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
  #11  
Old March 16th 10, 07:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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.



  #12  
Old March 16th 10, 08:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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!


  #13  
Old March 16th 10, 08:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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

  #14  
Old March 16th 10, 08:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default 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

  #15  
Old March 16th 10, 09:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Joan Archer[_4_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 81
Default 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


  #16  
Old March 16th 10, 11:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default 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!



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



  #18  
Old March 17th 10, 03:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_15_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 4
Default 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


  #19  
Old March 17th 10, 10:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Joan Archer[_4_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 81
Default 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?



  #20  
Old March 18th 10, 01:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default 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.



 




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 01:54 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 01:21 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 12:29 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.