clutch

Making up stuff is great (I find the covers of the "Weekly World News" funny enough) but when you pass it off to people that are learning as fact, then I take major issue with that.

I have nothing useful to contribute at the moment, other than BtVS kicks a$$.

Quote: How much? Who were you asking that question to?

Try this to get IP routing kicked off: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q230082 And then this for some routing basics in NT: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q140859 The "IPEnableRouter" bit is the same across the NT platforms from 3.1 on up from what I can tell, and you're going to need that to be able to ping across both NICs on from the client.

Did you click the link on the page? It's this one: http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q321178 So, I am guessing that it's real afterall.

Quote: I thought it was only 9x/ME that they used their own API for, & that that was the reason why the 2K/XP v. [which, IIRC, uses the MS API] of Speed Disk has less functionality? It would appear not, as Speeddisk can defrag (from what I have read) clusters over 4KB in Windows 2000. All the other guys are stuck at 4KB and below, as that is what the MS API was written for at the time. WinXP and .NET don't have these issues though provided you have an updated version of your defrag utility. Ghayes is the man around here on this topic, so if I have some of this mixed a bit, then I hope he corrects it, but so far this description has panned out for me on my systems. EDIT After scanning back a bit on this thread, it appears that SpeedDisk uses the MS API only in WinXP, and not in NT or 2K, and hence the ability to get around the 4KB limit. In either case, they can do it on all 3 while the others cannot. /EDIT

Quote: 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. OK, I think MS classifies partitions below 1 or 2GB to be "small" when using NTFS 5. As for me, I consider anything below 10GB to be small but I generally use one partition per drive whenever possible as I hate having the extra drive letters (I map network drives too), and I know that I will be deleting the partition anyway when I reinstall (I keep my stuff on servers at home and work, and if it's of long term worth I burn it to CD) my OS. So, you want faster performance? Check out the table that's on the link I posted. You will notice that at 15GB you will have 8KB clusters vs. 4KB clusters in NTFS (default formatting). Well, you could format it to 8KB, or 16KB if you like, and then have bigger tiles (and therefore less of them) to work with. However, if you go over 8KB in Win2K, the only defrag software that will work with it is Speeddisk from Norton since they wrote their own API. With some tweaking, I would imagine you could get NTFS to run even faster than FAT32 while retaining the higher security and integrity attributes that it's known for. I have a P3 550 at home running Win2K Server with a WD 120GB drive formatted into a single partition with 8KB clusters and it screams. But then again, this size wouldn't even have been supported with FAT32, and having 4 partitions for that would have sucked (plus zero security).

Wow, I guess I should have checked back a while ago, but this comparison (FAT/FAT32/NTFS) normally comes up about once every 6 months or so (we have been overdue for a while), so I'll break out one of my fav links on the subject: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevie...rt3/proch17.asp Now, here's a nice quote on it: Quote: Performance For small volumes, FAT16 or FAT32 might provide nominally faster access to files than NTFS because: The FAT structure is simpler. The FAT folder size is smaller for an equal number of files. FAT has no controls regulating whether a user can access a file or a folder; therefore, the system does not have to check that a user has access permissions to a file or folder. This advantage is minimal, however, because Windows 2000 still must determine whether the file is read-only, or whether the file is on a FAT or NTFS volume. If this doesn't help, I think I have some more links buried somewhere to help illustrate the performance a bit more, but essentially what you are looking at is a great big virtual tile floor. Now, since the tile floor (the partition) is of a fixed size, the smaller the tile you use will gain you more open spots for more tiles right? Well, on larger partitions (let's say >8GB, since that's average) FAT32 will have a much larger "cluster" (tile) size than NTFS (and less security overhead, however the MFT performance offsets most of the innate overhead anyway) on the same drive. Now, with the OS running across many more tiles to get the same job done, you very well might see a performance drop, a slight one, but one nevertheless. Now, I have not seen a performance drop, and alone with that I haven't seen any stupid chkdsk checks either at boot because of some annoying error that NTFS can't recover from (whereas I have seen that on the few FAT32 boxes I still have here that haven't been converted yet). HTH

Quote: I'm not sure whether you were including me with that, but I'm not actually an "IT person" like you, Clutch, etc - I'm just what I guess you americans would call a natural-born-nerd. Wow, I didn't even write the original post Alien was referencing, yet I was included in the response. Damn, I rock.

I'd go for that.

Swell.

I guess that would depend on what you need and consider to be bloated. I used ISA server a couple of times and really liked it, but you only see the benefit of it on larger networks (especially with the integrated AD management of many servers at once) whereas the simple RRAS of Win2K server works great on smaller LANs. I haven't messed with the RRAS/ICS functions of .NET server yet as I just don't have the time to load the betas at the moment (nor have I had a need to try either of those functions out for a while now).

Quote: By the way, Ontrack is one of the larger data recovery services if you haven't heard of them Of course I've heard of them, maybe they should stick to what they do really well and that would be data recovery. Does this mean that you don't care for OnTrack's AV software, fanboy? I haven't used it, and while I have heard of them I haven't had a need for their software/services. Are their any other AV products that you would run (provided the Symantec's HQ was blown up by my deathray...err, some "accident" happened)? Signing off from my base modeled after the Cobra Terrordome, clutch

My Nortwood 1.6GHz is running at 2.4GHz with a stock unit as well, it's just *that* good of a design. I also used Artic Silver for my compound on this unit though, and that always helps. If you want more data on all kinds of coolers, check out Dan's Data: http://www.dansdata.com/coolercomp.htm This is his ultra-mega cooler comparison that he constantly updates.

Quote: Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins? Ah, but they aren't Microsoft are they? If Microsoft decide to write their web site so that it only displays correctly in their own product, IE they they are "Evil Spawn" & "A monopoly who must be crushed" However go to a site that forces you to use Flash and they are just cool and using nice web features that all should use. It's only a valid argument if MS are at fault, or so it would appear. Dear Lord, that's it! You nailed it bud, and all along I thought someone was searching for validity in these arguments, but now I know the truth. DAMN MS FOR MAKING THE PC PLATFORM SO POPULAR! DAMN THEM ALL!!! ;(

Quote: mine sounds like a harrier idleing in the front yard. LOL, nice.

I remembered hearing about that one a while ago, but we were stripping about *.vbs files and the like at the server back then, so it wasn't a big deal. But it works, so that's all that matters.

Quote: Virus's do not effect Outlook so long as you keep your anti-virus definitions up to date. Been an Outlook user since Outlook 97, very happy with the program and even more so in it's latest form, Outlook XP. Never been hit with an Outlook virus, Norton takes care of that for me. Wasn't a big fan of Outlook 97 since it was kinda slow (and I wasn't using Exchange at the time, so there was no need) but I have been a big fan of it since version 98. If you just keep on top of AV updates (and if you're really paranoid, use the updated security patches to block certain attachments) you should be OK as stated earlier.

Wow, I don't recall MS coming in and forcing me to go their (crappy) website or use their browser. I have been fiddling with Mozilla, and while I find their implementation of CSS2 support to be better (you don't have to minimize and maximize a webpage to get list images to show, for example) it's still the old Nutscrape browser. I haven't had a chance to work with Opera yet, but I feel that I might. However, if someone wants to format their content to use a certain application, then it is their right. Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins?

Quote: Clutch, i have just realized something about you, if someone doesnt share your opinion, they are a "fanatic" or a (whatever they are talking about)loony. Whats up with that crap? Funny, I thought the same thing about you. However, have you noticed that I only ask for facts to back up what someone is saying. Bladerunner did as such just recently, but after a couple of minutes of searching on the same site it appears that Symantec isn't that much better. So, what's up with this "crap" you ask? It's actually quite simple; put up or shut up. Bladerunner already stated in another post that he would rush in to back up a good product against false or exaggerated accusations, and I am doing the same thing here. Bladerunner and I actually see eye-to-eye on many things, it just so happens that Symantec isn't one of them. However, I have asked you to back up your claims in the past, and yet you haven't. So it seems that you are coming into this thread to "troll" a bit. Is this the case?

I actually have the 6035D (with the delta fan) on my P3 933 at home, but it sounds like an airliner taking off all the time. And then, in my new house, I have this lovely hardwood flooring in my office to let it resonate even more. I have it running at about 1.1GHz, but once I can find the stock HSF I will probably go back to the default speed to conserve my hearing.

Umm, ok, for me when I put "Default VCore" I was actually able to mean it I guess. So what's the temp on yours while it's running?

Wow, that does suck for some people (we do perimeter filtering as well, so nothing gets in anyway), but if you judge software on any single issue, then I would have to assume that you don't use much software in general (especially any version of Windows). Oh, and one more thing, just thought I would share these with everybody: http://www.silicon.com/bin/bladerunner?R...p;REQAUTH=21046 http://www.silicon.com/bin/bladerunner?R...p;REQAUTH=21046 But hey, Symantec doesn't "arse" around afterall now do they? Oh, and I am guessing that you still get all the credit since I kept the "bladerunner" portion in the link...

1.5, if that's what you are looking for. Then again, I'm not sure why a mobo would give such a wide variance, and if it did I guess you couldn't really rely on any setting at that point, now could you. So what voltage did you have to set it to in order to get 1.5?

Quote: Clutch how does that SiS chipset compare with the 845 and 850? and what made you go for that? Also VOLTAGE! So far, it's been pretty nice and stable. I did have some quirks with my MS USB keyboard not being picked up all the time at boot (Via USB controller, go figure) but the board has been really nice and came with a ton of features. I decided to give this a shot since this was the first time that I can remember SiS clearly stating that this was a performance chipset, and that they could prove it. I posted some screencaps from the Sandra bench-marketing program, and I will dig those up again. In reference to the voltage, check the listing: Quote: ...Northwood with stock heatsink and HSF running at default VCore