A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows ME » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ping Mike and Noel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 18th 10, 11:56 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_16_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 12
Default 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.




  #22  
Old March 18th 10, 03:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default 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.




  #23  
Old March 19th 10, 03:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_16_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 12
Default 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?



  #24  
Old March 19th 10, 05:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_16_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 12
Default 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


  #25  
Old March 25th 10, 03:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_16_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 12
Default 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


  #26  
Old March 25th 10, 06:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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


  #27  
Old April 9th 10, 09:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Big Monkey Man
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 3
Default 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




  #28  
Old April 9th 10, 01:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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.


  #29  
Old April 18th 10, 12:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Peter Hnnurrtner
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2
Default 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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Noel and Mike. Ben B Software & Applications 6 November 6th 05 12:54 AM
Security Settings/ActiveX Controls - PING Noel or Mike M Jan Il General 47 July 20th 05 06:07 AM
PING - Mart, Noel, Alan (and Mike) Job Software & Applications 10 February 7th 05 12:21 AM
Noel, Mike, Silj, Others : Please Help !! Arindam General 2 October 28th 04 12:25 AM
Mike M, Noel Paton, War17 wahine39 General 0 July 4th 04 12:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.