BladeRunner

Hummm, in my experience running a mixture of PC100 & PC133 modules on a system that is only running on a FSB of 100Mhz is absolutely fine - remembering that PC133 means that the memory has been rated to run up to 133Mhz not 133Mhz only.

Hummm, lets see. 2 Options. 1. Symantec doesn't warn you as you attempt to run Speed Disc or similar. There is an issue with Win2k SP3 that requires you to have a certain version of the program, but rather than warning you it decides to run. Half way through the Speed Disc run it starts moving some files it shouldn't, your directory structure becomes corrupt, then files get deleted which the program assumed were just cross-links. Next an error message appears telling you to re-boot your system as an error has occured. On re-boot your system gives you "No OS found" and that is as far as you get. or 2. You attempt to run Speed Disc, a pop-up warning appears warning you of possible incompatability. You could run the program anyway, but you decided to check for an update which you duely download and install. Then the program runs as normal. Think I know which option I'd prefer. I'm sorry but Systemworks has never ever caused me a problem in the numerous years I've been using it. I don't have the "system monitoring" switched on however no package from within System Works is "bloated" or uses lots of memory.

Well personally I think it's a good idea that people post what fixed their problems to the above error messages. Why not try the things other people have experienced first before attempting the "remove everything" method which obviously requires a lot more messing about? Oh and I'll throw my vote at NVidia drivers too, remove old ones first, for some reason NVidia just don't seem to be able to release drivers that happily install over older ones.

Specs as below, one unit takes on average 3.5hrs. I get the odd unit that will take 4 and then again the odd one can be done in just over 2. Of course the occasional 1-5min unit (end of tape) unit turns up too.

No offense, but the inquirer is as credible as the National Enquirer..... Very true, however this story has been posted on a more credible web site too.

What motherboard are you using? Usual question, VIA based make sure you got the latest 4-in-1's. Intel based, make sure you're running the latest .inf Also make sure the card is correctly seated, if it doesn't sit totally flush it will default to 1x (I know this from experience on an old Matrox G400 Max).

Hi, Are you having problems with any CD or DVD you are attempting to run from this drive? If you are then it is possible that the drive is simply faulty, not reading CD's back correctly. Personally on the one drive I saw similar problems where nearly every single CD I tried failed to read properly I just ran a normal CD cleaning disc through the drive (Yer I know a lot of people tell you not to do that on computer CD/DVD ROM drives, but it worked for me). Now the error message "Real Player needs to download new software to play this chip" could simply be that you need the latest Real Media codecs and I've got a feeling the only way you can get the latest is to install the god-awful Real 1 player from www.real.com I say god-awful because if pops up with update notifications and the like every time you use it - I hate it to death. However if the clip you are attempting to play is a relatively new clip then you may need the very latest codecs. Have you installed any version of "Real Player" under your Win2k installation? The error message While setting up DVD-Video playback, it was found that * Subpicture will not be available during playback Well once again it sounds more and more like a codec issue, what program are you using to play back your DVD's? Have you checked that the version of the DVD player software you are using is fully Win2k compatible and that you don't need to download a patch or update? When you moved from WinNT to Win2k was this a clean install that you did or did you simply upgrade your current installation?

NAV 2002 because, well you cannot buy Nav Corporate Edition for home use, and as it uses the same engine and virus definitions is every bit as good.

My current WinXP installation is about a year old now and I'm yet to have a single crash. Before that, with Win2k, I had the odd crash in the beginning but that was due to extremely immature drivers - fixed within a month or so of Win2k's release.

So it's Microsoft's fault now that VIA could not write drivers that could be "qualified" in time for the Win2k release and not VIA's inability to write nice stable drivers that get updated nearly as regularly as NVidia drivers? Fair enough I guess, but not the way I viewed it.

Define "not working". I used to own one of those drives and had no problems with it under Windows 2000. Two things to check: Is your SCSI controller correctly installed and Win2k compatible? Have you got the latest Firmware for this drive? Win2k is very Firmware picky, I know of HP CD-RW's that simply could not be seen under Win2k until we had updated the Firmware and then it just appeared.

Are you sure it isn't just now taking longer to replicate after the SP upgrade? I can see no reason why the SP would break a feature like that, but I have realised that now I have 2 of my 6 servers on SP3 it does seem to take a lot longer for all new information to replicated around the Domain Controllers - something I hope that is fixed once all my servers are up to SP3.

THere are two very good reasons why genuine Intel motherboards do not offer overclocking options. 1. Intel motherboards are industry regarded as some of the most stable motherboards available - they simply never fail. This is because everything is kept within specification. 2. Intel chips and chipsets are designed to run at certain speeds. By overclocking a chipset or CPU you are invali[censored] the warranty on both. If somebody returns an Intel motherboard Intel like to know if it's a failure on their part of bloody stupidity on the users. Removing the ability to overclock rules out the second option.

Of course I have to recommend the unit I use TEAC CD-W540E 40x/12x/48x IDE with 8MB buffer, BURNProof, Mount Rainier Lovely piece of kit, never had a single problem with it and not too pricey either.

Technically yes, legally no. The CD Key is not your license, the license is that little piece of paper you got inside your box or the inlay card of an OEM copy - as said above, one paper Office XP license = 2 legal installations, one laptop, one desktop.

This kind of thing is always going to happen I'm afraid. With such a fierce market out there for computer components companies have to make these devices as cheap as possible. Lets consider for a second, we are now more or less at the stage where the 100GB HD's offer the best "bang for buck". As one company undercuts another so the others cut too. In the end we are going to end up with some sub-standard devices out there, it is the only way to keep costs down. Knowing this we'll see warranty lenghts drop too I'm afraid. I'd much rather pay a little more for a device from a company that is willing to support that device out of the box for three years than say save £20 and only have 1 years worth of backup.

Quote: Quote: ibm also makes a 15k drive Western digital i think was one of the first 15,000 rpm IDE drives, but it was only availible in 18 and 36g sizes. this was maybe 2 months back... i saw the nice 200g HD out, but they are like $650 canadian.!! ?? Links please. As far as I'm aware no IDE drive faster than 7200rpm exists. Experiments into faster IDE drives (IBM published some of their findings) was a heat issue and the end result was staying at 7200rpm was the only current option.

Wow, what is this, national "Loose your keys" day? http://www.ntcompatible.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22545 I'm afraid as the posts in the above link will tell you, basically speaking unless you're part of a domain where certain accounts can get your data back or you've got a backup of your keys on floppy disk then you aren't going to get that data back - tis the whole point of file encryption.

As to the ever on-going Win2k Vs WinXP argument. At home I use WinXP Professional. I treated WinXP as another SP for Win2k. It has nice features, never crashes, never requires a re-installation and nearly every single piece of software thrown at it works a treat. At work we were early adoptors of Win2k, within two months of it being available I'd moved all my users over to it - brave move, but it paid off when my support calls dropped by 3/4 in a matter of a month. I don't consider Win2k any better for the corporate environment that WinXP, it's just I cannot justify upgrading people to WinXP. If WinXP had some "killer app" built in then I might consider it, actually for remote desktop control I almost had an argument, but that wasn't enough. 2k performs excellently, very rarely crashes etc, it's just I like the few added features of WinXP for home use.

Oh god you don't know how mad you "justifed thieves" make me. Wah, wah, it's too expensive so I've got every right to steel the software. NO you haven't, for the same reason I have not got the right to walk into PC World and walk off with a GF4 video card. Just because I want one does not give me the right to take that item. Don't like the pricing of something? Then don't fucking use it, it really is that simple you know. The truth of the matter is that despite all the piracy that goes on MS have not (in real terms) increased the price of their OS's. You chck out the upgrade prices for NT4, Win2k, WinXP - they ahve been a pretty constant for years. "Why should I be forced to upgrade to OS such and such....." Oh shut the fuck up, nobody held a gun to your head and told you that you had to upgrade did they? MS are invading my privacy - then you've got nobody to blame but yourself, if you hadn't been such a thieving scum then MS wouldn't want to attempt to stop people using their software for free. Once Windows goes subscription based you'll have nobody to balme but yourselves. You want to make a stand, go and downlaod yourself a copy of Linux and use that instead. Windows too expensive? Hard fucking luck, it's called life I'm afraid and just because you cannot afford to buy the latest and greatest does not make it "funny" or "alright" to steel it. As for the original poster of this thread, go and buy it you fucking theiving scum.

I read stories like this all the time and it really does sadden me that people do just rush into things without taking proper precautions. No offence to anybody but it does always make me laugh when after something like this happens people just assume that encrypted files are really easy to get into and within minutes you'll have all your data back - kind of defeats the purpose of encryption don't you think? I have a few encrypted folders on my home WinXP machine, I have certain files that I would prefer people not to be able to get to should my PC be stolen etc. My keys are backed up onto floppy disk and this disk is locked in the safe at work. Should the worst come to the worst I know that I can re-install the OS, bring my keys home and re-import them and all my data will be nice and intact. 128bit Encryption is not meant to be broken, when you encrypt files you need to make sure you don't lock yourself out and if this means hiding some keys somewhere really safe then you must do this.

There was an update for Win98's VPN system if I remember. Not available through "Windows Update" you had to go find it. The issue revolved around security, basically we all know that Win9x is about as secure as a paper envelope in water and the Win2k servers simply wont let them in. At work I've set-up a VPN and all but one of my users has been forced over to Win2k with the exception of one "suit" who just wont upgrade and I had hell and all trouble getting him connected. Do a search around MS's site for such an update or alternatively as already recommended speak to your IT department - if they want Win98 machines to be able to VPN in then they will have the fix.

I am in full agreement with the above. I have never failed to get full support on any MS product I've had the need to call their support about. This has gone to the extent of actually having KB articles created after a problem I'd found was successfully fixed. Oh well we already know MS sucks and is bloated with bureacracy and can't get anything done in a timely manor Then I must be one of the few people who doesn't know this then. A pretty bold statement "MS Sucks" for which my only assumption is that you are a Unix engineer or similar as most IT Managers, Systems Administrators I know and have worked with always look at the best solution for any given task - At least 50% of the time that would be a Microsoft product. Most fixes for exploits and potential problems are relased by Microsoft within days. Usually by the time the "exploit" is publically known there is already a fix available.

Looking for some recommendations for web hosting companies. Initially more personal than professional (looking for me first and the company I work for is looking to move home soon too). Not really that many requirements, although all extras with ahost are gladly recieved as you never know when you might like to use them. 50MB of storage or there abouts ("unlimited" or much higher equally great). A nice high monthly bandwidth allowance and not "through the roof" prices if you go over that. E-Mail, if possible full SMTP/POP3 capabilities - many hosts get you to use your own ISP's SMTP server for sending e-mail, this can be unreliable in my case, so would like to be able to use their servers to both send & receive e-mail. If oyu have any personal experience of hosting companies I'd be pelased to hear them.

Ah, well in that case I can help you no further. I am totally against software piracy and refuse to help anybody do such things. I'm sure somebody with less ethics may be able to point you in the right direction. Sorry but I have principles.