clutch

Quote: XP is mearly Win2k with "family" options. Completely unreliable in an office environment, due to its resource abusing structure and hopeless security 'upgrades' (even with the AD tools and patches). Why would users need administration rights to use Microsoft Photo editor? and not to ad extra hardware? My 2000 machines can run on minimum spec boxes and laptops, be secure and still play games, make movies and I don't need to spend half an hour removing NPNP applications like MSN messenger. And in my opinion the only reason it runs an NT platform is because of the disgusting travisty that ME was, proving that the old 9x infrastructure was finally dead. I haven't had any issues deploying XP Pro on the workstations in the 3 office environments that I manage (2 of which are full AD, while one is NT4/2K/XP in an NT4 Domain). I also like being able to connect directly to the workstation and remotely control it as needed, and when combined with its simple firewall makes remote deployment of these units more reliable with less cost (no third party remote control or firewall apps). So far I have run XP Pro on PII 266s with 128MB of RAM in one environment to my 2.4GHz box with 1GB of RAM at home and I haven't been disappointed. Also, I imagine that the real reason behind shifting from that horrible DOS core (which worked fine when it was just supporting DOS ) was to have a single platform to support rather than this split that they have had for such a long time now. Right now, I would have to say that I like XP Pro when I am installing it for myself, and Windows 2000 or XP when I am installing it for a client. I do like NT4 still, but when I tested the earlier AD connectors they reminded me of the flaky performance that the first client32s from Novell for Novell 5 were like. They weren't that great at all, and I just never bothered to keep up with them and watch their improvement.

NS went down hill after the release of 4.x, and just went faster when AOL bought them out. They just can't admit that they continue to make an inferior product, so blaming MS just lets pawn off the loses a little better to the shareholders. Lame.

Cool, I wondered about that before but was too lazy to do anything about it...

I was a lurker during that time frame, as I would constantly check to see how Forsaken and Descent 3 were doing with the people beta testing NT5 (Windows 2000). Now, I can't remember the last time I checked the compatibility list for anything.

Mine ran at about 42*C under full load, so I would wonder about yours. I can't remember what max spec was, but I *thought* it was something like 75*C. You should take a look at Intel's site to make sure. Also, did you use a good thermal paste when the HSF was installed?

Quote: Dynamic disks should ONLY be used when actually using the windows RAID solutions like striping, spanning, etc, like patrickd said. a friend of mine had one of his disks set up as dynamic for ages, he formatted and went back to basic and got a big performance increase. As far as i know, u shouldn't be using then unless you are using the raid features. There's just no point... That isn't true. Think of it this way; what if you had a 10GB drive to install your OS on, and you wanted to make that your system drive. Now, you want to store another 10GB of MP3s, your Games folder is looking a bit big, and you are simply running out of space BUT you don't want to add the extra drive letters since your existing games are already installed to "c:\Games\blah...". Well, you can pick up a 60GB drive and answer both your space issues and your drive path issues with dynamic disks. Simply mount the new drive to a folder on your existing one, and you are set. You can have several drives all mounted to your system drive, and not have to keep any drive letters straight. It does work pretty well, but I use servers anyway so there isn't much of an issue for local storage (and I have a 100GB drive in my main box too, so that doesn't hurt).

Check out this utility I posted about here, and let me know what you think (please respond to the other post so everyone can see each other's comments in one spot).

LOL. Tnx. Didn't even notice, my how time flies...

That's a problem with the page that you are going to, and nothing wrong with the client. It's similar to this issue that videobruce asked about. Basically, that site is having a problem with either that particular line of code, or that line of code is executing a function that was built incorrectly earlier. It looks like the database doesn't support multiple users all that well, or it might have an incorrect configuration of the connection object when it opens it. You just happened to get a fairly detailed output of the error (normally you don't).

I didn't realize he double posted either. Oh well...

I am not sure about what exactly you are looking for, but with a 100Mb/s transfer, you would get 12.5MB/s (8 bits in a byte, so 100/8) in theory. This would also be port-to-port, whereas in a hub the 100Mb/s speed would be split across all ports where demand is needed (and this is made worse since hubs broadcast all packets to all ports, which is why you see so many collisions/packet loss and poor performance). So, was that what you were asking? Oh, btw, this is all in theory and in practice you will probably see about 50%-80% of this capacity in real life. There have been a few times that I have seen only 45Mb/s on a decent switch during a fairly quiet time on a network.

I got this in my Windows and .NET Magazine email newsletter: Quote: I discovered an interesting software download that relates to the PC-silencing articles I wrote a few weeks ago. Intel makes a software product called the Intel Application Accelerator (IAA), and the latest version, 2.1, is currently in beta. IAA 2.1 lets you modify settings for Intel CPUs and chipsets, including speeding up Windows boot time and disk-based I/O. The most recent version lets you modify the Automatic Acoustic Management (AAM) setting for compatible hard disks. This setting lets you choose between higher seek rates and a lower noise level. The lower noise level might slightly degrade the drive's performance, but I doubt most users would notice. I'm testing the IAA's AAM (say that three times fast) setting on my drives now and will let you know how it works. For more information about the IAA and the free beta download, visit the Intel Web site. http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/ Just thought this might be of interest to some of you guys.

.NET Server is actually snappier and allows for better remote management. I have been a really big fan of Win2K server and how they can be managed remotely with built-in tools, and .NET extends that even further. I had it running quite nicely on a Celeron 300a@450 with 512MB RAM, so I don't thing hardware should be much of an issue if you can currently run Win2K server on the same system.

Ditto.

Do your logs show anything unusual about that time? Does your network properties dialog still have the right entries for WINS, DNS, etc as it did before? It just sounds like it might be having a problem with understanding resource validation, and it wants to become the browse master to alleviate this. Did you find anything on Technet resembling this issue?

Well, I am not sure about the geocities one with the slash in it, but other than that it looks fine. As for browsing, it *should* speed it up a slight amount as your system will not only be saved the time of resolving those network names, but it will also save the system time in downloading anything from those sites.

Is your NETLOGON service stalling out as well? What sort of name/resource resolution system are you using (DDNS, WINS, etc)?

It wasn't, as I have seen Win98/SE clients do it, and even some Win2K/XP clients as well if they are confused enough.

Take out the hyphen in his link.

Odd, I did it regularly. The last drive that I can remember installing NT4 on was 30GB, and I created a 2GB system partition to install it on, and once I got my SP on it I would make a new partition out of the remainder.

Go to Windows Update and get all of the critical updates there, that would be a good place to start. Also, check the logs for the site (look in the site properties for their location) to see if you have any unusual activity, such as a large amount of requests coming in using extended ASCII text.

I was under the impression that the newest firmware release for the Linksys router family addressed some issues with teleconferencing in MSN Messenger. However, the new firmware has had reports of problems with tracert and ping not working. There's another thread here that has a link to www.dslreports.com on a thread following this very issue. If the tradeoff is worth it to you, you might want to check it out. I don't use ZA or MSN Messenger and its teleconferencing functions, so I can't tell you about any of the specifics for those. Hopefully someone else here can, or you can check out that other thread I mentioned and see if anyone there has more info.

Unfortunately, you can still get odd browse master elections forced even in AD. Locking the clients down to keep them from taking part in elections is a good idea.

I use McAfee NetShield for our Win2K servers without any problems.

What kind of gadgets do you use with your PC? Unusual game controllers, PDAs, MP3 players, etc all apply. I am kicking this off in a reply to Dirty Harry on my SCUBA diving comp, so here we go: Aeris 500AI dive computer (actually, I am still waiting for my kit to arrive, but it does work with Win2K so I assume it will work with WinXP Pro as well) Compaq iPAQ 3850 PDA Kinesis Classic Keyboard (testing it at work right now) So what about you guys?