clutch

I agree with sapiens74; when NS4 came out it was a pig and the decline of NS began. I have always liked IE, and since Opera doesn't support NTLM authentication I haven't had a need to even try it.

Dunno bud, I have been using it on several machines without any problems. Have you tried working with MS Support?

My SOYO lets me enter the FSB directly, and I am running at 150MHz at the moment. In my system I also have the option of setting the memory speed by using a CPU-to-RAM ratio entry. If I get a chance I will try to post the options that I have in the BIOS for my memory speeds.

You can run DNS and AD without being integrated/dynamic. This is exactly what happens when you use a BIND DNS box (like a *nix unit) to host DNS on the network. I enable those after the upgrade to AD.

Just got this newsletter, so I thought I would pass along the whole thing in its entirety: Quote: IIS Admins, As you know, I don't issue bulletins unless the info deserves your attention. Today, a buffer overflow was announced that exploits ASP.DLL. ASP, to date, has held up under the barrage of assaults brought onto the default application mappings in IIS. This one should drop you into the context of the IWAM account if you are running Out of Process or Pooled which is the default. Many of you don't have the luxury of removing .asp mappings so you are more likely to be vulnerable to this than the .printer or .htr problems of the past. Microsoft has released a new IIS Roll-up hotfix that fixes this plus a few other items. You need to start action immediately to apply this roll-up. There is no news yet as to how this impacts stability of the server. Those of you who have the luxury of quality assuring the roll-up are encouraged to do so. I will issue a follow-up bulletin with news of problems if they start to come in. I expect automated tools to start hitting these vulnerabilities within a week. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-018.asp ---------------------------------------------------------- Brett Hill IIS Administration and Security Training http://www.iistraining.com

If the motherboard will let you clock to 150, then it's worth a shot. If you have CAS 2 RAM at the lower speeds (like DDR266), then it should be fine at DDR333 even if you have to drop to CAS 2.5. I have a gig of Mushkin running at 150MHz at CAS 2.5 with no problems at all. Very stable, fast, and cost effective. Just make sure that the memory you get *can* run at higher speeds and that the motherboard will support it, or else you'll just be strangling the P4 due to its major dependence on memory bandwidth. Trust me, there is a MAJOR difference in performance from DDR266 to DDR333 for the P4.

I always have DNS running first, that way I know that it's solid. I have yet to have any issues with this, and I have taught others to do this as well. This method will also ensure that your DNS is configured completely before trying to implement AD because the overly-simplistic DNS setup wizard used during AD installation leaves out things like server replication, forwarders, etc.

Check out my post here about this new patch, and make sure to submit replies there as well.

I have a SOYO P4S Dragon Ultra with that same SiS chipset, and it's great. It's the one that I run my Northwood 1.6a@2.4GHz on with no voltage adjustment and a stock HSF. However, the Intel chipsets (i845D and the upcoming 850E) are pretty cool too and as stable as ever. I just wanted to see how the SiS system would perform, and so far I haven't been disappointed.

Why in the world are you hosting 2 domains internally anyway? What, *just* learning split-brain DNS wasn't enough for you?

What is the local name resolution method of your network on the LAN you are dialing in to? Your dial in server should either provide your workstation with all the information (WINS/DNS, Gateway, etc) or the workstation should be preconfigured so all it has to do is dial up. When pinging, you might want to first ping your dial up host (as suggested) and then ping another server that's "across" the host (elsewhere on the LAN) to determine if your dial-in server is routing properly.

That is rather odd. You shouldn't have to go through anywhere near the amount of work that you did to join the Win2K domain. What name resolution scheme are you using? If you are using Mixed-Mode AD, then you should have at least DNS setup, but do you have a WINS box setup as well? The LMHOSTS file isn't particularly elegant, and everything would normally work if your workstation has a source to resolve the domain's DCs from.

Yes, we do. However, do you see anything about Athlons running on Intel chipsets? Nope. That is what we were addressing, but you knew that already, right?

Ahh, your first statement wasn't clear to me as I didn't know what you were using (sounded like an Athlon), and that you meant "my Athlon is the best CPU out there, if you discount any stability issues". And yes, that would definately be a hard pill to swallow. I am also in the same boat where I would get an AMD system if I KNEW that it would be a rock-solid performer (as in not camping out at various websites looking for new BIOS and driver updates to make it work with something I already had) right out of the box.

Quote: But an athlon 1800xp will destroy a p4 1800 in games With both at stock speed. Authough factor in stability and thats why i have my current system, but you gotta say that amd processors are much better. Whenever you see em in comparason they just make the p4 look so poor, what we really need is amd chips with intel chipsets wonder if that will ever happen ;( Are you stating that "stability not withstanding, the AMD system is much better"? That's kind of a hard pill to swallow . I would like to see an AMD CPU on and Intel chipset though, but I think we all have a pretty good feeling that will never happen.

The checkdisk part and link I provided don't count DH? Hmmm, if I can think of other things I'll let you know. The link did state quite a bit about the differences, and having smaller clusters and the ability to store small files directly in the MFT for speedy access is pretty nice. But then again haven't had any issues where I couldn't get into my NTFS system partition without a utility (and that was only a few times for the networks that I manage).

For my pal Dirty Harry, ask and ye shall receive... I prefer NTFS no matter where I am setting up, as I have seen NT systems go into boot-time checkdisk WAY more with FAT than with NTFS as their file system formats. However, here is a nice page at Technet that covers the performance traits of both so you can get more info: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevie...rt3/proch17.asp

Quote: From what I understand the PR rating is not comparing the XP to the P4, but to the Athlon Thunderbird. Unfortunately, AMD has obviously not done a good job on letting out that information---so I've heard. Yes and "sorta" . The first part is correct in that AMD never intended to directly compare themselves to the P4 with the numbering scheme, however they knew it would happen (shocker). However, AMD *did* try to let everybody know initially that it was just a rating scale basing the CPU's performance on a battery of benchmarks and that it should perform on par using that number as a clock reference. Unfortunately, only a few of the major sites were reinforcing that point while many were stuck on the true clock speed and simply using the XX00+ as a name only rather than a rating as it should have been. So, they did initially try getting the info out, but it hasn't stayed out. And hey, leaving it as it is doesn't hurt them either since many people seem to think that they are still the underdogs in the game because they have a lower true clock speed.

Wow, blast from the past. Well, try running a CAD/CAM app (preferrably parasolid based) with an ATI card and see how far you get.

CyberGenX: Your reference to the Intel chipset was incorrect; it was the i820 chipset and it only had issues because it used a faulty Memory Translator Hub in many of the units in an attempt to support SDRAM in addition to RDRAM. They found out that it didn't work, so they recalled all the motherboards and replaced the user's memory with the same amount of the MUCH more expenisive RDRAM. Now, when Via had issues with anything they would simply release patch after patch and then just give up, and not recall anything. Honestly, that's the only event that I can recall of a major Intel screw up and yet they had far better customer service in the end to correct it. Also, if you are so concerned about a topic of your own spinning out of control then you *might* want to consider not making posts that don't follow your original point. So, why would Intel be concerned about the naming conventions of their competitors? Well, it's confusing to the consumer, and in the end confusion can only hurt both sides. Apple never named their processors in a fashion to compete with Intel yet they used all kinds of benchmarks years ago in an attempt to show a direct comparison (normally Photoshop and Quark stuff, especially since neither was never really optimized for x86 to begin with), so why should AMD? AMD is holding on to a shorter pipeline, and they can only take the clock speed so high. Plus, they tend to generate more heat with their current design and previous generation fab process (until the Thoroughbreds get out) which causes more complications and brings them closer to the glass ceiling. I mean, I see that someone has a 1900+ overclocked to 1.7GHz+ and I have no idea what kind of a speed increase that is. They have come to a point where they cannot be compared to each other directly anymore unless you are looking for bang for the buck, stability, compatibility (I mentioned this earlier) instead of clock speed. Both companies know this, and this is why AMD started using this naming convention. However, people STILL like compare the base clock rates, as in this quote from yourself: "I realize that, I was saying the that Intel is touting the fact that their 2.2 beats out the 2000+. Well no sh*t Intel, there's about a 400MHz gap between the 2." In reality, AMD is claiming that their processor will perform equal to or BETTER than a 2GHz CPU in a battery of tests, so if anything the difference would be < 200MHz between the processors. Yet, you state that there is a 400MHz gap between them. Well, AMD didn't seem to think so in naming them, so that's how they named it. Now, if the naming convention can confuse all these hardcore AMD sites and AMD users, how do you think the average person is going to feel about it?

Quote: I have used VIA chips since 97 and never had a problem once, I think some people just don't know what they're doing. And as far performance goes, the KT266a and the 333(i am using now) are the fastest chipsets out there for AMD. Well, I think that there are many people out there that don't know what they are doing as well, but I *know* that Via has had many engineering and quality problems with just about everything they touch. Congrats to those of you that haven't had any issues, but too many others (including myself, and I damn sure know what I am doing) have had problems with parts that come from that company. They have spent a lot of money to improve their image, and why do you think that is?

Quote: Epox seems OK to, dunno why but I have an impression they're maybe a little bit more overclockable than Abit but kind of flimsy. H. Oddly enough, I have the same impression. No reason (and not a fair judgement as I haven't used one personally) in particular, but it seems like after reading reviews of their boards over the years I just feel the same way.

Quote: the question is still referring to a standard scanner though clutch. Why? You share out standard printers all the time right? And Felix commented that there was an HP with sharing software as well. Seems like isn't such a bad idea to begin with (or at least not bad enough to make fun of him for).

CyberGenX: Intels overclock much better than the Athlons do despite the multiplier lock since the Athlons are typically clock rated much closer to thier phsyical (thermal) spec limits than Intel does. So, this gives you much more room to play with the processors, although this might affect your other components if they don't allow for asynchronous operation from the cpu. So, right now my FSB is at 150 (which could probably go higher, but I would like to get a better HSF unit first) which in turn lets my 1GB of Mushkin RAM run at 300MHz. I used some of the little bench-marketing apps, and the only thing it lagged behind at that setting was the P4 using PC800 RAM in the memory department, and it wasn't by that much. As for SiS and Via, there was a time when SiS made very cheap chipsets, BUT, they weren't *claiming* to be that great anyway. They were filling a niche at the time, and probably still sell those types of boards as they have a good volume and margin to go with them. The thing with Via is that they *claimed* to have high performance chipsets that had major issues right out of the box. That is what I have a problem with, and that's why I just simply avoid them. SiS came out and said "try this" to the review sites, and the board screamed while being solid. That's a better way to get attention than to just use a ton of flashy marketing, get a few reviews that don't focus on stability at all, or have the sites play down or not mention anything like "yeah, it was great except that none of the ATi cards would work with it and we couldn't use all of the memory slots".

3389 by default.