Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Data corruption when transfering across network?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
August 18, 2005 2:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yes, I know, this is an XP group and my issue revolves around Win2K....I
have posted this issue 3 times in the 2K group and am getting "NO"
answers......As XP is basically built on the same foundation as 2K I
suppose my issue may have some relation...........

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
sharing basically..........

I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......

Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
easily repaired from the original.

My router is brand new as it was on the fritz and I thought maybe that
was the prob but it's not......Any other machines I transfer to across
the network all transfer perfect files...(I do use checkers) I have 3
different HDrives on the one machine in question & copied files to each
one thinking maybe a bad partition or drive, still same problem....Even
put a different NIC card, RJ45 cable & still the same issue.........

I'm at a loss here, and my search of this issue, I suppose, is not
specific enough because I can't find an answer.

To also add.....It is definately an operating system issue as I had
booted to my other 3 OS's on the same machine in question and all files
transferred perfectly.......That's 2 XP's & 1 2K......The install in
question is 2K on my 1st partition.......All machines on my network are
running Win2K SP4 with all the latest updates BTW.......

Thanks for any help..........
August 18, 2005 2:37:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

These 2 links might be of interest.
http://bink.nu/Article884.bink
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1415234,00.asp
--

"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:9F0Ne.139750$Rc.12147@fe63.usenetserver.com...
>
>
> Yes, I know, this is an XP group and my issue revolves around Win2K....I
> have posted this issue 3 times in the 2K group and am getting "NO"
> answers......As XP is basically built on the same foundation as 2K I
> suppose my issue may have some relation...........
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
> sharing basically..........
>
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:25:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <9F0Ne.139750$Rc.12147@fe63.usenetserver.com>,
ByTor@snowdog.com says...
>
>
> Yes, I know, this is an XP group and my issue revolves around Win2K....I
> have posted this issue 3 times in the 2K group and am getting "NO"
> answers......As XP is basically built on the same foundation as 2K I
> suppose my issue may have some relation...........
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
> sharing basically..........
>
> I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......
>
> Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
> particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
> only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
> size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
> ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
> blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
> few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
> easily repaired from the original.
>
> My router is brand new as it was on the fritz and I thought maybe that
> was the prob but it's not......Any other machines I transfer to across
> the network all transfer perfect files...(I do use checkers) I have 3
> different HDrives on the one machine in question & copied files to each
> one thinking maybe a bad partition or drive, still same problem....Even
> put a different NIC card, RJ45 cable & still the same issue.........
>
> I'm at a loss here, and my search of this issue, I suppose, is not
> specific enough because I can't find an answer.
>
> To also add.....It is definately an operating system issue as I had
> booted to my other 3 OS's on the same machine in question and all files
> transferred perfectly.......That's 2 XP's & 1 2K......The install in
> question is 2K on my 1st partition.......All machines on my network are
> running Win2K SP4 with all the latest updates BTW.......
>
> Thanks for any help..........

I had a problem like this and after trying new switches, new cables,
etc.. it turned out that the NIC on the motherboard was defective.
Installed a new NIC on the card and it worked fine after that.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Related resources
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:15 -0400, ByTor wrote:

>I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
>sharing basically..........

>I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......

>Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
>particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
>only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
>size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
>ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
>blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
>few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
>easily repaired from the original.

I'd be thinking in terms of Ethernet rules, such as maximum cable
lengths or number of connections between systems, etc. A too-long
(either length, or hops) linkage might cause propagation delays to the
point that Ethernet collision detection may fail - i.e. the test for
this sees no collision, data transmit begins, but meantine something
else "too far away" has also started transmission.

If it were only .EXE that were affected, I'd suspect a generic code
infector such as CIH that's invalidating contents of self-extractors.



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
August 20, 2005 7:19:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <o7beg1d5amr23vhl2tuu4m9ifnnqkvbc1i@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:15 -0400, ByTor wrote:
>
> >I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
> >sharing basically..........
>
> >I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......
>
> >Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
> >particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
> >only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
> >size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
> >ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
> >blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
> >few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
> >easily repaired from the original.
>
> I'd be thinking in terms of Ethernet rules, such as maximum cable
> lengths or number of connections between systems, etc. A too-long
> (either length, or hops) linkage might cause propagation delays to the
> point that Ethernet collision detection may fail - i.e. the test for
> this sees no collision, data transmit begins, but meantine something
> else "too far away" has also started transmission.

Strange how my other 3 OS's on the same machine recieve data
perfectly...Thank you for taking the time to suggest an issue, I will
furthur research what you are pointing out......Thank You.

>
> If it were only .EXE that were affected, I'd suspect a generic code
> infector such as CIH that's invalidating contents of self-extractors.

Possible...........Thanks again.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:40:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:05 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:15 -0400, ByTor wrote:

>> >I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
>> >sharing basically..........

>> >I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......

>> >Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
>> >particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
>> >only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
>> >size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
>> >ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
>> >blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
>> >few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
>> >easily repaired from the original.

>> I'd be thinking in terms of Ethernet rules, such as maximum cable
>> lengths or number of connections between systems, etc. A too-long
>> (either length, or hops) linkage might cause propagation delays to the
>> point that Ethernet collision detection may fail - i.e. the test for
>> this sees no collision, data transmit begins, but meantine something
>> else "too far away" has also started transmission.

>Strange how my other 3 OS's on the same machine recieve data
>perfectly...Thank you for taking the time to suggest an issue, I will
>furthur research what you are pointing out......Thank You.

If the same hardware gives different results with different OSs, then
one of a few issues suggest themselves...
- flaky drivers for that particular OS
- hardware is "driven harder" within that particular OS
- that particular OS is infected
- the loading differs with the test (e.g. testing with fewer PCs)

The problem may also not be within the networking kit, e.g. if a
motherboard's hardware is corrupting IDE traffic, etc. I recall there
was an issue with some VIA chipsets corrupting the tail end of bulk
IDE transfers, and there can also be load-sensitive issues related to
things like failing mobo caps.

Also, check that the LAN cables aren't running next to noisy mains
leads etc. though that I would erxpect to affect all OSs equally.

>> If it were only .EXE that were affected, I'd suspect a generic code
>> infector such as CIH that's invalidating contents of self-extractors.

>Possible...........Thanks again.

I wouldn't expect a code infector corrupt big .AVI files, though.

Are all the PCs the same hardware?
Are they stable otherwise, e.g. on local HD-to-HD or CD-to-HD copies?
What motherboard chipsets?
Is it a hub, switch or router?
Does it help to take some PCs off the LAN at the hub/switch/router?
( I see you say "4-port router", but what is "8-port workstatrion"? )

Switches isolate packet traffic to just the lines that are relevant,
e.g. if PC1 talks to PC6, the traffic is only on lines 1 and 6. I
presume routers do the same thing for internal traffic.

In contrast, hubs just tie everything together, so that if PC1 talks
to PC6, the packet traffic is on all lines 1 - 8.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
August 21, 2005 2:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <gn4fg1lftiejfh7l965ndvdfiosjfdhdvg@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:05 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...
> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:15 -0400, ByTor wrote:
>
> >> >I have 6 computers networked in my home, no domain just plain ole'
> >> >sharing basically..........
>
> >> >I'm using a 4-port router uplinked to a 8-port workstation.......
>
> >> >Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
> >> >particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted......It appears to
> >> >only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
> >> >size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
> >> >ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
> >> >blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
> >> >few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times but were
> >> >easily repaired from the original.
>
> >> I'd be thinking in terms of Ethernet rules, such as maximum cable
> >> lengths or number of connections between systems, etc. A too-long
> >> (either length, or hops) linkage might cause propagation delays to the
> >> point that Ethernet collision detection may fail - i.e. the test for
> >> this sees no collision, data transmit begins, but meantine something
> >> else "too far away" has also started transmission.
>
> >Strange how my other 3 OS's on the same machine recieve data
> >perfectly...Thank you for taking the time to suggest an issue, I will
> >furthur research what you are pointing out......Thank You.
>
> If the same hardware gives different results with different OSs, then
> one of a few issues suggest themselves...
> - flaky drivers for that particular OS
> - hardware is "driven harder" within that particular OS
> - that particular OS is infected
> - the loading differs with the test (e.g. testing with fewer PCs)

As far as this particular Win2K install, yes, it is definately driven
harder than the remaining 3 OS's........More installs, etc.
I have 4 OS's on one drive......Win2K-WinXP-WinXP-Win2K....All in that
order on all hidden primary partitions using a boot manager.....The
first Win2K is the problematic one......The remaining three accept
transfers perfectly......Maybe a particular software I'm using? That
would be hard to isolate.
All drivers are the same in the case of the 2K's.........The XP's were a
little stupid with a few but not a major issue.

>
> The problem may also not be within the networking kit, e.g. if a
> motherboard's hardware is corrupting IDE traffic, etc. I recall there
> was an issue with some VIA chipsets corrupting the tail end of bulk
> IDE transfers, and there can also be load-sensitive issues related to
> things like failing mobo caps.

This particular board is a ASUS A7V8X-LA with VIA KM400A Chipset....It's
a Hewlett Packard A720n.........Still interesting though how the other 3
OS's are perfect...........but ya may be on to something. ;0)

>
> Also, check that the LAN cables aren't running next to noisy mains
> leads etc. though that I would erxpect to affect all OSs equally.

Agreed.........Really nothing majorily disruptive near the
cable/s....Most cable lines are also very short....One in question is
only 3ft from the router.

>
> >> If it were only .EXE that were affected, I'd suspect a generic code
> >> infector such as CIH that's invalidating contents of self-extractors.
>
> >Possible...........Thanks again.
>
> I wouldn't expect a code infector corrupt big .AVI files, though.

Makes sense.............

>
> Are all the PCs the same hardware?
> Are they stable otherwise, e.g. on local HD-to-HD or CD-to-HD copies?

No to first.....Some vary drastically but all NIC cards are 10/100's.
Way yes to second.......I don't fool around... He, He... ;0)

> What motherboard chipsets?
> Is it a hub, switch or router?
> Does it help to take some PCs off the LAN at the hub/switch/router?
> ( I see you say "4-port router", but what is "8-port workstatrion"? )
>
> Switches isolate packet traffic to just the lines that are relevant,
> e.g. if PC1 talks to PC6, the traffic is only on lines 1 and 6. I
> presume routers do the same thing for internal traffic.
>
> In contrast, hubs just tie everything together, so that if PC1 talks
> to PC6, the packet traffic is on all lines 1 - 8.

I have a Linksys BEFSR41 Router(brand new) and a Linksys EZXS88W 10/100
8-port Workgroup Switch..........My main machine here & the HP are
connected to the router ports 1 & 2.....port 4 is the uplink port to my
workstation to feed the remaining 4 machines.......
I've tried switching/removing/replacing wires in various different
configurations to no avail(and removing some puters to answer above
question).....Still boils down to the same issue....I even connected all
machines to the 8-port and still same corruption on said OS..........
I mean I can do a clean install and I'm sure it won't happen, but than
again it may and I'll just delay the inevitable with a clean
install......My main machine is an ASUS A7M266 AMD761 chipset and had
quadruple the amount of software & hardware on it and it never gave me
this kind of issue.......I wonder if it's as simple as increasing a
number in the registry as I have had an issue once long while back with
IRPStacksize being to low and giving a tranfer error, but I made sure
the numbers match a non-problematic machine............

Hey, BTW, thanks for taking the time with me on this I really appreciate
it.........Amazing that I've tackled much heavier issues than this and
can't yet figure this one.............

Thanks again...........
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:58:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:20:08 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>In article <gn4fg1lftiejfh7l965ndvdfiosjfdhdvg@4ax.com>,
>cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:05 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:15 -0400, ByTor wrote:

>> >> >Bottom line, no matter if they are connected to either devices one
>> >> >particular machine recieves tranfered data corrupted....

Ah, I missed that - you say it's always the same PC that receives data
that is corrupted? That suggests something on that PC... the data may
have been OK as it entered the LAN card, but longer be OK by the time
it hits the disk surface.

>> >> >only happen with larger files.......I've yet to actually isolate at what
>> >> >size the file is when it corrupts but I can say this, I transfer 350mb
>> >> >ea. avi files and all are corrupted on the recieving end, maybe a few
>> >> >blocks short to repair. Smaller files appear to be no problem.........A
>> >> >few smaller exe installs though were corrupted a few times

>> >> I'd be thinking in terms of Ethernet rules, such as maximum cable
>> >> lengths or number of connections between systems, etc. A too-long
>> >> (either length, or hops) linkage might cause propagation delays to the
>> >> point that Ethernet collision detection may fail - meantine something
>> >> else "too far away" has also started transmission.

>> >Strange how other 3 OS's on same machine recieve data perfectly...

>> If the same hardware gives different results with different OSs, then
>> one of a few issues suggest themselves...
>> - flaky drivers for that particular OS
>> - hardware is "driven harder" within that particular OS
>> - that particular OS is infected
>> - the loading differs with the test (e.g. testing with fewer PCs)

>As far as this particular Win2K install, yes, it is definately driven
>harder than the remaining 3 OS's........More installs, etc.

That wasn't what I was thinking of - I was thinking at a lower level
of abstraction, i.e. wires, volts and microseconds.

For example, one OS may run HDs in PIO mode, while another may run in
a faster UDMA mode. Flaky chipsets may mediate poorly between
multiple busmastering DMS devices, such as HD vs. LAN card, and that
may be driver dependent too. One OS may have a genuine CPU idle loop
that lets the processor cool down and draw less current, where another
may not - and draw enough current to cause marginally-failing
motherboard capacitors to smudge a few rise times.

Digital systems are made of analog parts, and at the analog level, all
it takes is the front edge of a square wave signal transition to take
slightly too long, and you have a bit error right there.

>I have 4 OS's on one drive......Win2K-WinXP-WinXP-Win2K....All in that
>order on all hidden primary partitions using a boot manager.....The
>first Win2K is the problematic one......The remaining three accept
>transfers perfectly......Maybe a particular software I'm using? That
>would be hard to isolate.

The first and last Win2000; are they precisely the same version, with
same drivers? Drill down to the difference between them. Can each
installation see the others' HDs? Were any installations "cloned"
from another, so that non-unique SIDs might be a problem?

Are you on the Internet while all this is going on?

Does the afflicted Win2000 have different av? Are there any
ambiguities between how other systesm see these installations, i.e.
where a remote PC may think it's dealing with installation 4 when it's
really dealing with installation 1?

Has the HD ever had any bad clusters, in any installation? Does the
AutoChk / ChkDsk history show any code files that were "fixed"? Did
the av ever have to "clean" any code files?

>All drivers are the same in the case of the 2K's.........The XP's were a
>little stupid with a few but not a major issue.

Uhh... cummer gain?

>> The problem may also not be within the networking kit, e.g. if a
>> motherboard's hardware is corrupting IDE traffic, etc. I recall there
>> was an issue with some VIA chipsets corrupting the tail end of bulk
>> IDE transfers, and there can also be load-sensitive issues related to
>> things like failing mobo caps.

>This particular board is a ASUS A7V8X-LA with VIA KM400A Chipset....

Bingo! Well, Google(KM499A corruption) seems to think so...

Obscure and unrelated smoke on the horizon:

http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-x@lists.debian.org/m...

Closer to home...

http://battleangel.org/blog/item/1200

VIA blames AMD for this one...

http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageID=3&FCat=5

<paste>

From AMD: "An issue has been identified that could result in the
corruption of video data shared between AGP The Accelerated Graphics
Port is a dedicated bus for graphics cards that enables high
performance 3D graphics capabilities on PCs. AGP bypasses the PCI bus
and directly pipelines between the main memory and graphics
controller. graphics adapters and AMD Athlon™ or AMD Duron™ family
processors, including the AMD Athlon™ MP, mobile Athlon™ 4, and AMD
Athlon™ XP processors, when running Microsoft Windows®2000
Professional, Windows®2000 Server, or Windows®2000 Advanced Server.
This issue is independent of system chipset..."

</paste>

These folks don't sound happy either...

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Apr/bch2003041101...

Is the grass greener on the other side?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2005/07/mail2.html

Gah, I'm tired of looking at this stuff :-/

>> Are all the PCs the same hardware?
>> Are they stable otherwise, e.g. on local HD-to-HD or CD-to-HD copies?

>No to first.....Some vary drastically but all NIC cards are 10/100's.
>Way yes to second.......I don't fool around... He, He... ;0)

>> What motherboard chipsets?
>> Is it a hub, switch or router?
>> Does it help to take some PCs off the LAN at the hub/switch/router?
>> ( I see you say "4-port router", but what is "8-port workstatrion"? )
>>
>> Switches isolate packet traffic to just the lines that are relevant,
>> e.g. if PC1 talks to PC6, the traffic is only on lines 1 and 6. I
>> presume routers do the same thing for internal traffic.
>>
>> In contrast, hubs just tie everything together, so that if PC1 talks
>> to PC6, the packet traffic is on all lines 1 - 8.
>
>I have a Linksys BEFSR41 Router(brand new) and a Linksys EZXS88W 10/100
>8-port Workgroup Switch...

Cool, those sound OK. How long is the longest cable run? Any cable
interconnects or damage, e.g. dog-chews, roof-rats, door-kinks?

>...My main machine here & the HP are
>connected to the router ports 1 & 2.....port 4 is the uplink port to my
>workstation to feed the remaining 4 machines.......

You could try swapping cables around, or trying PC 1 where PC 3
usually goes, etc. as brute-force way of checking cable issues.

>I've tried switching/removing/replacing wires in various different
>configurations to no avail(and removing some puters to answer above
>question).....Still boils down to the same issue....I even connected all
>machines to the 8-port and still same corruption on said OS..........

OK, pointing away from cables then. A thought: Do all these have the
LAN card in the same PCI socket? Same IRQ sharing on all systems and
all OSs? Could be a tie-breaker there.

>My main machine is an ASUS A7M266 AMD761 chipset and had
>quadruple the amount of software & hardware on it and it never gave me
>this kind of issue...

If I had to go AMD, I'd want AMD or nForce chipset. Trouble is, most
recent "AMD" chipsets have AMD shirt, VIA pants.

>Amazing that I've tackled much heavier issues than this and
>can't yet figure this one.............

When that happens, it's uaually because the fault is at an abstraction
layer or few lower than the one your logic is walking around on.

This smells like a 1-in-a-billion bit-flip flakiness to me :-(



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:21:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:07:29 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...

>> ...let's say OS A shares C:\Blob\Blah as "BLOOP" and OS B shares
>> C:\Bugaboo as "BLOOP" but read-only. All the other PC sees is
>> "BLOOP", and any session-to-session changes may ambush its
>> assumptions. It shouldn't be a factor, but it may be, given that
>> data corruption shouldn't be a factor either, and yet is.

>Interesting ya mention this.....Every HD/PT is shared on this particular
>Win2K install with "Full" permissions...

I hope you don't mean full-sharing C: from \ up, because if so, you
expose the startup axis to dropper attack. That's always a bad idea,
as are the hidden admin shares (c$ etc.) that NT is cursed with.

>Always trusted my ASUS purchases, you made a good point
>with nForce....Have to research more when I plan on building my new
>machine.....will definately seek your advice.

Because of the chipset thing, I build Intel these days. You can't
make a good mobo out of a bad chipset, and that name brand mobo
vendors make mobos out of bad chipsets tells you something about the
(non-)value of following brands there.

By approach: Pick a decent mobo chipset (because it sets the tone of
your PC's reliability and future) and make sure it's full (not Micro-)
ATX, and a decent HD (because it holds your data nads in its teeth,
and when you wait, you wait for that HD LED).

Then add RAM to taste, knowing you can add more later. I go with
onboard SVGA at first, making sure I have an SVGA slot to upgrade
later, ir add now if I'm intent on gaming.

As to processor, I don't care that much - that's not where the
reliability and stability issues come from, as a rule; just make sure
the heat sink and fan are decent. I build almost exclusively with
Celeron rather than P4, because I get better value putting the price
difference elsewhere in the system spec.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
I *am* a power user!
I have electricity bills to prove it!
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
August 23, 2005 4:21:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <f1jkg1t1aokut4dsfqsq9jtmuqpn3rg2v9@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:07:29 -0400, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) says...
>
> >> ...let's say OS A shares C:\Blob\Blah as "BLOOP" and OS B shares
> >> C:\Bugaboo as "BLOOP" but read-only. All the other PC sees is
> >> "BLOOP", and any session-to-session changes may ambush its
> >> assumptions. It shouldn't be a factor, but it may be, given that
> >> data corruption shouldn't be a factor either, and yet is.
>
> >Interesting ya mention this.....Every HD/PT is shared on this particular
> >Win2K install with "Full" permissions...
>
> I hope you don't mean full-sharing C: from \ up, because if so, you
> expose the startup axis to dropper attack. That's always a bad idea,
> as are the hidden admin shares (c$ etc.) that NT is cursed with.

I meant full permissions for my profile(Oooops).........Any other PC in
my home needs a password to access shares in my network, unless I'm
logged in under my profile.
Good point though, I guess I take a Home network a little less
serious....Every machine has a FireWall & AV, never really had any
issues though............

>
> >Always trusted my ASUS purchases, you made a good point
> >with nForce....Have to research more when I plan on building my new
> >machine.....will definately seek your advice.
>
> Because of the chipset thing, I build Intel these days. You can't
> make a good mobo out of a bad chipset, and that name brand mobo
> vendors make mobos out of bad chipsets tells you something about the
> (non-)value of following brands there.
>
> By approach: Pick a decent mobo chipset (because it sets the tone of
> your PC's reliability and future) and make sure it's full (not Micro-)
> ATX, and a decent HD (because it holds your data nads in its teeth,
> and when you wait, you wait for that HD LED).
>
> Then add RAM to taste, knowing you can add more later. I go with
> onboard SVGA at first, making sure I have an SVGA slot to upgrade
> later, ir add now if I'm intent on gaming.
>
> As to processor, I don't care that much - that's not where the
> reliability and stability issues come from, as a rule; just make sure
> the heat sink and fan are decent. I build almost exclusively with
> Celeron rather than P4, because I get better value putting the price
> difference elsewhere in the system spec.

Thanks for the advice, I will keep all your efforts & suggestions in
mind......I've always though Intel was a bad rap but you make very
steady argument about AMD's that I would have to consider..........

If I ever get this issue resolved YOU will be the first to
know.....Betcha it's something simple & way less complicated.
He, He.......... ;0)
!