> Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend
> everybody switches over to Linux.
>
[snip]

Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately,
relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are
willing to make the effort to try.

> You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
> updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer".
[snip]

No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying.

> You still
> get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
> control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.
>
[snip]

I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately.

> > > Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
> > > multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
> > [snip]
> >
> > In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
> > black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
> > applications and drivers one happens to need/use.
>
> Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things
> like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of
> many problems on Win9x.
>
[snip]

It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all
evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many
of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target
those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example:

<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04...;


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 28, 2004 8:39:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
> question)
>
[snip]

None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.

> > If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
> > place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
> > be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.
>
> Yea, Highly possible that one..
> Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
> games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
> explanation)..
[snip]

Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.

> Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
> registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
> It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
> or really run ANY server..
>
[snip]

All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.

Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 30, 2004 8:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:17:29 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Ben
Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, R
> > <R@nothere.com> wrote:
> > > (2) Western Digital Raptor
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
> > opinions...
> >
> > Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD
> > model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale,
>
> Eh? It's 36GB for like £90,
[snip]

You're quite right. After looking up the specs, I somehow slipped a decimal
point when doing the arithmetic.

> I can get a drive 4 times that size for less money.
>
[snip]

Yes, but not with anything like that level of performance.

> > while still
> > maintaining "passable" performance.
>
> Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available.
>
[snip]

Which is still only "passable", as compared to a good high-end SCSI drive;
probably less so if compared to an array.

> No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh...
>
> Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array
[snip]

I don't think so. The underlying raw mechanicals may perform similarly; but
the as-installed *system* performance will still suffer due to the extra
overhead imposed by any flavor of IDE (granted, SATA may be *somewhat* less
given to this than the older incarnations; but it's still significant).

> - in terms of price/performance.
[snip]

Well, if you sufficiently weight the comparison by price, then the
three-year-old clunker you pick up for $5.00 at a garage sale can "win"; but
it's a pretty pointless comparison.

> > Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:
>
> <snip over-zealous rantings about windows security>
>
> We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to
> date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is
> generally enough for most people.
>
[snip]

No, it isn't. Not even close. That's why *the* biggest source (by a wide
margin) of spam and virii/worms/trojans are the vast numbers of compromised
WinBoxen hung off "residential broadband" connections.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 30, 2004 8:42:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>, "Ben
Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
> > "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
> > all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).
>
> Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...
>
[snip]

You "presume" wrong.

> > > If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates
> > and > installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
> > exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires,
> > as opposed to yours.
>
> OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
> Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend
> everybody switches over to Linux.
>
[snip]

Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately,
relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are
willing to make the effort to try.

> You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
> updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer".
[snip]

No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying.

> You still
> get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
> control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.
>
[snip]

I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately.

> > > Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
> > > multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
> > [snip]
> >
> > In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
> > black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
> > applications and drivers one happens to need/use.
>
> Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things
> like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of
> many problems on Win9x.
>
[snip]

It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all
evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many
of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target
those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example:

<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04...;


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
May 30, 2004 8:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
> question)
>
[snip]

None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.

> > If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
> > place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
> > be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.
>
> Yea, Highly possible that one..
> Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
> games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
> explanation)..
[snip]

Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.

> Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
> registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
> It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
> or really run ANY server..
>
[snip]

All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.

Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
!