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
  #1  
Old February 21st 10, 05:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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#


  #2  
Old February 21st 10, 06:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Noel Paton[_3_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 229
Default 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#


  #3  
Old February 21st 10, 06:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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

  #4  
Old February 21st 10, 07:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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#



  #5  
Old February 21st 10, 09:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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.


  #6  
Old March 16th 10, 11:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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




  #7  
Old March 16th 10, 12:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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



  #8  
Old March 16th 10, 12:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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.


  #9  
Old March 16th 10, 01:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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.


  #10  
Old March 16th 10, 06:04 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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.



 




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 03:11 AM.


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