clutch

I use sound deadening material that you would find in car audio shops (like "Road Kill"). It doesn't do much for temp insulation either way, but it is a good deal quieter when using it on the larger parts of the case and motherboard backplate.

In an oversimplified explanation, it basically took your word (as an admin) that you wanted to overwrite the existing object name with the new SID from the new install. This works 99.9% of the time for me, and I only had a couple of odd issues when a server came offline and I couldn't get the DCs to play nice and update their SAMs (NT4 domain a while back). Now, if you were to be dual booting and installed one instance of W2K in a domain with a particular name, and then created ANOTHER installation on that same PC and used the same name, the second installation would work properly while the first one would be denied access to the domain. The domain would recognize that it was old configuration, but would consider it invalid (which is what you want, unless you are stuck and that that badboy to come back which is a whole other story ).

I like Trillian for any Windows OS myself. www.trillian.cc

Here is the reg hack that I think you are looking for (just performed a search on this board for "reg network browse" and worked my way to it): http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=13640 As for setting up a WINS box, it's pretty much automatic. You just install the service on the server, and have all the clients point to it in their TCP/IP properties. They can then get all the NetBIOS linked info from the WINS box rather than querying the system directly, which can cause the delay you are seeing. However, here is a link that can explain it further from Technet: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevie...rt2/tcpch07.asp

That's odd, as mine doesn't go over 8% and that's with a bunch of other things on in the background and moving the mouse all over the place. EDIT: There must be some optimizations in either the general P4 processor, or in the Northwood versions, because my P3 goes to about 50% as well.

Those symptoms remind me of a loose or reversed IDE cable. Is that possible?

I would go Via over ALi as well. So, a no vote to ALi for me.

Dells rock, but I don't care for Compaq's laptops or workstations (but I love their servers and handhelds).

Spiffy. I see that they both have the same IP now, so that's what did it. You probably had the host headers in there already but you just needed the name resolution bit to be ironed out.

Are you pinging from outside the network that the servers are hosted on? Also, are you trying to bring up the pages from outside of your local network (I am assuming the station you are on now and the hosting server are on the same LAN)? Right now, dreddnet is coming with a "Testing..." page, and damonandamber has nothing but a 404. Not to mention that both domains are pointing to different IPs, I would imagine that you have WAN broadcast turned off on the router (hence no PING replies to me), and damonandamber.com's current IP is an older one of yours. I am using RR myself, but I am only hosting one domain. However, the rules still apply; just follow the setup as listed earlier after you can get people outside your LAN to pull up both domain names and get the same IP.

Here's an article on using DNS for IIS admins, and at the bottom is illustrates the usage of host headers that are mapped to a particular domain name (it was at the link I listed earlier). http://www.iisanswers.com/articles/dns_for_iis.htm Also, is this server fully secured (patched up at *least*)? You seem pretty new at this, and I would like to make sure your server is up to date on the patches at a minimum, and (hopefully) locked down with the IIS Lockdown Utility from Microsoft.

OK, and you own both of those domain names, correct? You also have a DNS service of some sort pointing both to your external IP, right? Well, right now if I ping both of those names, only damonandamber.com properly returns an IP and can ping it, while dreddnet.com returns a *different* IP and is not replying to a ping request (possible old IP). I would first make sure that they always point to your external IP, and then worry about host headers. When you can get the IP issue fixed, let us know so we can move on to host headers. BTW, the same way I setup subdomains will work with TLDs (Top Level Domains) too.

Well, I can't quite follow everything you have written, but you should be able to host multiple sites on the same IP and port using host headers just fine. It sounds like you aren't getting the subdomain names forwarded to you properly. Can you tell me what the domains are so can I check them out? I have setup my webserver at home to show what host headers can do: http://www.driventechnologies.com is my normal site, and my "test" subdomain was just added (thanks to Terminal Services): http://test.driventechnologies.com I am using a single Linksys BEFSR41 router with just port 80 forwarded, and I am using TZO's dynamic DNS service to point driventechnologies.com to my cable IP.

Yeah, I saw that one. Pretty cool, huh?

Nope, that's fine. Give it a shot with Klark and see how it goes, as I am sure he can get you through it (we went over this many times, didn't we klark? ). The answers were short as I was under the impression that you were more familiar with IIS than you seem to be. But fear not, if Klark can't get you through this, I can. Also, Klark, since he is more concerned about outside people coming in, all he needs is to have port 80 going to the one server, unbind the multiple IPs (as they aren't needed since he's going to use host headers), and apply the desired host header to each site in the IIS console. The DNS/WINS stuff will be of more use for internal network usage, and not much if he is just using simple NAT.

Quote: Yes it is running 16x120=1920 That is what the first pic was for so you could see the overclock. Oh, duh... Here's my benchmarks using DDR-266 and DDR-333 modes.

If you have a WinNT/2K server to use, you can use IIS to host your newsgroup. Just check out the online help (it's pretty easy though from what I remember when I did it) or hit Technet for a how-to. You can also lockdown who can see what using your workgroup/domain permissions for simpler administration. As for the client, OE works great with it.

Use host headers, and just have www.domain1.com setup for site1, and www.domain2.com setup for site2. You check out the help file for more info, and www.iisanswers.com for other info on IIS.

Was it working before? What's the specs? Is this your system in your sig? If so, pull the CMOS battery and leave it out for about 10 minutes, and make sure that your ATX connector is disconnected as well. I found out the hard way this weekend that some of the newer boards take much longer to clear their BIOS settings than older ones did...

What mobo was your dual P3 running on anyway? Oh, and as for the performance difference, that shouldn't be a big surprise for you anyway since most games are going to only use one proc, and any that *do* use both aren't going to double their performance. Now, going from my P3 933@1084 to my P4 1.6a@2.13 has given me about an 80fps jump in Q3 (which is the only game that I bothered to benchmark so far, but I'll try Aquanox in the next day or so), and that has been good enough for me. I now have a system that is worth getting a GF4 for, assuming that there is anything worth playing that would use that level of hardware...

I am currently using a slipstreamed SP2 version, but I have been able to install onto large partitions since the betas. It is possible that you ran into a simple incompatiblity that was resolved by using the newer hardware, who knows. But hey, it works right?

Just wanted to throw this out there, but understand that not every CPU will overclock very well. Sometimes you just get ones that will barely come up with another 10% over their rated speed (hence the reason they were rated at that speed to begin with, I guess ). Also, I had an AOpen board (AX34 Apollo Pro 133a based) and that thing wasn't particularly great for overclocking (or anything, actually ). So, as mentioned earlier you might just be hitting a wall with the mobo and/or the CPU and it wouldn't have anything to do with your settings. Can you test the procs out on another model of mobo?

Quote: The limit for NTFS 5.0 for installation is 7.8GB on a PC, which is much nicer than NT4's 4.0GB limit. Umm, no. I have performed installations on 40GB partitions in Win2K (NTFS 5.0), and never had any issues. I have many, many of them in production right now, and I haven't ever seen nor heard of such a limit. As for the number 7.8GB, there was a way to do such an install using NT 4.0 as well (hence where you might have seen the number before), and it's documented here, but the core of the explanation is this: Quote: The INT13 functions are the only means available to the operating system to gain access to the drive and system partition until the operating system loads additional drivers that allow it to gain access to the drive without going through INT13. Therefore, Windows NT 4.0 cannot use a system partition larger than 7.8 GB. In fact, the entire system partition must be entirely within the first 7.8 GB of the physical disk. Windows NT can use a 7.8-GB system partition only if the partition begins at the start of the physical drive. NOTE : Partitions other than the system partition are not affected by the these limitations. Other operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2, Microsoft Windows 98, and Microsoft Windows 2000, can boot from larger partitions because these operating systems were written after the computer industry defined a new standard for BIOS INT13 functions (the "INT13 extensions") and implemented this new functionality on manufactured motherboards. Because Windows NT 4.0 was written before this new standard was invented, Windows NT 4.0 is unaware of this new technology and is unable to use its features. When you are installing Windows NT 4.0, you can create a system partition with a maximum size of 4 GB. This occurs because Setup first formats the partition using the FAT file system. If you want to use an NTFS partition, the partition is converted to NTFS after the first reboot. The FAT file system has a file system limitation (unrelated to any BIOS limitations) of 4 GB. When you perform an unattended installation, use of the ExtendOEMPartition directive in an Unattend.txt file can expand the system partition to a maximum of 7.8 GB. As for the SCSI card driver, I thought that there was a fairly good one that was loaded during setup, but I guess not. In any case I have always used a floppy with the proper SCSI driver in the past so I'm not sure.

Well, if I were limited to those two manufacturers, I might choose the SOYO as I just got one (P4S Dragon Ultra) and it's a fairly nice board. However, they seem to enjoy throwing some major curves at you (such as this evening when I updated the BIOS and found the main tweaking menu COMPLETELY overhauled to the point where I couldn't figure it out) and not clearly explaining what is going on. But, you do get a lot of nice features for the price, and my setup has been *very* stable in spite of my learning curve with regard to tweaking it. I do have one question though, what about the KT3 Ultra from MSI? It supports DDR333 and seems to be a sharp board as well.