|
|
ping Mike and Noel
The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the
others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
ping Mike and Noel
....probably, as you suggested, the number of links (and what to) hit a sore
spot on MS's posterior. Interesting that nowhere on The Register in those links was Belkin mentioned (that I saw, anyhow) - which is what I use, and tend to recommend. This could either because nobody's looked, or nobody's found (or that Belkin don't custom-build for ISP's). Linksys is of course now part of the all-hallowed Cisco... maybe they're not so perfect after all? I've never liked the way that BT set up their routers - and I don't like the policy that too many ISP's have of sending a router that can be effectively hacked into from their servers, supposedly for updates, but potentially also for many other things including customer support - which is why I try and get people to buy and use their own routers. -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk "Shane" wrote in message ... The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane wrote:
The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: I wonder why? Surely the filters aren't taking exception to the number of link in your post. Let's see what happens if I try sending it. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# Shane, I wondered what had happened and why you didn't follow up. Reading as I do The Register and being a Be user I had already read most of the links you mention.As I think I mentioned the vast majority of the reported problems were to do with default passwords and the like but also include, as you highlight, underlying problems in the router firmware/os, primarily Linux. As to the Home Hub problem, that's the price for using BT and being suckered in by their ads. I'm still wondering who's going to pay tax on the various BT Phon and BT Openzone wi-fi connections I'm now seeing popping up based on users Home Hub installations. At anything up to £100/year I can't see BT voluntarily giving the Govt more cash and I doubt there's a single user who will do so, so this could be another of their ideas destined to be dropped in the near future. As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. Cheers, Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
Noel,
I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. Whoever I'm Posting As Today Noel Paton wrote: ...probably, as you suggested, the number of links (and what to) hit a sore spot on MS's posterior. Interesting that nowhere on The Register in those links was Belkin mentioned (that I saw, anyhow) - which is what I use, and tend to recommend. This could either because nobody's looked, or nobody's found (or that Belkin don't custom-build for ISP's). Linksys is of course now part of the all-hallowed Cisco... maybe they're not so perfect after all? I've never liked the way that BT set up their routers - and I don't like the policy that too many ISP's have of sending a router that can be effectively hacked into from their servers, supposedly for updates, but potentially also for many other things including customer support - which is why I try and get people to buy and use their own routers. Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk "Shane" wrote in message ... The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. What is important though if you intend soaking your Be connection for all it is worth is getting a router using a Broadcom chipset rather than say Conexant as the Broadcom better matches the DSLAMs used by Be for their Be/O2 network. I'm currently using a Netgear DGN2000 and prior to that an eBay sourced DG834PN which subsequently died. I've also an older DG834Gv2 as my reserve. The Netgear's are good because there is alternative firmware available including DGTeam which makes them pretty tweakable. Be's SpeedTouch 585v7 (I think) is still in its box ready to be returned whenever I decide to move on to another ISP. May I strongly recommend that when you return your router you get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office as there are too many stories of Be routers going missing when returned. The return address is also Freepost. Mike Shane wrote: Noel, I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike,
Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. Shane Mike M wrote: Shane wrote: The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: I wonder why? Surely the filters aren't taking exception to the number of link in your post. Let's see what happens if I try sending it. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# Shane, I wondered what had happened and why you didn't follow up. Reading as I do The Register and being a Be user I had already read most of the links you mention.As I think I mentioned the vast majority of the reported problems were to do with default passwords and the like but also include, as you highlight, underlying problems in the router firmware/os, primarily Linux. As to the Home Hub problem, that's the price for using BT and being suckered in by their ads. I'm still wondering who's going to pay tax on the various BT Phon and BT Openzone wi-fi connections I'm now seeing popping up based on users Home Hub installations. At anything up to £100/year I can't see BT voluntarily giving the Govt more cash and I doubt there's a single user who will do so, so this could be another of their ideas destined to be dropped in the near future. As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. Cheers, Mike __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4921 (20100306) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
ping Mike and Noel
That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem
they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. My position here is that other ISPs give you the router for more-or-less the same deal and Be come over as cheaper without making clear that you *don't* get a free router. Perhaps ISPs are increasingly loaning the router - so iow they appear to be putting prices up by stealth. So I'll have to shop around more than before. I also dislike the fact the BeValue service I'm on has come down almost half price - with a 40G limit (which I've never approached even in my heaviest internet use). I don't like having to continue paying almost twice as much. Okay that is because it is a contract. Likewise I'll be going elsewhere when the contract ends. Unless they refund the difference. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. It did seem to be the Be DNS servers. When I switched to OpenDNS it was ok for a while. But now it is just like before. I have to cycle the router off and on again. And they are not lending it to me, they are renting it to me, aren't they. I'm paying for the insert expletive here. You're paying for yours. Maybe it is less of a concern for you in the smoke with that vastly greater speed. I don't suppose it would bother me quite so much. Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, though options are limited out here. I don't care too much for the 3G alternatives. Virgin is far from satisfactory of course. We'll see. I don't want to stay in this country any longer anyway. Shane Mike M wrote: Shane, That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. What is important though if you intend soaking your Be connection for all it is worth is getting a router using a Broadcom chipset rather than say Conexant as the Broadcom better matches the DSLAMs used by Be for their Be/O2 network. I'm currently using a Netgear DGN2000 and prior to that an eBay sourced DG834PN which subsequently died. I've also an older DG834Gv2 as my reserve. The Netgear's are good because there is alternative firmware available including DGTeam which makes them pretty tweakable. Be's SpeedTouch 585v7 (I think) is still in its box ready to be returned whenever I decide to move on to another ISP. May I strongly recommend that when you return your router you get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office as there are too many stories of Be routers going missing when returned. The return address is also Freepost. Mike Shane wrote: Noel, I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4921 (20100306) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
You can only use one router/modem at a time on a single line so I can't see the problem about being asked to return a router/modem when you change supplier since the new supplier will provide another. That is assuming you aren't factoring in the second hand eBay value of the modem when deciding which ISP to use. :-) As for Be having introduced a new cheaper limited service, albeit with the same or similar name to your current service, have you tried ringing Be and asking to move to the cheaper service? You might be pleasantly surprised although it might involve starting a new 12 month contract. Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. This has nothing to do with the DNS servers you use and remember that no-one is forcing you to use the Be DNS servers just as they aren't forcing you to use one of their modems. Have you checked whether the problem is due to a modem misconfiguration? Some adsl modems have a box that needs to be checked to stop them from dropping the connection when there is no traffic. Have you raised a ticket about this and if so, what did support have to say? Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, That makes a lot of sense as you could then put the £11-12/month line rental towards the alternatives although I suspect that going "all mobile" for both voice and broadband is currently more expensive for all but the lightest of users. Mike BTW did you get my e-mail re N? Shane wrote: That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. My position here is that other ISPs give you the router for more-or-less the same deal and Be come over as cheaper without making clear that you *don't* get a free router. Perhaps ISPs are increasingly loaning the router - so iow they appear to be putting prices up by stealth. So I'll have to shop around more than before. I also dislike the fact the BeValue service I'm on has come down almost half price - with a 40G limit (which I've never approached even in my heaviest internet use). I don't like having to continue paying almost twice as much. Okay that is because it is a contract. Likewise I'll be going elsewhere when the contract ends. Unless they refund the difference. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. It did seem to be the Be DNS servers. When I switched to OpenDNS it was ok for a while. But now it is just like before. I have to cycle the router off and on again. And they are not lending it to me, they are renting it to me, aren't they. I'm paying for the insert expletive here. You're paying for yours. Maybe it is less of a concern for you in the smoke with that vastly greater speed. I don't suppose it would bother me quite so much. Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, though options are limited out here. I don't care too much for the 3G alternatives. Virgin is far from satisfactory of course. We'll see. I don't want to stay in this country any longer anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
I am a
little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. -- Mike Shane wrote: Mike, Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike,
You can only use one router/modem at a time on a single line so I can't see the problem about being asked to return a router/modem when you change supplier since the new supplier will provide another. That is assuming you aren't factoring in the second hand eBay value of the modem when deciding which ISP to use. :-) Yes. Good point. But one should still factor in the lack of a router of your very own (to have and to hold) when comparing the price of their service with that of competition who do let you keep it. Even if it is effectively worthless. There again the marketplace is changing: you no longer get the Netgear from Sky. That would have been one worth keeping to use when switching to O2/Be. In fact that has to be part of the reason Sky have stopped supplying that one, as they must have been subsidising O2/Be - a situation I find so funny I think it would have been worth going back to Sky TV in order to get the Broadband service in order to leave it 12 months later and keep the Netgear! As for Be having introduced a new cheaper limited service, albeit with the same or similar name to your current service, have you tried ringing Be and asking to move to the cheaper service? You might be pleasantly surprised although it might involve starting a new 12 month contract. Yes. I've thought of that. Apart from the fact the contract'll be up soon anyway so it's a bit late - unless they backdate it - I don't expect to be here too much longer. And their coverage is still limited, especially if I go further out into the sticks. I certainly don't want to pay for an 8Mbps service where I'd be lucky to get 2Mbps! Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. No, I'm strictly PAYG. If I don't keep forgetting not to send multiple MMS I can make a £20 voucher last a year! Happy enough with the Motorola KZR too (which just the other day coming out of Sainsbury's struck me as being a 'Communicator' - which I know supposedly they were inspired by Star Trek anyway, but they never actually felt that way before!). And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. This has nothing to do with the DNS servers you use and remember that no-one is forcing you to use the Be DNS servers just as they aren't forcing you to use one of their modems. Have you checked whether the problem is due to a modem misconfiguration? Some adsl modems have a box that needs to be checked to stop them from dropping the connection when there is no traffic. Have you raised a ticket about this and if so, what did support have to say? No, I've been right through this router. I couldn't even get it to accept a long password before updating the firmware and setting it via telnetting to it. Yes, I did raise a ticket (after having read dozens of posts from other people with the dame or related problems - and the consensus seems to be that it is the Be DNS servers). They suggested a lot of stuff I'd already done and knew couldn't be the problem. Then I found I'd omitted a command when setting the OpenDNS servers via telnet which meant that the primary server was still a Be one - and probably iirc the old one that they warned us to stop using back about November. So I ran the omitted command and had (and still do) just the two OpenDNS servers and the router immediately stopped dropping the connection. I'd leave it on, unused, all day and it would stay connected. I waited until it was clear the connection was no longer being dropped, then updated the ticket with this info and closed it. This lasted a few weeks but now the problem has returned. Also I routinely remove their remote access ID, so there should be no way they could have done anything to revert the settings. Though I'm going to go into it shortly and verify the servers again! Shane Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, That makes a lot of sense as you could then put the £11-12/month line rental towards the alternatives although I suspect that going "all mobile" for both voice and broadband is currently more expensive for all but the lightest of users. Mike BTW did you get my e-mail re N? Shane wrote: That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. My position here is that other ISPs give you the router for more-or-less the same deal and Be come over as cheaper without making clear that you *don't* get a free router. Perhaps ISPs are increasingly loaning the router - so iow they appear to be putting prices up by stealth. So I'll have to shop around more than before. I also dislike the fact the BeValue service I'm on has come down almost half price - with a 40G limit (which I've never approached even in my heaviest internet use). I don't like having to continue paying almost twice as much. Okay that is because it is a contract. Likewise I'll be going elsewhere when the contract ends. Unless they refund the difference. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. It did seem to be the Be DNS servers. When I switched to OpenDNS it was ok for a while. But now it is just like before. I have to cycle the router off and on again. And they are not lending it to me, they are renting it to me, aren't they. I'm paying for the insert expletive here. You're paying for yours. Maybe it is less of a concern for you in the smoke with that vastly greater speed. I don't suppose it would bother me quite so much. Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, though options are limited out here. I don't care too much for the 3G alternatives. Virgin is far from satisfactory of course. We'll see. I don't want to stay in this country any longer anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9
preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. Shane Mike M wrote: I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. Mike, Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider
moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. No, I'm strictly PAYG Shane, PAYG included. Make one £10 top up payment in a three month period and get £5 per month off the cost of an O2 LLU ADSL connection (O2 uses the Be network being sister companies both owned by Telefonica). Yes, I did raise a ticket (after having read dozens of posts from other people with the dame or related problems - and the consensus seems to be that it is the Be DNS servers). I'm surprised at you quoting let alone possibly believing such total rubbish. g There's no way that an ADSL line should disconnect because of a DNS failure. Are you talking about loss of synch? If so then this is a local problem possibly due to a problem with the Be DSLAM/MSAN at the exchange or due to a faulty router. DNS failure causes a loss of connectivity, but doesn't drop the line, unless the necessary details are in the local cache. Result a seemingly dead line even if connected at 24Mbps/2.3Mbps but connected nevertheless. There is one other quirk for those with a dynamic IP, and that is the relatively short TTL resulting in a disconnect and reconnect (but not line drop) every 12 or 24 hours to acquire/renew the IP address but even here the line doesn't drop the disconnect being further down the chain. I don't know which model modem you have, mine is a Speedtouch 585v7 (I think) and found it atrocious. I'd have sent it back the week it arrived other than that Be have no mechanism to handle this and even if returned still expect a modem to be returned at the end of the contract so until then it sits in its box under a bed. One of the many problems I experienced was that it would happily reset itself behind my back losing my preferred DNS settings and LAN details especially the table containing the MAC addresses of wi-fi devices to which I had granted access. And no, this wasn't due to some unknown individual logging in remotely behind my back. :-) Oh, I'm currently using a DGN2000 with stock Netgear firmware and also have a DG834PN which I used with both Netgear and DGTeam firmware. I had problems with wi-fi when using the DGTeam firmware so dropped back to using Netgear's but might give the latest DGTeam firmware a whirl - incidentally the latest DGTeam firmware apparently causes problems for some using dynamic IP addresses on O2. -- Mike Shane wrote: Mike, You can only use one router/modem at a time on a single line so I can't see the problem about being asked to return a router/modem when you change supplier since the new supplier will provide another. That is assuming you aren't factoring in the second hand eBay value of the modem when deciding which ISP to use. :-) Yes. Good point. But one should still factor in the lack of a router of your very own (to have and to hold) when comparing the price of their service with that of competition who do let you keep it. Even if it is effectively worthless. There again the marketplace is changing: you no longer get the Netgear from Sky. That would have been one worth keeping to use when switching to O2/Be. In fact that has to be part of the reason Sky have stopped supplying that one, as they must have been subsidising O2/Be - a situation I find so funny I think it would have been worth going back to Sky TV in order to get the Broadband service in order to leave it 12 months later and keep the Netgear! As for Be having introduced a new cheaper limited service, albeit with the same or similar name to your current service, have you tried ringing Be and asking to move to the cheaper service? You might be pleasantly surprised although it might involve starting a new 12 month contract. Yes. I've thought of that. Apart from the fact the contract'll be up soon anyway so it's a bit late - unless they backdate it - I don't expect to be here too much longer. And their coverage is still limited, especially if I go further out into the sticks. I certainly don't want to pay for an 8Mbps service where I'd be lucky to get 2Mbps! Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. No, I'm strictly PAYG. If I don't keep forgetting not to send multiple MMS I can make a £20 voucher last a year! Happy enough with the Motorola KZR too (which just the other day coming out of Sainsbury's struck me as being a 'Communicator' - which I know supposedly they were inspired by Star Trek anyway, but they never actually felt that way before!). And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. This has nothing to do with the DNS servers you use and remember that no-one is forcing you to use the Be DNS servers just as they aren't forcing you to use one of their modems. Have you checked whether the problem is due to a modem misconfiguration? Some adsl modems have a box that needs to be checked to stop them from dropping the connection when there is no traffic. Have you raised a ticket about this and if so, what did support have to say? No, I've been right through this router. I couldn't even get it to accept a long password before updating the firmware and setting it via telnetting to it. Yes, I did raise a ticket (after having read dozens of posts from other people with the dame or related problems - and the consensus seems to be that it is the Be DNS servers). They suggested a lot of stuff I'd already done and knew couldn't be the problem. Then I found I'd omitted a command when setting the OpenDNS servers via telnet which meant that the primary server was still a Be one - and probably iirc the old one that they warned us to stop using back about November. So I ran the omitted command and had (and still do) just the two OpenDNS servers and the router immediately stopped dropping the connection. I'd leave it on, unused, all day and it would stay connected. I waited until it was clear the connection was no longer being dropped, then updated the ticket with this info and closed it. This lasted a few weeks but now the problem has returned. Also I routinely remove their remote access ID, so there should be no way they could have done anything to revert the settings. Though I'm going to go into it shortly and verify the servers again! |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane wrote:
I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9 preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. Shane, Thanks, and no I hadn't seen that. I browsed The Register this morning and haven't looked since. Ah, checking my RSS feed (into OE), I see it was posted this p.m. I'll have a look later. I wonder what further percentage of IE users will use this as an excuse/prompt to switch to another browser. :-) I'll give the preview a whirl on a VM later. -- Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike M wrote:
Thanks, and no I hadn't seen that. I browsed The Register this morning and haven't looked since. Ah, checking my RSS feed (into OE), I see it was posted this p.m. I'll have a look later. I wonder what further percentage of IE users will use this as an excuse/prompt to switch to another browser. :-) I'll give the preview a whirl on a VM later. Darn, I've just realised I no longer have a Win 7 VM (and have never bothered with Vista VMs) so playing with IE9 may have to wait for when I'm in a better mood by which time the moon will probably have changed to blue cheese and IE10 if not 20 is MS's current offering. Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
I gave the IE9 article a quick look when it came in my RSS Feed but didn't
bother going to the links. And Shane I didn't have to return my last router when I changed back to BT last year, in fact it's still sitting in it's box among my other PC bit's and bobs and I can make a £10 top up last for months g -- Joan Archer http://crossstitcher.webs.com/ "Mike M" wrote in message ... Mike M wrote: Thanks, and no I hadn't seen that. I browsed The Register this morning and haven't looked since. Ah, checking my RSS feed (into OE), I see it was posted this p.m. I'll have a look later. I wonder what further percentage of IE users will use this as an excuse/prompt to switch to another browser. :-) I'll give the preview a whirl on a VM later. Darn, I've just realised I no longer have a Win 7 VM (and have never bothered with Vista VMs) so playing with IE9 may have to wait for when I'm in a better mood by which time the moon will probably have changed to blue cheese and IE10 if not 20 is MS's current offering. Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike M wrote:
Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. No, I'm strictly PAYG Shane, PAYG included. Make one £10 top up payment in a three month period and get £5 per month off the cost of an O2 LLU ADSL connection (O2 uses the Be network being sister companies both owned by Telefonica). I'll give that a clsoer look, Mike. Thanks for the info. Yes, I did raise a ticket (after having read dozens of posts from other people with the dame or related problems - and the consensus seems to be that it is the Be DNS servers). I'm surprised at you quoting let alone possibly believing such total rubbish. g There's no way that an ADSL line should disconnect because of a DNS failure. Are you talking about loss of synch? If so then this is a local problem possibly due to a problem with the Be DSLAM/MSAN at the exchange or due to a faulty router. DNS failure causes a loss of connectivity, but doesn't drop the line, unless the necessary details are in the local cache. Result a seemingly dead line even if connected at 24Mbps/2.3Mbps but connected nevertheless. There is one other quirk for those with a dynamic IP, and that is the relatively short TTL resulting in a disconnect and reconnect (but not line drop) every 12 or 24 hours to acquire/renew the IP address but even here the line doesn't drop the disconnect being further down the chain. Okay, that's me being imprecise. No, the line isn't dropped. It is still connected by all other appearances - at 100Mbps - but run the Repair option on the Local Area Connection and what it fails on is being unable to refresh the DNS Cache. I don't know which model modem you have, mine is a Speedtouch 585v7 (I think) and found it atrocious. That's the one! Though actually for what I need it was adequate for the first few months. First thing I did was try to change the password to something of the complexity I prefer. When that didn't work - I had to keep resetting the router back to factory spec in order to get back into it - I changed it to the longest I could get it to handle, made myself SuperUser and removed the Be remote user, and for all it's inadequacies I am still impressed at the speed I get out here on an ADSL line when there are plenty of areas actually in heavily populated, built up Gold Cupville that only get half as fast! Cor I fancy a Golden Cup about now! Used to be my favourite choc bar. I'd have sent it back the week it arrived other than that Be have no mechanism to handle this and even if returned still expect a modem to be returned at the end of the contract so until then it sits in its box under a bed. One of the many problems I experienced was that it would happily reset itself behind my back losing my preferred DNS settings and LAN details especially the table containing the MAC addresses of wi-fi devices to which I had granted access. And no, this wasn't due to some unknown individual logging in remotely behind my back. :-) Oh, I'm currently using a DGN2000 with stock Netgear firmware and also have a DG834PN which I used with both Netgear and DGTeam firmware. I had problems with wi-fi when using the DGTeam firmware so dropped back to using Netgear's but might give the latest DGTeam firmware a whirl - incidentally the latest DGTeam firmware apparently causes problems for some using dynamic IP addresses on O2. Must get a Netgear sometime. I'd be fascinated to play around with these DGTeam firmwares! Shane Mike, You can only use one router/modem at a time on a single line so I can't see the problem about being asked to return a router/modem when you change supplier since the new supplier will provide another. That is assuming you aren't factoring in the second hand eBay value of the modem when deciding which ISP to use. :-) Yes. Good point. But one should still factor in the lack of a router of your very own (to have and to hold) when comparing the price of their service with that of competition who do let you keep it. Even if it is effectively worthless. There again the marketplace is changing: you no longer get the Netgear from Sky. That would have been one worth keeping to use when switching to O2/Be. In fact that has to be part of the reason Sky have stopped supplying that one, as they must have been subsidising O2/Be - a situation I find so funny I think it would have been worth going back to Sky TV in order to get the Broadband service in order to leave it 12 months later and keep the Netgear! As for Be having introduced a new cheaper limited service, albeit with the same or similar name to your current service, have you tried ringing Be and asking to move to the cheaper service? You might be pleasantly surprised although it might involve starting a new 12 month contract. Yes. I've thought of that. Apart from the fact the contract'll be up soon anyway so it's a bit late - unless they backdate it - I don't expect to be here too much longer. And their coverage is still limited, especially if I go further out into the sticks. I certainly don't want to pay for an 8Mbps service where I'd be lucky to get 2Mbps! Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. No, I'm strictly PAYG. If I don't keep forgetting not to send multiple MMS I can make a £20 voucher last a year! Happy enough with the Motorola KZR too (which just the other day coming out of Sainsbury's struck me as being a 'Communicator' - which I know supposedly they were inspired by Star Trek anyway, but they never actually felt that way before!). And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. This has nothing to do with the DNS servers you use and remember that no-one is forcing you to use the Be DNS servers just as they aren't forcing you to use one of their modems. Have you checked whether the problem is due to a modem misconfiguration? Some adsl modems have a box that needs to be checked to stop them from dropping the connection when there is no traffic. Have you raised a ticket about this and if so, what did support have to say? No, I've been right through this router. I couldn't even get it to accept a long password before updating the firmware and setting it via telnetting to it. Yes, I did raise a ticket (after having read dozens of posts from other people with the dame or related problems - and the consensus seems to be that it is the Be DNS servers). They suggested a lot of stuff I'd already done and knew couldn't be the problem. Then I found I'd omitted a command when setting the OpenDNS servers via telnet which meant that the primary server was still a Be one - and probably iirc the old one that they warned us to stop using back about November. So I ran the omitted command and had (and still do) just the two OpenDNS servers and the router immediately stopped dropping the connection. I'd leave it on, unused, all day and it would stay connected. I waited until it was clear the connection was no longer being dropped, then updated the ticket with this info and closed it. This lasted a few weeks but now the problem has returned. Also I routinely remove their remote access ID, so there should be no way they could have done anything to revert the settings. Though I'm going to go into it shortly and verify the servers again! |
ping Mike and Noel
Joan Archer wrote:
I gave the IE9 article a quick look when it came in my RSS Feed but didn't bother going to the links. Says in the EULA you won't use it on a Live system withoout express permission from them. Not that it seems an actual browser from what I can see as just a demonstrator for some of the proposed features (too early to call them acftual features I s'pose!). And Shane I didn't have to return my last router when I changed back to BT last year, in fact it's still sitting in it's box among my What router would that be Joan? other PC bit's and bobs and I can make a £10 top up last for months g Yes, me too, but I get carried away sending pictures of cats back and forth with my sis! I forget what PAYG means, basically I think because it doesn't run out if you don't use it in 6 months or whatever it used to be in the early days. Must go watch the film! TTFN! Shane "Mike M" wrote in message ... Mike M wrote: Thanks, and no I hadn't seen that. I browsed The Register this morning and haven't looked since. Ah, checking my RSS feed (into OE), I see it was posted this p.m. I'll have a look later. I wonder what further percentage of IE users will use this as an excuse/prompt to switch to another browser. :-) I'll give the preview a whirl on a VM later. Darn, I've just realised I no longer have a Win 7 VM (and have never bothered with Vista VMs) so playing with IE9 may have to wait for when I'm in a better mood by which time the moon will probably have changed to blue cheese and IE10 if not 20 is MS's current offering. Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
"Mike M" wrote in message
... Mike M wrote: Thanks, and no I hadn't seen that. I browsed The Register this morning and haven't looked since. Ah, checking my RSS feed (into OE), I see it was posted this p.m. I'll have a look later. I wonder what further percentage of IE users will use this as an excuse/prompt to switch to another browser. :-) I'll give the preview a whirl on a VM later. Darn, I've just realised I no longer have a Win 7 VM (and have never bothered with Vista VMs) so playing with IE9 may have to wait for when I'm in a better mood by which time the moon will probably have changed to blue cheese and If it ever turns to *blue* cheese, I for one won't be going there! Shane IE10 if not 20 is MS's current offering. Mike |
ping Mike and Noel
It was an Addon ADSL Wireless Router Integrated 4 port 10/100Mbps switch
hub. The problem with it was it could only do WEP encryptment and I couldn't even get that to work on my set up, even the so called technician who installed the set up couldn't get my network secure. Mind you in the 4 years I had it running there was only ever one person who logged on who shouldn't and she lived over the road from me and was very apologetic when I told her g -- Joan Archer http://crossstitcher.webs.com/ "Shane" wrote in message ... Joan Archer wrote: What router would that be Joan? |
ping Mike and Noel
"Shane" wrote in message ... I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9 preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. I took this very partial forerunner for a brief test drive on my Vista machine after downloading it without any problems, but also no earth moving surprises. Most of it seems to be designed for developers. But it is by far not the finished product either. MS promised to keep me abreast as they go. Harry. Shane Mike M wrote: I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. Mike, Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
Did you expect problems downloading it then Harry?
As for M$, I'd have prefered a leg or a wing if I still et the stuff. Shane webster72n wrote: "Shane" wrote in message ... I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9 preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. I took this very partial forerunner for a brief test drive on my Vista machine after downloading it without any problems, but also no earth moving surprises. Most of it seems to be designed for developers. But it is by far not the finished product either. MS promised to keep me abreast as they go. Harry. Shane Mike M wrote: I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. Mike, Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
"Shane" facetious'r'.us wrote in message ... Did you expect problems downloading it then Harry? No, but with the test drive, Shane. Just wanted to let everyone know, there are no problems in running this precursor. I'm taking the leg or wing myself. H. As for M$, I'd have prefered a leg or a wing if I still et the stuff. Shane webster72n wrote: "Shane" wrote in message ... I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9 preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. I took this very partial forerunner for a brief test drive on my Vista machine after downloading it without any problems, but also no earth moving surprises. Most of it seems to be designed for developers. But it is by far not the finished product either. MS promised to keep me abreast as they go. Harry. Shane Mike M wrote: I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. Mike, Been a while! As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted IE can be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days, think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. As for running Opera due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it. No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. Interestingly, to myself at least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser vulnerability but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads. Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!). As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your PC all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a backup or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS since those who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be aware of the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters copies of my back details. In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some* out there. Probably always will be. Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in Windows alone! It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway. |
ping Mike and Noel
Yes, I recall you mentioning this before. Personally I'd bin it if it can
only do WEP. It came into this world hopelessly outdated, like a baby with a quiff! :-) Shane Joan Archer wrote: It was an Addon ADSL Wireless Router Integrated 4 port 10/100Mbps switch hub. The problem with it was it could only do WEP encryptment and I couldn't even get that to work on my set up, even the so called technician who installed the set up couldn't get my network secure. Mind you in the 4 years I had it running there was only ever one person who logged on who shouldn't and she lived over the road from me and was very apologetic when I told her g "Shane" wrote in message ... Joan Archer wrote: What router would that be Joan? |
ping Mike and Noel
FF again). However, the main source of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's an unconscious bias there. So, Mozilla have owned up to the vulnerability then! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...urity_updates/ Shane |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike,
Just to fill you in: my Be connection is remaining 'up' now. I haven't done anything (beyond verifying that the DNS servers remained the way I set them i.e. OpenDNS and *only* OpenDNS servers) but for the last few days the connection has stayed viable no matter how long I've left it unused. And just to reinterate (I'm sure I mentioned it before) every time this has been a problem I've run the quiet line test and it has been absolutely silent. Shane |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
Odd, however I have to reiterate yet again that your chosen DNS server/s has absolutely nothing to do with any stability/instability issues you might have had with your connection. You can have a perfectly stable line and no DNS server selected. All that is required is knowledge of the gateway and the IP addresses of any site to which you wish to connect. Naturally having DNS servers configured makes life a lot easier g but aren't required for a stable connection. Of course, having broken, crippled or misconfigured DNS servers leads to poor performance, lots of hangs and erratic speeds but the connection between your PC to the exchange and then to your ISP's should nevertheless remain as steady as a rock. That is until you perhaps switch on the microwave or the streetlights come on or other users that to use their systems and cross-talk in the cable bundle between you and the exchange builds up. If you think or know that your line is suffering from repeated disconnections you might want to have a look at the private Be forum as Be announced this week that they intend trialling SRA and are inviting customers to sign up to participate in the tests. [SRA = Seamless Rate Adaptation] Mike Shane facetious'r'.us wrote: Mike, Just to fill you in: my Be connection is remaining 'up' now. I haven't done anything (beyond verifying that the DNS servers remained the way I set them i.e. OpenDNS and *only* OpenDNS servers) but for the last few days the connection has stayed viable no matter how long I've left it unused. And just to reinterate (I'm sure I mentioned it before) every time this has been a problem I've run the quiet line test and it has been absolutely silent. Shane |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike,
Since this was aired here. I hadn't posted it here as I was waiting for some activity - of some description - it seeming a bit pointless if no-one is going to see it. However, as I have now reached the conclusion, for the benefit of other readers: yes, you were right, Mike, it appears to have had nothing to do with DNS servers. The router has been upstairs, at the main telecom jack, for a week and has remained active the entire time. Also rather than ditching Be I have swallowed my pride and simply switched tariffs. Basically instead of paying £13 p.m. with no traffic limit, now I'm paying £7.50 p.m. with a 40GB limit - which I will never exceed or even approach. Big Monkey Man Mike M wrote: Shane, Odd, however I have to reiterate yet again that your chosen DNS server/s has absolutely nothing to do with any stability/instability issues you might have had with your connection. You can have a perfectly stable line and no DNS server selected. All that is required is knowledge of the gateway and the IP addresses of any site to which you wish to connect. Naturally having DNS servers configured makes life a lot easier g but aren't required for a stable connection. Of course, having broken, crippled or misconfigured DNS servers leads to poor performance, lots of hangs and erratic speeds but the connection between your PC to the exchange and then to your ISP's should nevertheless remain as steady as a rock. That is until you perhaps switch on the microwave or the streetlights come on or other users that to use their systems and cross-talk in the cable bundle between you and the exchange builds up. If you think or know that your line is suffering from repeated disconnections you might want to have a look at the private Be forum as Be announced this week that they intend trialling SRA and are inviting customers to sign up to participate in the tests. [SRA = Seamless Rate Adaptation] Mike Shane facetious'r'.us wrote: Mike, Just to fill you in: my Be connection is remaining 'up' now. I haven't done anything (beyond verifying that the DNS servers remained the way I set them i.e. OpenDNS and *only* OpenDNS servers) but for the last few days the connection has stayed viable no matter how long I've left it unused. And just to reinterate (I'm sure I mentioned it before) every time this has been a problem I've run the quiet line test and it has been absolutely silent. Shane |
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
I'm so pleased to read that you seem to have tamed your connection. I was convinced your problem was somewhere between your router and the exchange with an internal wiring problem being the more likely rather than one with your ISP or the DNS servers you are using. I agree with you about the idiocy of Be There launching a new product Be Value with exactly the same name as one of their existing offerings, especially so given their failure to let customers know of the new cheaper option albeit one with download limits. Sadly Be are not alone in this respect, such bad habits seem endemic amongst service companies, not just ISPs but also electricity and gas suppliers as well. I've seen hints of further changes with Be Value from the end of the month but haven't a clue as to what these may be but it could be no more than that may just be the date when they intend implementing the Be Value download limit (currently not enabled). -- Mike Big Monkey Man wrote: Mike, Since this was aired here. I hadn't posted it here as I was waiting for some activity - of some description - it seeming a bit pointless if no-one is going to see it. However, as I have now reached the conclusion, for the benefit of other readers: yes, you were right, Mike, it appears to have had nothing to do with DNS servers. The router has been upstairs, at the main telecom jack, for a week and has remained active the entire time. Also rather than ditching Be I have swallowed my pride and simply switched tariffs. Basically instead of paying £13 p.m. with no traffic limit, now I'm paying £7.50 p.m. with a 40GB limit - which I will never exceed or even approach. |
ping Mike and Noel
Mike,
suppliers as well. I've seen hints of further changes with Be Value from the end of the month but haven't a clue as to what these may be but it could be no more than that may just be the date when they intend implementing the Be Value download limit (currently not enabled). Yes, that was the impression I got, that the download limit comes into operation a month or two from now. So, even the mitigating argument that pre-existing Be Value customers were getting unlimited downloads - regardless of whether or not that counted as value, which it obviously wouldn't to the majority whatever the tariff - it only applied to those who'd got Be Value shortly before the new tariff came out anyway. Though possibly there are users who will renew their earlier Be Value contract with no inkling of the new, close to half price deal. Shane Shane, I'm so pleased to read that you seem to have tamed your connection. I was convinced your problem was somewhere between your router and the exchange with an internal wiring problem being the more likely rather than one with your ISP or the DNS servers you are using. I agree with you about the idiocy of Be There launching a new product Be Value with exactly the same name as one of their existing offerings, especially so given their failure to let customers know of the new cheaper option albeit one with download limits. Sadly Be are not alone in this respect, such bad habits seem endemic amongst service companies, not just ISPs but also electricity and gas suppliers as well. I've seen hints of further changes with Be Value from the end of the month but haven't a clue as to what these may be but it could be no more than that may just be the date when they intend implementing the Be Value download limit (currently not enabled). Mike, Since this was aired here. I hadn't posted it here as I was waiting for some activity - of some description - it seeming a bit pointless if no-one is going to see it. However, as I have now reached the conclusion, for the benefit of other readers: yes, you were right, Mike, it appears to have had nothing to do with DNS servers. The router has been upstairs, at the main telecom jack, for a week and has remained active the entire time. Also rather than ditching Be I have swallowed my pride and simply switched tariffs. Basically instead of paying £13 p.m. with no traffic limit, now I'm paying £7.50 p.m. with a 40GB limit - which I will never exceed or even approach. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Win98Banter.com