clutch

Not to mention that the TFTs had a painfully slow refresh time, so the images would appear to blur or just disappear when moving quickly across the screen (and this may still be the case with low-end units). Also, while many TFTs do resize for the resolution that's being displayed, there are others that don't at all and simply make a smaller viewing area dead-center on the screen.

Correct, most of the systems that are sold out here come with DVD drives. However, there are many, many more systems still in service that have CD-ROM drives in them; that is the installed base that I am referring to. Quote: However, knowing Microsoft, it is only a matter of time before Office starts being offered on CD, and that really is bloatware. Man, I hate to break this to you but Office has been offered on CD in the US for quite a while now. Shipments must move quite slowly in your neck of the woods...

Are you familiar with why VS.NET takes up multiple CDs? It's because the MSDN Online index is now incorporated with the program; that is the only way to get it. There is no longer a separation of the VS suite and the online KB. Now, since the application handles multiple languages, includes the .NET framework, and includes the online KB I think you will find there is sufficient reason for its size. So, I wouldn't call it "bloatware" at all. I would imagine another main reason for the slow movement toward DVD-based media is the installed base. When there were applications (games, programs, p0rn [yes, you bet that drives technology too], etc) that demanded larger media and much improved sound, it went to CD. That was the only media at the time that could do what was needed for these applications, and even when the drives were expensive and slow by today's standards, they were a lot faster and had *way* more capacity than competing domestic media at the time. Now, we have CD-ROM drives on far more computers out there than DVD units, and if you publish an application to DVD only you are effectively killing off most of your demographic. And if you want to cater to both CD and DVD-ROM users, you run into the increased expense of maintaining both publishing sets (hence MS providing price breaks and rebate to MSDN subscribers that go to DVD since there is less media to produce and distribute if they can get their subscribers to make the switch). While that's a good reason for software companies to hold off, hardware companies have an easier time moving forward with DVD-ROMs; the units are backward compatible. Why produce both types of drives when you can make DVD-ROM units for the same price as CD-ROM drives? During my last order of PCs, I would have had to pay *more* to get a regular CD-ROM drive than to get a either a CD-R/W or a DVD-ROM since they had more of those units on hand than the plain old CD-ROM drives. It's just better business sense to mass produce something that offers more features than to maintain two different production lines when one will do what you need. Right now, we are just waiting for either the installed base to catch up (between the 8 workstations that I use regularly, I have 2 DVD-ROMs myself, so it's gonna be a while for me ) or as mentioned earlier wait for a killer app to come in and push the need for the units over the edge. But in either case, there's going to be some waiting involved.

I only did that when I was playing other shells back in my Win95 days. I first read the trick he mentions in a performance tuning article for NT 4.0 Server by MS. It mentions killing the explorer.exe process in order to regain memory (of course this was in the time where 486s were still being actively used as print servers, and it would "encourage" the upgrade from NT 3.51 since there were concerns over the performance drawbacks in the version upgrade) from the OS. Then, you just bring up taskmanager and manually kick off explorer.exe again or most other apps for that matter and go back to work.

Umm, nope. No priority options in the 9x OSs.

I don't know, just try uninstalling and reinstalling IIS on that box. Did you even get any of the updates for the OS?

I get my MSDN Universal Subscription on DVD, and the faster the drive the faster the stuff loads/installs.

Quote: Gateways provied an interface between different network architectures. For example they can connect an ethernet network to a token ring network. It's like a translator. ...while a router is used to distinguish between different segments of a similar network protocol (IP, IPX come to mind). Most of the time, when you see a device at Best Buy or some other electronics store listed as a "gateway", it's actually a router with NAT functionality. A traditional gateway is more inline with Davros's definition; it can connect dissimilar network topologies as well as (my memory is a bit fuzzy on this) dissimilar protocols.

Why do it? Because in a professional setting there is a strong possibility of adding more workstations (permanently or otherwise) and having a central location to hand out the right information is a much better option. This is especially true if there is no IT person around when a visiting person comes in and needs to hook up his/her laptop to the network, and nobody knows what to set and how to set it. Also, if there is a need for some sort of proxy service, just use RRAS on a Win2K box, or one of the freebie/low-cost proxy alternatives as they can offer a lot more control than ICS was designed to.

I have used many IBM drives, and had only 1 fail (and got great service on the replacement). I love my Western Digitals, and I currently have 2 100GB units w/8MB cache that are pretty trick along with a 120GB unit in my server at home. I used to love Fujitsus, but that was a long time ago and I have no idea how they have been made in the last few years. I did, however, not care for Seagate IDE drives. Those were 500-750MB units though, so can we count those?

Quote: clutch, why u saying "quite well" ? Im still confused whether to get a Gigabyte 8SRX or an ASUS P4B266 (or P4S333/533). The Gigabyte has a very cool feature, which locks the AGP/PCI bus speeds when u overclock the FSB.... I mean "quite well" in that it simply runs really well. Also, I could have sworn that it has the same AGP/PCI bus lock feature as well, but I haven't been in the BIOS in a while (no need to).

Ahh, and it would seem that I gave the wrong impression as well. I didn't mean that I had a task named "pagefile", but rather I was indicating that my PC was digging rather heavily into its RAM and still not recreating the file. Also, I never had to manually delete the pagefile on either of the systems I have done this with; WinXP just canned it on its own.

OK, I just remembered to get back to this, so here it is: However, if you want better control over permissions management cacls is the way to go.

It's been a while since I have seen that link... In any case, I am curious as to how you are getting a page file generated even though you are explicitly declaring it disabled. When I disabled it before (and had to re-enable it because of PS6 having issues) it never came up, at all. I am trying it again, and I have Outlook and Word XP, IE6, SQL 2K Dev Ed, MS Active Sync, McAfee AV 4.5.1, Solidworks 2001 Plus (CAD app), and various other things taking up about 310MB of RAM according to task manager, while I have 512MB of RAM in this box. While I have been opening, closing, and creating documents I have yet to see a pagefile pop up. Where would it be? I have "Show hidden files" enabled and "Hide protected OS files" disabled (and I could see the pagefile before I rebooted, when it was still set), so I know that I would see it. Am I missing something with this, is there some sort of percentage threshold that I need to cross before the file comes back?

Have you found any new drivers for it, or maybe checked for a new BIOS for the card?

SOYO P4S Dragon Ultra, uses the SiS 645 chipset and I have a Northwood 1.6a running at 2.4GHz at stock voltage and stock HSF. It runs quite well. I had been debating over getting it or the ASUS (using the i845D chipset) and I probably would have picked up the Intel had the SOYO not been immediately available. But, overall the SOYO/SiS combo has been pretty nice.

That's pimpy, I was gonna dig up an article on doing it with Windows Scripting Host but this looks pretty cool. I will have to check that out sometime.

I am pretty sure it was, but I have to get to another box to be sure (gotta jet for lunch ).

Go to Printers and Faxes, and then File>Print Server..., then the Advanced tab and knock yourself out.

Quote: A benefit of moving the pagefile to its own partition is less fragmentation of data around the pagefile. But you need to remember to account for the extra seek time. I agree that in modern drives this is fairly negligible, but it still exists, and imho makes it unnecessary to have a pagefile set up in this manner. Interesting point, as this would reinforce the idea of moving the pagefile (an easily controlled system file) to another partition, rather than having it sit on the same partition as the system files and MFT and further subjecting that partition to the effects of fragmentation.

Most current hardware will not show a huge difference in running from the inside to the outside of the platter, not to mention having a second harddisk (which might as well be on a separate channel as suggested before). And, as most documentation on the subject (such as this) speak of moving the primary (heavily used) pagefile to another partition and having a secondary (lesser used) for crashdumps it would seem that moving the pagefile to another partition isn't such a bad idea. I don't debug from the crashdump file on workstations, so having one on the system partition is of no concern to me. Also, wouldn't the read speed actually be faster on the outside edge of the disk or were you basing this on the idea that the heads are rest most of the time?

Normally that would be a failure of the installer though, and I would imagine he would have pointed out that it was with the installer rather than with the game running (which was what he was hinting at).

Quote: 8) It's been this long and an XP fanatic hasn't shown up yet to argue your facts? 8) It didn't occur to me to point out that my 27 work installations have been running just fine on their first installs ranging from old beaters to the new dual Xeon boxes I got for our engineers. Do you think that would have helped?

All of my systems have 256MB of RAM or greater, so I don't bother using a pagefile any larger than 250MB (and if I *have* to have one, it's no less than 100MB; I also have the min and max locked to avoid the "burping" from Windows when it increases the size of the file). I would recommend that you get it onto one of the following, ordered by preference (assuming IDE): 1. Another disk on another separate IDE channel 2. Another disk on the same IDE channel 3. Another partition other than the system partition 4. System partition (default) If you can use a RAMDISK for it, then give it a shot. I haven't used one so I can't tell you how well they work. As for splitting the pagefile, it's a worthless act if you have a large amount of memory and/or a single disk with at least 35% free space AFTER the total pagefile is maxed out sitting on it. All you are doing is creating more disk/channel traffic by splitting it up, and IDE doesn't even support simultaneous R/W functions so you will slow disk access even further there.

Quote: No game I have tried in NT4/2000/XP has ever failed because of the NTFS file system and I have tested 1000+ games.... SHS stated that there was one game that had issues because of using NTFS, and I still don't understand why it would since the OS handles all of the disk access, not the game.