Mr.Guvernment

Hello everyone In the near future, likely Nov. or Dec, i hope to set up an http /ftp server running off a buisness dsl line from home. I wasn't too sure as to what i should really put into something liek this. i can think of simple things for it. It's main use will be an FTP server, so i was thinking for HD space get 2 x 120 of the WD 8mb cache drives - unless they have bigger by Nov. But i wasn' too sure about mobo, and such... SCSI - or will ultra 100 /133 do fine? As an http, it will likely be running a Vb forum (So using MySQL / php) - Also, serving as a host for my friends to host pictures, so they can use outside linking since it is SO hard to find sites that still allow this. I will be running win 2k server, or adv... (not sure yet,) So, any and all recommendation would be great. As for a price range, i would say maybe $1500 - $2k US.

^^^^ thnx for the info m8. i already got the comp built, it is my old one back home, well a p4 1.4 and such, no too old. i will consider linux, and messing around with it as soon as i got some time too. As for the limits, and i guess setting it up real scure does any one have any very very good sites? to read up on more info, since this is all new to me. i got the IIS Answers site, any others?

holly tan line!! that is one scary picture!

^^^ was gonna say, rechargables. i have the logitech wireless keyboard, and mouse combo back home, loved it, however, in FPS game,s if i was running forward for a while, and take ym finger off the key, my guy would still be running, as if the signal was recycling it's self. Anyways, i would stick with a wired mouse, and keyboard for gaming for sure. i have a Logitech wheel mouse - optical, and it reacts way to slow for gaming, even though it is wired. and i also have a logitech ball mouse, which rules for gaming.

such BS i can't beleive the level of intellegence for people who actually beleive this sort of things work.

yeah now u have BEll DSL, and Rogers cable who are both limited banwidht nbow, Bell DSL is 5g up and 5g down. Rogers cable has now cut speeds in half, because some 8% of hardcore user, and clogging the Networks, yeah BS! and supposedly they will be putting a 5g down, and 5g up limit on as well, and they did not even send out emails to let their customers know of this, supposedly because "No one has noticed, and has not contacted us" here is the articlke a friend found. Rogers quietly slows download speeds 7/4/2002 5:00:00 PM - Heavy usage hampered Internet service, company says by Paul Fruitman If it seems like it takes longer to download those movie and mp3 files these days, it might be because it does. Users of Rogers Communications Inc.'s Hi-Speed Internet can now download at a maximum speed of 1.5 Mbps, down from 3 Mbps a month ago. Rogers made the switch in early June without issuing a news release or making any formal announcement. According to Bob Carrick, president of Ottawa-based communications consulting firm Carrick Solutions Ltd. and a past vice-president at the Residential Broadband Users' Association, Hi-Speed customers were not given any notice of the change. "It's been done without any e-mail to customers," he said. "People are just finding their speeds have been cut in half." Rogers spokesperson Taanta Gupta said the company reserves the right to make amendments to its products and added that while Rogers may have promoted the 3 Mbps speed in the Internet-through-cable service's first years, it hasn't been promising those speeds recently. Still, Gupta said the changes were made to improve, rather than limit, the average customers' broadband experience. She said a small percentage of heavy-use customers were slowing down the service of the remaining users. In other words, people were hogging the bandwidth. "Our belief is that the impact will be a better network experience for customers," she said. Gupta defended the lack of notification of the switch by saying that few customers have noticed a difference in their service. She said the company has received only 10-15 complaints about the change. "Customers haven't seen the difference and there's no point in making an announcement," she said. But Carrick said Internet message boards have been full of complaints from Rogers' customers. While he admitted many customers would have never experienced the 3 Mbps download speed because of network congestion, he said those familiar with speedy downloads of large files were aware of a slowdown. "Some never hit 3 Mbps, but the ones that did noticed it right away," he said. He noted that some customers are happy about the change because it relieves congestion, but said cutting the maximum download speed in half could also increase Rogers' bottom line. "By reducing the speed 50 per cent, they've doubled the number of customers they can have," Carrick said. "It's like doubling your network capacity without spending any money." But Gupta said network capacity did not factor into the decision. "We didn't see (capacity) as being a problem for many years to come," she said. "There's plenty of capacity. The capacity is not the issue." Reduced speeds at Rogers are yet another unwelcome change for heavy broadband users who have seen both Rogers and Bell Canada's Sympatico service put up limits to high-speed surfing in recent months. In May, Sympatico announced it was moving from a one-size fits all high-speed approach to tiered services. High Speed Standard, previously the only available option, features up to 1 Mbps download speed, costs $44.95 (the previous price was $39.95) and limits users to 5 Gigabytes upstream and 5 GB downstream per month. The Ultra service costs $69.95 per month, offers up to 3 Mbps download support and allows 10 GB upstream and 10 downstream per month. Sympatico also introduced a lower-cost "lite" service that features speeds twice that of dial-up and caps uploads and downloads at 1 GB per month. Along with cutting maximum download speeds, Rogers has also raised its standard price to $44.95 and introduced its own lite service. The bit caps especially angered broadband users, some of whom signed a petition to protest their existence. As well, Carrick last month set up a Web site that allows disgruntled users and broadband neophytes to browse through alternative (and incumbent) providers that service their area. On Wednesday, CanadianISP.com's 19th day in existence, the site had 11,000 page views, according to Carrick. But Gupta and Sympatico spokesperson Andrew Cole insisted those upset over bit caps and download slowdowns represent only a small minority of users. "For the vast majority of users, bandwidth charges are non-issue," Cole said. "The average user per month uses 1.5 GB of bandwidth, which leaves (Standard service users) a large window to expand their enjoyment." He said only five per cent to eight per cent of customers use more than 5 GB per month. "It's a vocal minority who are being introduced to a new concept, but one that is going to be increasingly commonplace," Cole said. "I think what you will see over the coming years will a continued evolution of tiers," Gupta added. She said Rogers has plans to institute its own download caps, but a decision on when the phase-in will take place won't come until at least the end of the year. And like the change to download speeds, the bit caps will infringe on the Internet usage of only small percentage of customers, she said. "Whatever bit caps we impose, 90 per cent of our customers won't be affected," Gupta said. [/list:u] Okay, so the 10% it will affect then don't mean crap then to rogers... gee, thnx! a**holes

anyone know were i can grab the 30.30's? looked every where i could think o.

Thas kew, understandable, if i get any feedback on vb.org, i will let yeah know.

got ma 4600, but have not o/c'd it cause i can not buy an proper colling here in Antigua, and it seems to do just fine how it is

will check them out

Nero can brun .img , and so can adaptec. to my knowledge. is there 2 other files with it? If so, use clone cd.

^^^^ I installed it, and it ran like a charm (1600 x 1200 x 32), so i don't know what these other people are doing wrong, but obviously something...

^^^^ true true, but PC's will never go down, cause consolses can never do what PC's do, and never will be able to do all that PC's do, cause then they would not be 'gaming consoles" now would they.

ahaha So , legalizing hacking? yeah, right, and if it does, all hell will break lose, that is for sure!

See below:

IBM.. nah Toshiba, then Dell, Sony (Sony - over priced, but look good) and compaq, i would not even touch!!

kew kew i don't doubt IIS, and it will simply have pictures on it, which i do plan to do back ups, ithough if anything grab a small router or something , also just so i can learn about em too :0 who knows! reading up on apache now

I will chekc that dos server m8! as for Linux, frankly i do not know it well enough that if a problem occcurs i could not fix it fast enough, were as i can under windows but am working on pick'n up linux (curretly got red hat 7.2 on a system)

mm i though Virtual PC was for the MAC...lol

Quote: Hardly Rockstar's fault. They have chosen a minimum specification and written their code around that. They cannot be expected to code something perfectly for a dead graphics card/API. exactly! Why should a company drop the quality of their game, increase production time for something that is no longer supported. u can buy a Geforce 2 32mb card for like $50 US now (or less), may want to consider splurging(typo?) for one some time soon.

^^^^ thnx for the great info, a good read, and nice to know.

no problems at all yet!! (g4 4600 ultra here)

thnx for the info i have ehard stories about IIS, but that comes along with any software. Iwill be checking out apache for sure, and if not, will just be doing alot of reading up on IIS and making it semi secure.

Hello all i was curious if anyone knew roughly how much bandwidth would be required for a server to act as a "picture" host. Basically a server which will host only pictures for people, who can then "outside link" the images, since it seems so dam hard to find sites that still allow out side linking.. like lets say i got, mmm 50 people, who each got like 20 pictures uploaded, and linked on other web sites....... i guess once loaded it would not use alot of the servers bandwidth to send out that pic again? any idea's or info would be kew!

kew kew thnx for the info guys, is greatly appreciated!