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 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RSS feed reader



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 6th 12, 04:21 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,562
Default RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote in :

Your testing looks thorough, but why do you conclude that a hosts
file works best?


Because it happens at the TCP/IP stack level - and it's a sledge hammer
when it comes to absolutely blocking your machine from being able to
contact any host of your choosing.


Ok, but bear in mind that's still a file access, and that's one of the
slowest events in any machine. A door may have an awesome lock, but it
also pays to watch the hinges.

A hosts file may also be vulnerable to attack itself, an expected target, but
I won't argue for or against the logic of that because vigilance tends to fix
all, and you're certainly vigilant.
  #12  
Old July 6th 12, 04:26 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,562
Default RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote in :

And even more - any host that you access frequently you can "hard-code"
it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you ultra-fast DNS lookups.


That helps, even when the file access time is taken into account. I've never
tried to quantify it, but on the other hand that might apply more generally,
using an IP directly in other tools.

(It seems to me that if the hosts file can be edited at will, and the edited
version when saved becomes current, that file access really might be an
issue, and might account for reports of slowness when using one. I've never
used a large one so I can't confirm that, but Proxomitron will load a list
manually into RAM, speeding accesses. I guess a hosts file will be cached,
but that might only be a consistent speed advantage if it does not have to
re-fetch it from file much).
  #13  
Old July 6th 12, 04:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,562
Default RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote in :

I've always scratched my head over the claim that a large hosts file can
bog a system down.


I can see why, as I said, but I don't know if that's even the reason others
have given. Maybe they just flooded theirs with domains and not IP's. DNS
resolution takes time, even more than file accesses.

It seems to be true that Win-XP (and higher?) have problems with large
hosts files (I think anything larger than 135 kb) and on the MVPS-hosts
web-site they say that the "DNS Server Service" running on NT-based
systems has issues (or is outright incompatible with) large hosts files
- and they recommend that the service be disabled. I really don't see
the benefit of running that service (on the XP systems that I set up at
$Dayjob) and it's one of many services that I disable.

As far as performance on a win-98 system, I have to say that I can
detect no performance degradation by having a hosts file pushing 1 mb in
size.

If DNSBench.exe is an accurate tool when it comes to measuring DNS
performace and hosts-file interference, then again the fastest servers
are operating in the 10 to 20 ms range - pretty much the theoretical
minimum for my DSL connection.



Ok, sounds fair enough. While file accesses are 'slow', context is
everything. Their speed is usually considered in the context of local API
behaviour, not network delays.
  #14  
Old July 6th 12, 04:42 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,562
Default RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote in :

On the other hand, so can huge amounts of RegEx filters in
Proxomitron, but there is a middle ground. Did you try it
and reject it? If so, why?


I've never tried proxomitron.

I find it easier and faster to edit a text file.


That can be arranged... Prox uses plain text for configs, filters, lists
etc, and you can reload all from Prox's controls when done. Worth a look, say
I..

Sometimes I will access my router's http admin interface and bring up
the out-going logs to see what hosts my browser has been talking to when
I browse any given website. I find that I can see hosts there in the
log that I can't or don't see when I look at the http source-code of the
page or site or the bottom info bar of the browser.


That's a good source of info. Could be used for host files or Prox blocklists
with equal effect. One thing Prox does well is a log window. But another is
setting bounds on its RegEx that speed things up a lot, especially in
combination with all accesses being RAM based once its filters are loaded.

I know that if I was running an out-bound firewall that I would see that
info there as well (or at least theoretically I should) but I've also
never bothered with a firewall because I see pretty much zero value in
running it full-time on any of my win-98 systems.



I haven't done exhaustive tests on LnS Firewall, but a quick look at a task
manger (ATM, Italian program by Enrico Del Fante) shows it eating less than a
basic wav player API demo, so I never begrudge it being there. If it had been
hungry and ineffective like Zone Alarm I would have. I wouldn't want too many
things running, but a couple of tools that will save me from having to
relearn other methods if I ever change the browser or FTP system are worth
having. I see it as if it were WXP with a couple of daemons (services) used,
but unlike WXP, I get to choose which ones, and am not bound to the OS
either.

Specific to LnS, I like the ability it has to learn a program's identity and
pass or block net access according to that, or prompt me if it doesn't
already know. Given that some problems are more easily solved that way, than
by determining differences between remote addresses accessed by it, it's a
powerful extra tool to have, and something a hosts file (or a Prox blocklist)
cannot do.
  #15  
Old July 6th 12, 04:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,562
Default RSS feed reader

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

I know that if I was running an out-bound firewall that I would see that
info there as well (or at least theoretically I should) but I've also
never bothered with a firewall because I see pretty much zero value in
running it full-time on any of my win-98 systems.



Sometimes (but not often) I want to see the raw packet that came in or out,
and LnS's log window lets me do that. Even if it isn't often, it's totally
cool to be able to do that amongst all else it offer, and it really does sit
there like a magic guard dog that rarely needs to eat, and never bothers me
without need. I'm all for vigilance, but I sure as hell like to delegate
that, and LnS is one I trust with it. I tried lots before I chose it, too. It
was the one that meant I didn't have to keep looking, or wondering if a
firewall was wasting my time or that of my machine.
  #16  
Old July 6th 12, 10:08 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Franc Zabkar
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,702
Default RSS feed reader

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:05:34 -0400, 98 Guy put finger to
keyboard and composed:

And even more - any host that you access frequently you can "hard-code"
it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you ultra-fast DNS lookups.


Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this slow down your browser?

For example, let's assume that a particular page at seagate.com
contains an offsite reference to nexus.ensighten.com. If the hosts
file contains "nexus.ensighten.com", then AFAICS the browser does not
need to bother with a DNS lookup. OTOH, if the hosts file contains
only numeric IP addresses, then a DNS lookup would be necessary to
resolve the domain name.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
  #17  
Old July 6th 12, 10:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why are you still using FF 2.0? You can
run FF 3.5 with KernelEx


I tried running several versions of FF 3 about 1.5 to 2 years ago and
found that when scrolling a web-page up and down that a white line would
appear across any bit-mapped images on the page where they were cut off
by the frame before being scrolled up or down.

snip

But honestly, I find that FF 2.0.0.20 works VERY WELL on 99% of the
web sites that I browse to.


I was a bit more curious about this. So are you able to order anything from
amazon.com using version 2.0? The OP seemed to suggest he couldn't, use
the FF 2.0 version, (or use it for YouTube, for that matter, which you may
not use).

I'm just curious what sites might have issues. I suppose some online
banking sites might complain, too.


  #18  
Old July 6th 12, 12:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default RSS feed reader

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Because it happens at the TCP/IP stack level


Ok, but bear in mind that's still a file access, and that's one
of the slowest events in any machine.


Do you know how fast a typical computer can load and parse a 1-mb file -
vs the time it takes to perform even a single DNS query?

But even beyond that, the HOSTS file seems to get read only once per
client application.

For example, if I open an instance of FireFox, that instance will be
using what-ever version of the hosts file that existed at the time
firefox was started. If I edit or delete the hosts file while that
instance is running, it has no effect on that instance. Firefox
continues to operate as if the original hosts file is still present.
Even if I open more tabs and browse to new sites, the pre-existing hosts
file is still in effect. If I keep this instance of FF running and open
a new instance, the new instance will behave according to what-ever
changes I've made to the hosts file.

So it seems to be that each application has it's own version of the
hosts file cached for it somewhere in memory, which is loaded at the
time the application is started.

A hosts file may also be vulnerable to attack itself,


It's been known that malware will mess with the hosts file. But that
takes us back into the realm of Win-98 vs Win-NT in terms of malware
exposure and vulnerability - a realm where win-98 has always been
inherently superior (if only because of simplicity - or because of dumb
luck and not by design).
  #19  
Old July 6th 12, 01:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default RSS feed reader

Franc Zabkar wrote:

And even more - any host that you access frequently you can
"hard-code" it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you
ultra-fast DNS lookups.


Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this slow down your browser?


No, because (as I explained in my previous post) the hosts file appears
to be cached in memory, making for very fast access.

I would argue that even if the system had to read in the entire hosts
file each and every time a DNS request was performed, that reading a 1
mb file on a typical system today is faster than performing a DNS
query. (it helps that file-caching would play a role in that).

For example, let's assume that a particular page at seagate.com
contains an offsite reference to nexus.ensighten.com. If the hosts
file contains "nexus.ensighten.com", then AFAICS the browser does
not need to bother with a DNS lookup.


The browser will always do a DNS lookup when it needs to. It doesn't
know anything about the hosts file (if it exists, or what's in it and
what's not in it, etc).

OTOH, if the hosts file contains only numeric IP addresses,
then a DNS lookup would be necessary to resolve the domain
name.


If I know that www.google.com resolves to 123.45.67.89, then if I have
this line in my hosts file:

123.45.67.88 www.google.com

Then my system would never perform an external DNS query for
www.google.com.
  #20  
Old July 6th 12, 01:27 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default RSS feed reader

Bill in Co wrote:

But honestly, I find that FF 2.0.0.20 works VERY WELL on 99% of
the web sites that I browse to.


I was a bit more curious about this. So are you able to order
anything from amazon.com using version 2.0?


Amazon.com would probably want me to order from Amazon.ca.

But I've never ordered anything from Amazon.

I have ordered on-line from Tiger Direct using FF 2 within the past
year.

The OP seemed to suggest he couldn't, use the FF 2.0 version,
(or use it for YouTube, for that matter, which you may not use).


I have no problem accessing and playing videos on youtube.com using FF
2.

I'm just curious what sites might have issues.


I have problems with Hotmail (now known as "Live Mail" for some time).
I have a few dummy / throw-away e-mail accounts on Hotmail, and a year+
ago I noticed some major problems accessing it using FF2. I'm a little
fuzzy on the details, but I can bring up the list of mail in my in-box
but maybe I couldn't view any particular e-mail (or maybe I couldn't
compose or send any new e-mail or reply to existing ones).

I have some dummy accounts on yahoo and gmail and they work just fine
with FF2.

If I recall correctly, I don't think I could get gmail's "voice call"
feature working, but I'm not sure if that's a problem with the browser
or with win-98. Voice-call allows you to call a land-line while you're
logged into your gmail account. You need a working set of speakers and
microphone (preferrably a head-set) to make the call. You need to
download and run some sort of app or add-on for this.

I suppose some online banking sites might complain, too.


I perform some on-line banking using FF2 (credit-card balance and
statement look-ups at one bank, and I "pay bills" on-line by logging
into a second bank's website).

Within the past year I've bought airline tickets and rented rental cars
using FF2.

I access several internet domain registrars (namescheap and network
solutions) to change / alter DNS records using FF2.
 




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
Data Feed inn Excel Form S1L1Y1 General 10 March 28th 08 09:45 PM
Data Feed in Excel form S1L1Y1 General 0 March 27th 08 09:19 PM
PDF Reader Dapper Dan General 19 April 11th 07 02:18 PM
RSS Reader Stan General 1 August 27th 06 10:19 PM
adding rss feed Bob General 0 June 20th 06 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.