packman

jdulmage, What about your Power Management options in the BIOS? And what about those that are in Windows (Power Options)?

Possibly, the recent crashes you've had have been due to interrupt clashes. Unless you've already done so, in the BIOS, set the resources so that the BIOS is in control of interrupts and PnP assignment, rather than Windows. I've always found that to be the best arrangement and consequently have never had a crash due to interrupts. I assume also that you've checked that you're using the latest BIOS. I suggest you update IE/OE to at least v5.5 after you've installed the chipset drivers, etc. You can also download that DX81NTeng.exe from Microsoft's site.

By "Internet browser and e-mail client" I meant "any update to Internet browser and e-mail client". For example, you may wish to install IE5.5 and Internet Tools, from the Windows Update site. As I'm sure you know, IE/OE 5.0 get installed intially as part of Windows. I agree that your order is more-or-less okay. The most important is to get those initial three done in the correct order: Win2K SP2 or SP3 chipset drivers You can, if you wish, download and install IE6 instead. However, the SP1 for IE6 contains a nasty bug, affecting browser windows, so if you do decide to try IE6, try to get IE6 on its own, not with SP1. The DirectX to install is DX81NTeng.exe. Am not sure what the effect of installing "e-mail client" as late as you're suggesting does. Perhaps you're meaning MS Outlook or something, which should be fine and will run alongside OE. Yeh, I'd reinstall if I were you. I'm also doing a reinstall this weekend, as I think I installed a bum DX8.1 last time around and some of my video here and there has disappeared. That DX81NTeng.exe is the proper version to use.

Are you installing Win2K, chipset drivers, and apps in the correct order? It does make a difference, you know. The suggested order is: Win2K SP2 or SP3 chipset drivers any chipset updates graphics driver and monitor Internet browser and e-mail client DX8.1NT USB2.0 then install device drivers and apps, plug-ins, etc. If you're using FAT32, you can use a Win98 floppy to get to an A prompt and, from there, reformat your root partition and so start again. Otherwise, I think you can reformat inside the Setup for Win2K. If your m/board manufacturer has already supplied the USB2.0 driver on a CD, I wouldn't bother with an extra one from Microsoft. At least, I've not found the MS one necessary.

Tobymack, I use a new QDI motherboard with SiS chipset. QDI provided me with a utility CD that had not only the chipset drivers on it but also a USB2.0 driver. Both seem to work okay with Win2K. I think Microsoft has now released a more universal USB2.0 driver for Win2K. There's certainly one available at SiS's website now but I'm not sure whether that one's specific to SiS chipsets. You don't say which chipset your motherboard uses. Also, you don't say whether you're trying to make the 1200 work with USB2.0 or with USB1.1. Also, to install Twain, I used the 'Supplement for Win2K', the description of the driver installation, which came with the scanner. This ensures the Twain gets installed properly. So, after Win2K is up and running, use that. After that, I suggest you try out the scanner by using a reliable program like Paintshop Pro or Photoshop Elements. Do remember that there are some basic configurations to do in Scanners & Cameras, in Control Panel. Don't install that other scanner or photo software you mentioned, as it might be suspect. Use known reliables, like PSPro and/or PE, at least at first. Hope this helps.

I also run an Epson Perfection 1200 on Win2K. I've been using it successfully with both SP2 and SP3. I'm using the old Twain driver 4.10E, though, which comes off the Epson software CD. Perhaps you should go back to the earlier driver you had?

It's been just over a month now since Win2K's SP3 was released. How many of you keen Win2K Pro users have installed it yet? If so, have you had any problems as a result? I'm wondering whether I should install it, myself. And how many have read what it says at: www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26698.html and have (for whatever reason) declined to install SP3? Or, when it comes to Microsoft scanning your PC for information on the applications you run and suchlike, is it a matter of just being philosophical about it and accepting that that's how things are? After all, we already seem to accept this sort of thing when we call on Windows Update site. Yeh, I'd like some feedback. Is it worth going ahead with installing SP3. My SP2, plus hotfixes, seems to work just fine.

No, the materials involved would still be too dense.

Bursar - Yup! Actually, although I've been banging on a lot about acoustics principles, it's amazing the effects that quite minute changes can make, inside a PC case. You really only find this out by experimenting on the job. Sometimes, for instance, the minor displacement of a rubber grommet can change the noise level quite significantly, not necessarily improving it and, quite often, worsening it! I think the answer in the end, when it comes to chassis-mounted fans, will be to completely mechanically decouple the fan unit from the PC casing.

To Bursar - wrong! Leaving ANY metallic connection whatsoever between the fan and the casing will cause the rotary noise to be conducted into the casing metalwork, and normally at least one screw of some sort is used for that. Grommets will make virtually no difference; they're too dense a material. I've played around with all kinds of fittings and haven't been satisfied with a single one. In the end, I've stopped using the fan (a chassis fan, not a CPU fan!). I'm currently working on an idea for a fan 'cushion' that wouldn't involve any sort of metallic or high-density connection to the PC casing.

Clutch et al, I think you've missed the important points I was making. Basically, what I was saying was that that dense bituminous automotive material will reduce only low-frequency noise (and frankly there isn't a lot of that in a PC, it's mostly mid-frequency stuff). This is why those pads were originally designed for car panels - they stop panel-boom. Foam materials, ie fairly low-density stuff, will certainly help with attenuating the mid and high-frequency noise. If you've ever seen the inside of a professional acoustics testing chamber, you'll realise that this is so. Sure, it'll help a little to add those bituminous pads, especially if you'd previously not already significantly reduced the noise by employing a quiet PSU and quiet fans but, if you've already done that (as in MY case), adding the bituminous pads won't make a jot of difference. I agree, it's all a bit of a compromise between cutting down the noise to an acceptable level and allowing the cooling to do its job. Do bear in mind that people's perception of noise varies. What's acceptable to some isn't to others, especially at low levels. For my own sins, I've got very sensitive hearing. The really neglected part of the 'quiet engineering' of PC cases is the physical mounting of all the rotary parts into the casing. It's the sound conduction of their fixings into the metalwork of the case that's one of the biggest problems and, until that's seriously addressed, there'll always be a vestige of irritating sound left.

Another thing you should carefully consider before adding any sound-deadening foam to the inside of the casing is that, by doing so, you will considerably decrease the case's ability to dispense with heat by radiation. In other words, you'll thermally insulate the inside surfaces of the case and prevent them from absorbing the excess heat generated by the CPU, memory and other heat-generating components. This is usually more of a problem with Pentium 4 and Athlon systems. Normally, the casing metalwork, especially near the top, acts as a heat dissipator. This happens by default, not especially by design, although some case manufacturers are now cottoning on to the use of lightweight aluminium cases, as they can dissipate (radiate) heat at a greater density than steel ones. I'd say: Add acoustic foam (the right kind) to the bottom and sides of the case but leave front, back and top untouched.

theelviscerator, You may well be kidding yourself about the benefit of using automotive sound-deadening pads. Okay, if you've absolutely no other sound-quietening measures employed inside the PC case, then such pads will attenuate some of the low frequency stuff, mainly the LF boom from the sidepanels, but acoustics theory shows quite clearly that these are no good for middle and HF frequencies and for much of the air-borne noise you get from a PC. I speak as a scientist/engineer and I've also discussed this with a friend of mine who's a professional air-conditioning engineer who's used proprietary padding on all manner of systems over the years. I did, in fact, try those bituminous automotive pads myself about 18 months ago and they made no difference whatsoever. They simply don't attenuate those irritating mid-frequencies. For that, you need a composite pad, of different densities.

I haven't tried it myself yet but it might well usefully attenuate the last vestige of high-frequency noise coming from the PC. The foam matting at that website doesn't look the same as that now sold by QuietPC.com. Scientifically-speaking, it's no good putting just a single layer of a foam on the case's interior. For effect, the material needs to be composite, ie layers of different density. Possibly, QuietPC.com's product is better in that respect. As it happens, I'll be personally visiting QuietPC (UK) next week and I'll be taking a look at their sound-deadening composite foam. It's more expensive, I think, than the material you've already seen advertised.

DosFreak, Would that be Audigy Player, or a different variant? Did you have to do any fiddling around to get the Audigy card to install fully, then? I ask because I'm planning a second Win2K machine right now and have bought Audigy Player in anticipation but discovered that lots of people have had install problems with it, especially on Win2K and WinXP.

There's a golden rule in PC-building and configuring and that's to install any OS service pack BEFORE you install any drivers. My advice for any system builder, therefore, is to install in this order: Win2K SP2 or SP3 Chipset drivers DX8.1 Other drivers and add-ons.

Is it a Creative Soundblaster, by any chance? There was a similar problem with Win2K/SP2, which I had. I never bothered with Creative's driver in the end; I just used the Microsoft default and it worked fine for all my particular needs. Other users of Creative soundcards have had the same problem in the past with getting Creative's Win2K soundcard driver to fully install. I think the general conclusion was that Creative's driver was - and probably still is - faulty. So, you shouldn't necessarily blame Win2K or SP3.

Ah, methinks I detect complacency. Jdulmage, you're, of course, not alone in having remained free of viruses and other nasties - but for how much longer? That's the point. Yes, we have to be thankful for Symantec, McAfee and a host of others for assisting us but I'm afraid it's a constant race between the hackers and virus generators and the organisations like Symantec, McAfee, Microsoft, etc. I personally know of several people whose machines have been hit by some of the more common viruses and you need only look at the problem pages on many websites to realise the extent of the problem. The editor of my own local community website recently had to scrap his main hard drives because, despite extensive firewalling and protection, a particularly damaging virus got through and caused hugely extensive damage. It wiped out months of work and he had to reconstruct the website virtually from scratch. Being an open, interactive community website with constant e-mail coming in, there was only so much that he could do to protect the site.

You say "It takes a thief to catch a thief". Well, sometimes that's true. However, in our everyday world (even in what we regard as UNcivilised societies), we don't tolerate thieving, do we, especially on a wide scale? For some peculiar reason, we seem to tolerate hackers and suchlike. Opinions are gradually changing, however, and more and more people are realising just how unmanageable it's all becoming. So, perhaps in not too long from now, we'll see some workable solutions to this pestilence.

Okay, Alecstaar, I agree with much of what you state but you appear to be very IDEALISTIC, rather than REALISTIC. You can't excuse these virus-generators and hackers simply because there are limited employment outlets for them. If they're so clever, they'd take up employment in some other, equally fulfilling field. But they don't; they continue to engage in what can only be described as downright criminal activity. Your vision of a world made better by the Internet will be doomed if we continue to give those types free reign. I guess, in the end, some sort of workable legislation will have to be brought in that'll unfortunately restrict us all. I mean, for a start, it might help if ISPs did a certain amount of filtering.

Some of you, with somewhat pro-hacker viewpoints, are talking illogical nonsense, in my view. No truly self-respecting virus designer or person with hacking skills would deliberately launch their proceeds on to the entire world, using us all as guinea-pigs, causing millions of dollars-worth of damage every year. If their intentions were truly sociable ones, then they'd get themselves employed by the likes of Microsoft, Symantec and so forth and could test out vulnerabilities on isolated systems and specially-designed mock-ups instead. No, there's no excuse for such people. The law needs to brought down on them in the heaviest way possible. The longer we, as an Internet community, tolerate them, the worse it'll become to eradicate them, or at least control them within sensible bounds.

:x My own view is that, in not too long from now, the virus problem will become so vast and unmanageable that something really radical will have to be done. else the Internet will simply become unusable. It doesn't help that such trifling, puny punishments are meetered out to people who are caught designing and distributing viruses. And I simply don't go along with the self-confessed virus-generating/hacking fraternity who claim they're doing society a favour. That's bull****! In my opinion, anyone other than officially employed test agents, caught generating viruses or engaged in hacking, should receive the very severest of penalties. Sling 'em in jail and throw away the key!

Thanks Clutch, for that link. It looks as though there's lots of useful information there. I've printed out all of Chapter 17; it'll make some happy bedtime reading!Hmmm. Be warned, other readers of these postings! To print all or part of Chapter 17 (which is a very full Micro$oft description of all the file systems), you need to rt-click on the first page and select Print. Printing from the Toolbar doesn't work. Do be aware that Chapter 17 comprises 41 pages of A4 (less, I'd guess, with American-sizing).

Jwl812, If you're still looking at these postings, what sizes are your partitions?

Clutch, What do you suppose a "small" partition is? 2GB? 10GB? 30GB? Mine are around 15GB each, so which is going to run faster on them, NTFS or FAT32 - and why, precisely? Let's not have waffle.