clutch

Quote: Originally posted by Davros It depends on the apps you need to run. If using the runas option does not cause any problems, then this would be the more secure option. The reasoning is that if you pick up something malicious like a trojan or a bad script in an email, or just poorly written software, it won't be able to execute with administrative rights, limiting the potential damage it can do. This quote was the reason for my assumption. It seems that many people are confusing this utility (which is all it is) with some sort of *nix superuser equivalent, which it isn't. I have seen several references to this and I have decided to start correcting it so the new users (and future admins like yourself) can understand what it really does for you. It doesn't enhance security by any means, and what really does is help you out in a pinch by temporarily enabling an app to run with higher rights than the current user. Now, how secure do you think it is to be entering the admin credentials multiple times during a logon session just to run a few apps?

As BR stated, the risk is rather minimal for viruses and trojans when there is a properly configured AV system in place, not to mention that anyone with elevated privies should have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't safe to open to begin with.

I have a SOYO Dragon P4S Ultra, and it uses the SiS 645 chipset. I have found the board to be both fast and stable, and I have taken my Northwood 1.6 to 2.4GHz using stock voltages and stock HSF.

I like XP since compatibility seems more "pass-through" than with 2K.

You could either get some babysitting software (like SurfControl), get a router that has this type of software control built-in, or just remove the gateway and/or DNS info on the client PCs that you don't want to have Internet access.

Is port 139 open between them? Be really careful with this if the router also controls access to the Internet, as you would be opening up NetBIOS traffic (which is also hosted on ports 137 and 138, which can be seen here). One other problem that you might encounter will be 2-way replication and synchronization. Remember that BDCs handle authentication, and send requests upstream to the PDC if they can't validate credentials locally, while the PDC may initialize domain synchronization downstream to the BDCs. NAT systems tend to favor outbound information requests rather than unsolicited inbound requests, unless the proper ports are opened and forwarded to the system that will handle them. HTH

First, the "walk away from your desk and not worry" issue is moot if you lock your workstation (which you should be anyway). Now, I am under the impression that you and Davros might not have been administering NT networks for very long, and that's fine (gotta learn somewhere, right?) since you are indicating that using "runas" is the way you were "taught" rather than reviewing it as a method to integrate into your current administration methodology. There are many times that you run into issues attempting to use this to connect to other systems (including using AD) and you will not be granted access as your credentials will not clear. If you will notice, NT networks have run fine for many years without the need for any sort of "runas" functionality necessary (the current one I manage has been fine since '98), and the idea of setting up admins to have no elevated privies and then to use this utility for everything (or, if lucky, get prompted when you use other mgmt utils) isn't so hot. But what do I know, I've been using NTx for the last 7 years...

Unfortunately, there are too many apps on the market that still require legacy access to the registry (hence the Power User group, and this option during Terminal Services installation in Application Mode) and will not function properly. I am a strict believer in limiting access as much as possible, but relying on "runas" is something that I have yet to find viable, so I am just providing a heads-up on it.

I figure that since this was posted twice ( ;( ), I will just copy my post over from this other link: Quote: Why? Why would you suggest this? Are you simply suggesting this for regular users, or for any user? Bear in mind that if you plan on administering any systems remotely from your desktop, you might run in to problems if you are not logged in with the proper credentials as many times you will not have the option to elevate them at connection time. But then again, I am not so crazy about the "runas" option anyway (long time, and current, NT 4.0 admin) and have found it clumbsy if the application decides to call another executable which switches the app back to the current user's credentials. The "runas" option doesn't replace being a "superuser" in *nix. Using "runas" is more for the one-time necessity (like an admin coming over to a user's machine to do something), rather than a replacement for logging in with the necessary elevated priviledges.

Why? Why would you suggest this? Are you simply suggesting this for regular users, or for any user? Bear in mind that if you plan on administering any systems remotely from your desktop, you might run in to problems if you are not logged in with the proper credentials as many times you will not have the option to elevate them at connection time. But then again, I am not so crazy about the "runas" option anyway (long time, and current, NT 4.0 admin) and have found it clumbsy if the application decides to call another executable which switches the app back to the current user's credentials. The "runas" option doesn't replace being a "superuser" in *nix.

GoLive 5 is much better than any of the FP versions I have used (FP98-XP). Plus it didn't "help" me with my ASP coding, which would rather nice.

I imagine that they just canned support for FrontPage server extensions, and that only kills some of the more "enhanced" features (like subweb creation/management, and simplified publishing) and would drop the support of some of the drag and drop gizmos that FPSE supports (like the included hitcounter). I would just say use the FTP function in FrontPage, and if the servers are still NT-based then just write the code a lot of the plugin stuff in ASP (or ASP.NET if supported).

Switches don't help in your case, since the incoming bandwidth is probably 1.5Mbps or less and the switch you bought is probably at least 10Mbps per port (more like 100Mbps), and the hub was already a 10/100 unit that could share such low requirements anyway. Also, switches tend to have a little higher ping when there is low utilization than hubs in the first place, so your ping issue wouldn't be addressed in the first place (unless it's a high dollar unit).

This hasn't been done for a while, so I thought I would start up another thread for this. So, to get the ball rolling, here is my main PC desktop: And here is my PocketPC desktop (just got this iPAQ 3850, and I already made a background for familiarity ): If you want to show off your desktop of your PC, server, PocketPC, Palm, etc just post it here. Try to shrink the size to something that won't crush the dial-up users too badly, yet is still legible if there is text on it. Have fun.

I haven't a clue why people insist there is a performance increase when you logon as a power user or using any other group. I create my own account, and then give myself admin rights to the system (but this is by default anyway since I am a domain admin in most cases). Now, if you use a profile long enough, you will accumulate a lot of files and other things, and the larger a profile gets the slower it will load. So in short, don't use the default admin profile so you don't screw it up with excess crap (and you should rename it anyway as many hackers start with "Administrator" as the username) and create your own user account with the privileges you need.

If you would like to, then by all means go ahead. I just wouldn't bother with it myself as it shows it only works for a form of L2 cache that hasn't existed since before the P2 line came out.

I don't know, I only use domains and haven't had this issue.

Wow, long thread here. One thing that I didn't see throughout the posts (sorry if I missed it) is that there are many devices that require multiple IRQs, not just one. I have seen several sound cards that want 3 or more IRQs in order to function properly, and there were times where you could have extra PCI slots but no more IRQs to install anything. But, I too live in this perfect world where I can hookup gadgets and not have issues.

No, you should not have to change it as it is automatic. Very early generations of CPUs needed this adjustment, but that isn't the case now. The value of "0" simply means "automatic" and the OS will try to get the value from the HAL (explained here). Also, this setting only is only effective for systems with direct-mapped cache, and in your case setting it manually would not have any bearing on performance at all (explained here). As for the value of "0" being equal to 256, that's more of an effect of the default value scheme. If the OS can't find the cache size (with the automatic setting of "0"), then it will default to "256" as the cache size. Hence, 0=256, kinda sorta...

Is the partition NTFS? If so, then open up Windows Explorer and go to Tools>Options, and scroll to the bottom. Then, uncheck "Use simple file sharing". I believe that will enable the security tab for you (I only use domains, so this is disabled by default). At that point, when you right click on the file you will then see a "Security" tab and you should be able to check its permissions.

It's awesome if you are planning to go to .NET coding (which runs *really* fast doing the same things that regular ASP did), and it does launch and run faster than VS6 did. However, if you are still going to code using the older languages then it would be a waste of money getting it. But if you are even *thinking* of going to .NET, it's definately worth trying out. The debugger is far superior to its predecessor in tracking both ASP and ASP.NET executions, it does a really nice job with using the code-behind pages (to separate the formatting from the code), and the Intellisense tech is really nice as well for letting you know that something is probably not going to work (but it will NOT autocorrect it for you, which is an added bonus).

Dead or not, please post in the appropriate forum, ok? As for your issue, I thought there was some sort of policy option that could be set to disable default Guest account authentication. Basically, if your PC isn't in the right workgroup/domain, it tries to authenticate with the guest account. Do a search on this here, as it might give you a start in the right direction (or the people that know it might post the answer).

Primalscript does look pretty cool (over here if you can't find it), and I have used UltraEdit as well. I currently use VisualStudio.NET, but I imagine that might be a bit higher on the scale than what you were looking for.

DOS is Dead! We sent the news to you via carrier pigeon (the premier instant messenger service), and it should get to you in a week or so...

That's because it's not in Windows 2000. It's in 9x and WinXP.