packman

Hi, I'm in the process of going broadband, ADSL to be precise. I'll be using an external-type multi-port router-modem. Once the ADSL signal is established and I'm up and running, what will happen thereafter if I power off the router-modem, or physically disconnect the line cable? Anything undesirable? Will it re-synchronise properly when I re-connect or lose any data such as IP addresses? I don't anticipate turning off the router-modem that often but I would certainly turn off the PC on a regular basis. Would anything undesirable happen to the router-modem as a consequence of that? My understanding is that, for those people who choose to have a dynamic IP address for the router-modem, turning off the PC or the router-modem would cause the current IP to be lost and a new one issued by the ISP's server, once the router-modem/PC were powered on again. The ISP would, in any event, periodically issue a new IP address. What would happen if you were using a static IP address for the router-modem, instead (bearing in mind that many ISPs will tell you to set the router up as if getting an IP address automatically but their server in practice issuing the same IP address each time)? Would then powering off the PC, or the router-modem itself, produce any undesirable consequences?

Ross, Apparently, you only need to use any microfilters if you have a phone, fax machine or other telecomms bit of kit plugged into any of the phone sockets in the house - and you plug in the filter at the socket where you use that bit of kit ONLY. So, just to make it clear, THAT'S what I'm saying. Thus, if you use a mobile-phone and don't bother with a standard plug-in phone, there should be no need to install any filters. ADSL tones and telephone speech signals do, of course, operate at quite different frequencies but they can both appear on the line at the same time if you have a telephone plugged in. This, in itself, isn't problematical but what is problematical is components of the ADSL signal reaching any non-ADSL bit of kit that might be plugged in, such as the telephone. The latter would tend to get crackling noises coming through. The filter is there to block that kind of interference; the filter doesn't in any way modify the signals on the line itself, it merely blocks components of the ADSL signal from reaching the telephone. I've heard of wide variations in effectiveness of these filters, though, and I suspect that some filters are better than others. Also, crackling noises on the line can often be there already (regardless of the line being ADSL'd), from general electrical noise being picked up on the line between the exchange and the house (from crosstalk between other pairs of wires, interference from power cables, etc). The further away you're situated from the exchange, the more likely you are to get noise on the line. It seems that, in your case, your line is relatively clean and your filters work well.

Ross, BT themselves might offer that 'outside box' service, but an ISP-affiliated-to-BT would not. The user would have to pay for its installation, I suspect. The purpose of each microfilter is two-fold, as I understand it. First-and-foremost, to buffer the speech signal from the ADSL signal and, second, to prevent spurious electrical noise (spikes and other disturbances) on the line from getting through to the phone. Presumably, more noise can ensue from an ADSL-enabled line than otherwise? It seems to me that the requirement will be particularly stringent where the user is situated a long way from the local exchange. Note that the ADSL line itself does not require, nor should it have, filtering. In MY case, I AM a long way from the exchange and it remains to be seen if both my modem and my telephone can be successfully used on the same line. I've organised the telephone wiring in the house to be as near-ideal as possible.

Thanks, Scintex (and theefool). As a final query, have you any experience of how well the little plug-in ADSL microfilters work? What I'm getting at is do they truly enable a telephone to still be plugged into the line and used, or is there always some resultant diminution of audio quality on the phone? I ask because a friend on the other side of town recently moved across to ADSL broadband and she found that the microfilters she used (allegedly, good-quality ones) were all but useless; trying to use the Internet and the phone at the same time was impossible and she had to abandon the idea of using a plug-in phone, in the end. Judging by what she's told me, she did understand the rules about using microfilters in the various phone outlets in the house.

Presumably, if I turn off the PC (only the PC), the Internet connection will remain? Or will it?

Hi, now here's something to investigate, especially those of you with TFT monitors and running Windows 2000. Have a close look at the Taskbar at the bottom of the screen. Okay, if you haven't configured Windows to make the Taskbar disappear when you're not using it, do so, by putting the mousepointer into the Taskbar, right-clicking, selecting Properties and then checking Auto Hide. Now, when you allow the Taskbar to disappear, does it in fact TOTALLY disappear, or do you still see about half-a-millimetre of it (ie. the top edge of it)? I've recently invested in a new TFT monitor and that's precisely what I see, whereas with my old CRT monitor, I could of course adjust the 'raster' to make it completely disappear when I wanted. But TFT 'rasters' are supposed to be fixed and super-accurate and certainly the display test suite that I've run has returned 100% results for the display's geometry. And yet I see that half-a-millimetre of the Taskbar. So, perhaps Microsoft always intended that the very top edge of the Taskbar should still remain visible, when the Taskbar is meant to be hidden? Annoying, that.

You say "Of course it was always meant to be visible......". Well, actually, on my CRT monitor I used to tweak the vertical amplification to just take the top edge out of sight, when the Taskbar was meant to be hidden, and that didn't affect the efficacy of the way in which the mouse movement rertrieved and re-hid the Taskbar. So, I strongly suspect that the leaving of the top edge is only for some ill-thought-out users' purpose, nothing else. It's a pity that the top edge remains on a TFT, because (particularly on a large TFT) it spoils the 'grandeur' of the display.

I'm thinking about swapping from dial-up to ADSL broadband. Which brand/models of external ADSL router-modems are most recommended? I'm after a 4-port wired version (ie not wireless), with built-in firewall. I've already briefly looked at the following:- Netgear DG834 DLink DI-604 Billion (Solwise) BIPAC-5100 I want something that's easy to configure and can accommodate ADSL speeds of at least 4M bits/sec. Just how good are the above three? Are they a bit long in the tooth now, or perhaps that doesn't matter? Can you point me to some other good ones, in the price range £40 - £60 ($70 - $110)? What about comparative reviews; are there any published on the Internet?

Thanks, y'all.

Alecstaar, I ( and I guess) Scintex take your points on board, obviously. Unlike the legal situation that exists in the States, in the UK, disputes of this sort are handled in a much more low-key way. Going to court over such a relatively small amount of money involved simply wouldn't happen. The best one could hope for, in the UK, is to either get a solicitor (attorney) to write a warning notice to the offender, or to take the offender to the Small Claims Court. In either case, it means the plaintiff spending money, again perhaps more than they'd get back from winning the case. It'd rarely even go this far, though. As often as not, a better route is to get a TV consumers programme to expose the fraud. But the TV company will only do it if enough victims write in. In the case of Tiscali customers, my impression is that they don't bother and just let Tiscali get away with it.

Glad to be of some small help, Scintex. BTW, is that 'Business 500' you're on, with Tiscali, or is it an earlier 'domestic' broadband account? It might be that Tiscali regards only their Business range of DSL packages as worth supporting and perhaps they let everything else go to the wall. That's the impression I get, anyway, rightly or wrongly. I think it was only relatively recently that Tiscali shifted a lot of its so-called customer support to call centres in India. Judging by what's happened with countless other IT organisations when they've done that, that's real bad, as the support staff there are usually woefully inadequate and only give answers that their supervisors approve, anyway.

Scintex, I also meant to give you Ofcom's tel no: 020-7981-3040 or 0845-456-3000. I assume you're in the UK somewhere. You could at least complain to Ofcom in the first instance. DON'T rant and rave, though; keep everything succinct. Ofcom won't be able to help you directly, but they WILL log your complaint. If they get enough complaints about Tiscali, perhaps something in the end will be done about it, in a more universal way.

Scintex, I share your immense frustration with Tiscali, but phoning them up and playing games with them isn't likely to get you anywhere. One of the annoying things that UK customers of theirs have to endure is that you have to be in dispute with them for at least 12 weeks before Ofcom will even talk to you about it. When it comes to the wire, anyway, Ofcom can only intervene over very restricted issues. I assume you're hailing from somewhere in the UK and it might be worth you phoning Otelo, the ISP Arbitration Service, on 0845-0501614. You'll be joining a long phone queue, though. You could otherwise try e-mailing enquiries@otelo.org.uk and BRIEFLY explaining your problem with Tiscali. I cannot guarantee you'll get any real help from Otelo by e-mail, though. I'm trying that route, myself. Yes, my old LineOne dial-up account with Tiscali ended up costing me around £18 per month, so I simply HAD to quit that account, and I could only ever get between 32k and 40K bits/sec, anyway. The cheaper dial-up I'm now on, with Tiscali (I couldn't afford to swap to any other ISP as I'm living on a very small pension these days), is much the same except that Tiscali frequently drop the line. I think I'll have to leave them completely soon, but I dread the day, as they'll be up to their usual tricks, I'm sure.

Scintex, I fully concur with you. Yes, matters with Tiscali certainly did go downhill after about 2002. They weren't particularly good BEFORE that, mind you. But, yes, it was around 2002 that Tiscali bought out a number of smaller ISPs in Europe, including LineOne, the one I used to be with, on dial-up. I was able to stay with a LineOne address but in essence I was now signed up with Tiscali. I'm currently having major problems with Tiscali, with them trying (it seems) to defraud me and many others. They are deliberately not closing their billing when customers leave them. They've even taken it to the point where they've instructed bailiffs to recover money or goods from past customers, even though the accounts were closed way back. I myself closed my LineOne Surftime joint account with them last October but have been given the run-around by them ever since. They publish account cancellation guides at their website which are totally inoperable, they don't respond positively to e-mails on the subject, and they make every attempt to make you phone them on premium-rate phonelines, to try to get your account sorted. I've also written to them by snailmail several times but they say one thing and do (or rather, don't do) another. For example, I had a letter of reply from them dated 2nd Feb 2005, where they state that they apologise and will immediately cancel the continued billing via British Telecom (BT) and also remit me a cheque. They state they'll do this within 28 days. It's now 3rd March and they've done no such thing. And I can't even phone BT about it, as all lines to BT's customer service are apparently permanently busy, day after day. My Surftime account was linked with BT - part of what I paid went to BT, the other part to Tiscali, with the two parts appearing on my quarterly BT bill. But Tiscali are still billing me every quarter. They also owe me some money, from me having quit only one third way through a quarter. I've talked to BT about this many times in past months but BT maintain that they cannot remove Tiscali's billing unless Tiscali want to. I mean, that's ludicrous, isn't it? However, I'm stuck with that situation. If you look at some of the archived ISP complaints from the last year or two on www.ispreview.co.uk, you'll see that there are many complaints of my and your kind about Tiscali. Some ex-Tiscali customers in the UK have had to resort to getting solicitors involved or attempting to get help from Ofcom. Actually, Tiscali has been voted by users of ISPReview as the worst ISP in every category for the last few years. I'm seeking legal advice, myself, at present. Frankly, I cannot see how an ISP could have sunk to these depths. I cannot see that, by appearing to be either unethical or so incompetent, that Tiscali can ever hope to gain anything. Sure, they can earn interest on ex-customers' money while the disputes continue but, in the end, they'll be shown up for what they are. Certainly, I'd never recommend anyone signing up with Tiscali. Doing that in the first instance might be easy but leaving them is a veritable nightmare. It seems that, especially in the UK, we have no safeguards against this kind of thing.

Are there product activation problems with NIS2005? Can anyone report from personal experience? With the release of NIS2005, Symantec have apparently required proper online registration of the product, whereby a validation/activation code is issued by the Symantec server and, when inserted into the program, finally enables it. But I've read on various on-descript forums that some users have been having dire problems, with the activation code not in fact activating the program. Given that NIS2005 costs a whacking £50, that just ain't on! On the other hand, the activation problem might possibly be related to other applications running on people's machines. But then, surely NIS2005 should activate and run irrespective of that!?

Can somebody throw some light on "Generic Process for Win32 Services", which pops up as a permittable process with Internet access in software firewalls. I'm currently contemplating switching from Norton Internet Security to Zone Alarm and I had desperate problems with that process in the Norton product. The default settings in the firewall for "Generic Process ....." are usually 'all channels permitted' but, certainly in Win2K, as soon as you then try to access the Internet, an "svchost.exe" error is generated and reported onscreen. The program is then terminated. If you manually configure the process to be non-permitted and you then access the Internet, a number of viruses are let in (usually Trojans). Blocking the process also seems to affect the downloading of files from certain websites. This was a major problem in Norton and could be solved only by complete non-permitting of the process from the very start. If once the svchost error is flagged, you've little option but to re-format. Does anyone have any experience of this, especially with Zone Alarm, and can suggest a way of avoiding the problem whilst still allowing standard Internet access? Is this a problem that's unique to Win2K, or just unique to the Norton firewall?

I'm thinking of getting Norton Internet Security 2005 (full version) and installing it on a more-or-less virgin system (Win2KSP4). But does NIS2005 cause more problems than it's supposed to solve? I've seen varying opinions - the 'professionals' say that it's stable and doesn't mess up other apps, provided you install it properly, ie with ALL background programs stopped. But many users still maintain that NIS2005 is a nasty piece of bloated software and should be avoided at all costs. Who's right about this? Please understand that the NIS2005 to which I'm referring is not the Norton standalone firewall but is instead the firewall plus the antivirus software, ie it's the integrated package. Doubtless, many ex-users will criticise it heavily but I suspect that, in many if not most cases, the installation has been attempted incorrectly. Could one or two of you who've succeeded with this edition of NIS post your comments here, please? What were the circumstances of the install?

There's one particular thing I'm worried about, with all firewalls of the type we're considering - a process that pops up initially called "Generic Process for Win32 Services". I've found that, under Win2K, if you enable that process to access the Internet, an "svchost.exe" error gets generated repeatedly thereafter and, subsequently, various viruses are let in. I get the impression that all software firewalls, Zone Alarm Free Edition included, enable this process by default, although you can change it manually. Every time I've enabled "Generic Process for Win32 Services" on my Win2K machine, I've got that hosting error message thereafter, every time I access the Internet (in the error message, Windows asks for the program to be immediately ended). I've always had to re-format, to get rid of it and, on at least one occasion, two viruses were let in by this process being enabled. So, what's the default setting for this in Zone Alarm? If this is an error condition peculiar to Win2K, how do I correct it?

A big thankyou to you all for the great advice. BTW, I'm not a complete novice to firewalls and antivirus. I've some years of experience with using the Norton Internet Security combined package. It's just that the latest versions of Norton security products are so buggy, by all accounts - and they're expensive! Thus, I'm planning to start with a clean sheet and to perhaps use a freebie firewall and a freebie antivirus client instead. I've just been studying AVG7 Free Version. Am I right in thinking that this is purely an antivirus program and that it has no element at all of firewalling? Would it be okay for me to use Zone Alarm Free Version alongside AVG7? Apparently, if you use Zone Alarm Pro version alongside AVG7, you have to disable the firewalling in Zone Alarm Pro, for inbound and outbound e-mails, otherwise there's a conflict. I'm wondering whether you need to do the same for Zone Alarm Free Version. Anyone know? One of the problem's I'll have when initially logging on to get the updates is that my machine is being constantly pinged by a remote scanner (Sokets de Trois). Around every 10 mins or so. The first updates will be many and will take a long time to download, as I'm on a 56K connection. Thus, my machine will be vulnerable during that phase. I can't see any way of protecting 100% against that.

PeterH, Thanks for the reply. You say you're now using Zone Alarm. That's interesting because many a good word has been published about Zone Alarm Free Version, on the Net and elsewhere. I've even been looking at the Zone Alarm website myself just recently. Any idea as to whether downloading Zone Alarm Free Version puts it straight into the system software, or does it put it on the Desktop as an .exe first of all? AVG7 Free Version is also said to be a quite good antivirus program, though as far as I can gather it has no controls for cookies, Javascript or Active X. Any comment? And do you think AVG7 would run comfortably alongside Zone Alarm? Referring to NIS, what did you mean by "When you set it up, you need to run .............network software"? (I'm not running a network; it's a standalone machine).

I've just re-formatted and reinstalled all my OS and core apps. I normally use Ghost 2003 to backup all the core stuff in my root partition but, this time, instead of using a number of CD-RWs for that backup, I decided to use a DVD+RW instead. My writer drive supports DVD+RWs, as does Ghost 2003, apparently. Because with my particular writer drive the disc gets prematurely ejected before a subsequent integrity check on the backup data can be automatically performed, I opted to do this check via a separate operation. Ghost caters for this. The check proceeded (in PC-DOS, of course) but, at the end (while still in PC-DOS), Ghost flashed up a message inviting me to either place another disc in the drive and pressing OK, or to browse to somewhere else (DOS-type structure), or to Cancel. Well, I required none of these, as my backup had only been 3GB and had taken up only about half the DVD. I tried one or two of these options but, in every case, the procedure failed and Ghost of course then rebooted back into Windows. Although the DVD is, in all probability, perfectly fine (the log said the backup had been successful), the integrity check therefore failed and I'm left with not knowing the real integrity of the data on that backup. Has anyone else met this problem and, if so, have you found a solution to it? My edition of Ghost has been fully updated with the latest downloads from Symantec. My OS is Win2kSP4. The writer is an NEC1100A. I've had the writer for about 3 years and it's worked fine for pretty well everything. These 'manual'integrity checks, in Ghost, have hitherto worked fine with a batch of CD-RWs.

In furtherance to what I've written above, I've subsequently run Ghost Explorer on the supposed image file on the DVD. Ghost Explorer is provided in this and later versions, as I understand it, and gives a presentation rather like Windows Explorer. It's just as well that I did, as the contents were: CDR00001.GHO CDR00002.GHO and attempting to open either of these produced absolutely nothing. Normally, CDR00001.GHO, etc are the names that Ghost gives to successive spanned backups, before the user assigns actual filenames. I know this from past experience with CD-RWs. To find two in this instance is a little weird, as all of the uncompressed core software would fit on to about half the DVD surface, so it wouldn't require any spanning. There is, I seem to recall, a 2GB limit of some sort on file sizes in Ghost but the alternative backup file that I've put into a reserved HD partition shows a file size of 1.6GB (apparently), when looked at with Ghost Explorer. Could it be that the 12 minutes that Ghost spent in PC-DOS apparently writing the image on the DVD disc was, in fact, a disc formatting sequence, and that perhaps the two above 'files' are two formatted zones? If so, why TWO zones? And, if so, where would I go from here? Repeat the imaging exercise, on that same DVD?

My answer is two periods - the 1920s and the 1950s - with the 20s just having the edge. I was a sub-teenager in the 1950s. I hail from the UK and in the 1950s life was pretty simple and families were still recovering from war rationing. However, compared to the huge materialism of today, we were happier beings, I believe. I'd have loved to have lived in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s - but in the States, not the UK. Why? Well, because these days my musical interests revolve around jazz and in those decades there were great things going on in America. It's strange, isn't it, how music seems to play such an important part in our lives? Of course, medicine was not as advanced in those decades as today and I guess that that would be one of the downsides but, then again, diseases such as AIDs and problems such as widespread obesity didn't exist.

Detecting spyware is one thing, but sorting the good from the bad and eliminating the latter is altogether a different matter. The problem is massive and I've yet to find any software that doesn't require rather blind judgements by the user from time to time and which doesn't ultimately end up corrupting the Registry.

Here's just one of the many websites on the La Palma (Canary Islands) potential tsunami: http://armageddononline.tripod.com/tsunami.htm