Atreyu

you can remove it from the add/remove windows components thingie. then go into your c:\program files directory and delete the "messenger" (or something like that) folder.

you mean after you go back to the "classic windows" setting? i was wondering that myself. it makes the start menu the same color as the active title bars. i like my active title bar color, but it looks awefull at the big top portion of the new start menu.

Anybody else notice that depending on the web site you look at, home routers/firewalls can fluxuate as much as $250 for the exact same model? For example, the D-Link DI-704 is sometimes listed as $329.00 and other times it's listed as $70.00. It's the same model, and it's not new vs. used.. they are both new. I just thought this was wierd. I've seen the same thing with Linksys BEFSR41 and BEFSR81 models and once with a NetGear. Just an observation.... And on a side note, don't buy any D-Link routers... take it from me, they are bad news.

How 'bout this one.... according to the NetGear web page, the RT314 can handle up to the theoretical 253 clients. Just a small discrepency there 253 vs. 32 hehe

Yeah, I just read a review on the RT314 that was not very good... but all morning I've been reading reviews that kicked butt. So you take a gamble no matter what. According to the review I just read (February 2001), the router does not have very good "firewall" protection. Also, the router allows only 32 computers behind it (not that I would ever have that many computers)... and if I did I surely wouldnt be using a home-user type router. I'm confident that there have been firmware upgrades and such since then so maybe some issues will have been resolved. Either way you will get a mixed bag of opinions when spending $100-$125 for a router. I'm gonna keep on readin..

Oh by the way, no matter what router you buy, you are going to read MANY positives and MANY negatives about it. Some people want to throw NetGear and LinkSys out with the trash, yet others swear by them. It's being able to decipher who knows what they are doing and if problems they are having are a result of ignorance rather than hardware. I've read many places that NetGear is crap, but I've heard from more credible places (places that know what they are doing) that they are among the best. So it's really dependant on the person writing the review/message. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

here's one of many threads i've read on the matter Thread Read through the forums at Speedguide.net, they are very helpful.

Well I just ordered the NetGear RT314. After research all morning here at work (i'm bored), that seemed to be the best router on the market right now for the price. It's completely web-enabled, however you can chose to admin it from Telnet. My primary concerns were speed and stability. My current D-Stink DI-704 router constantly freezes and boots me and all my other machines offline. It's now having problems with TCP port forwarding. I've had enough so I decided to shop. Apparently the NetGear RT314 is the fastest router out there. The Linksys BEFSR41/48 routers are nice as well, but have a 4mb bandwidth limitation on the WAN port. This wouldn't affect me yet, but I figured for a couple dollars more, I could go with the NetGear, which has measured to allow nearly 8mb on the WAN port. Also, I read reviews on the RT314 dealing with stability, since that was a concern for me. The review team (i forget who it was), put the router in front of a very active web/ftp server along with a couple other hookups. No freezes, no hard reboots of the box... nuttin. Also, I liked that it has a metal case, and that it's stackable. The Linksys was too plasticky for my tastes and if I wanted to put my 8 port switch on top of it as an uplink, it really wouldnt work. AS a matter of fact, it would cover the ventalation holes (on the Linksys). It's because of the dome-like shape. I prefer a nice metal, square piece of machinery :-). I know two people with the Linksys routers who have never had an issue with them and love them. It was hard for me to decide on NetGear, but I think all in all I will be happier. I sure hope so.

Anybody know what TCP port Age 2 runs on? Havin a hellova time finding it...

I just got my two sticks of Crucial RAM, here are their specs (2) 256mb sticks each with: • Package: 168-pin DIMM • Feature: SDRAM, PC133 • Configuration: 32Meg x 72 • DIMM Type: Registered • Error Checking: ECC • Speed: 7.5ns • Voltage: 3.3V • SDRAM Timings:CL=2 I have the CUSL2-C motherboard from ASUS. It supports up to 512mb total, and DOES support 256mb per slot. It does NOT support ECC. My problem is, each stick is registering as only 128mb. I can not figure this out. I don't think the ECC would cause any problems because if it did, I probably wouldnt be able to start my machine at all. Any ideas? I'm all out. My motherboard is set up for all the above mentioned settings.

For anybody else that may be having this problem, here is the answer taken right from Asus's web site. Q : Can ASUS CUSL2-C motherboard support 168-pin 256MB ECC Register DIMM? A : The Intel 815E chipset on CUSL2 series cannot support registered SDRAM memory. You will only get half of the amount displayed or no display if you install registered memory. It also cannot support ECC memory. But, you still can use ECC memory on 815E chipset without ECC function.

I think I figured out the problem... I bought "Registered" SDRAM and not "Unbuffered". Gosh, I AM Murphey... whatever could go wrong... DOES. Hopefully they will take them back. Thanks Blade for the info!!

Anybody who lives in Bloomington/Normal want a Slayer ticket for the 11/28/2001 show in St. Louis at The Pageant Theatre? Short notice.. but something has come up and I can't go. If ya want the ticket (for, let's say, $25), I'll bring it over to ya.

Well, for months I've been going on and on about how Windows XP ain't nuttin special.... but something happened to me tonight that made me reconsider... Clutch told me one night that his Quake 3 timedemo benchmarks went out the roof once he switched to Windows XP. Being one of those people that never believes anything until he sees it, I had to test it out for myself. In Windows 2000 I was getting 85FPS on the following setup: Machine: PIII 1GHZ @ 1.13GHZ 400MB PC133 RAM ASUS CUSL2-C NVIDIA GeForce 2 GTS 32MB Sound Blaster Live! Value Quake 3 Setup: 1024X768 32 Bit Color Lightmap Geometric Deail at High Texture Deatil at High Texture Quality at Default Texture Filter at Bilinear On the exact same setup using Windows XP, I got 107FPS. I could not believe it. I went back and looked at all my settings over and over again to make sure things were "sticking". Sure enough... it was legit. So by switching to Windows XP I got an extra 22 frames per second using the same settings in Quake 3. Unbelievable.

Well, whatever it was, it was surely sweet.... and a bit freaky. The screen was flashing and moving so fast that I actually couln't even follow the action! I used the following timedemo (point release 1.30) timedemo 1 demo four Is this the only one? Why do they keep changing it with point releases? If there are other benchmarks I can run with quake (that don't require extra downloads)... lemme know. I wanna run some more tests.. I guess I could go search for this info as well... nah.

I usually refer to it as Acraptec Sleazy CD Destroyer It's so aweful.

I have a Visioneer OneTouch 8700 USB with PaperPort Deluxe 7.0 No problems here.

1.) Yes it does 2.) Not yet, .NET will be out in a couple months 3.) The skins of Windows XP will carry over to any application that uses the windows of "Windows". No patch is needed. Note: Visual Studio 6.0 Works just fine with XP.

Woohoo!! I became a Senior Member with that post! Everybody, look at me!!!

Quote: Yep, in admin mode you can have 1 console and 2 more admin logins. In application mode, the Internet user account is limited to 200 anonymous sessions, but I think the "Intranet" side is unlimited (well, theoretically anyway). In theory Communism works... in theory .

I'm starting to realize it.... It happened this past weekend, when two of my friends started IM-ing me with questions about XP. They were having security problems with a file I sent them (because the SIDS of the users who had rights to the file were foreign to their machines), so being the one they ALWAYS come to with questions, they came to me. I was trying to explain to them what happened, not that it mattered. I then tried to walk them through the process of fixing the security so that they would be able to use the file. I told them to right click on the file, go to properties, then go to the "Security" tab. Welp, there was no "Security" tab. Eventually we found it, and the whole interface was changed. I had a slight image of what it looked like still embedded in my mind from the last time I tried XP... so I was able to chug my way through and help them out. I also had a friend ask me about Remote Desktop, and where to find the normal desktop settings (e.g. resoultion etc), as they are now under an "Advanced" button. I figure... if I'm going to continue being up-to-date with today's technology, and continue being helpful to both my friends as well as this splendid forum, I may need to bite the bullet and make the switch. Sorta like trying beer for the first time. It tastes aweful, but over time you grow to like it quite a bit

Take heed... This forum does not respond kindly to obvious acts of piracy.

A-Men This review was posted on the front page yesterday: XP Review Here's what I've noticed about XP reviews. All the reviews that proclain XP as the most wonderful operating system in the world focus on the unimportant things like the new start menu, the new GUI, and most of all, its comparision to Windows 98SE. Well of COURSE it's going to be more stable that Windows 98SE! Doesn't take a genious to know that. These reviews are using a VERY bad frame of reference for judging XP. Now if you compare Windows XP with the all mighty Windows 2000, you come up with quite different results. A REAL analysis of XP vs 2000, shows that XP in many environments runs significantly slower than 2000. THIS is what matters. Screw all the ugly buttons and the little animated dog in XP. Too much garbage, and it slows down the OS and makes it feel very sloppy. People say, well it boots in NO time!! This is true, XP boots ver fast... but so what? I mean, I certainly don't lose any productivity in the extra 15 seconds that Windows 2000 takes. And considering Windows 2000 never needs to be restarted unless you install some poorly written software, boot time makes no difference. That should be the LAST thing somebody is concerned with. So anyways, XP is aweful, remote desktop is cool but not worth the change if you are using Windows 2000's Terminal Services (which is the same thing but works slightly different). I've been insisting that all of my friends who want to change.. do not. I plead with them not to, tell them why, and insist that if they want to upgrade, to upgrade to Windows 2000. All Windows XP is, is Windows 2000 bogged down with skins and all that other stuff. You can even read statements on the Microsoft home page that verify this (but not in so many words :-)). Theres also a very interesting page on Microsoft's home page that compares XP to 98se and 2k. Well obviously it kicks 98se's butt, but nearly all the numbers are identical. Anyways, i need to get ready for work.

Oh and my ISP's DNS isn't even listed in my primary and secondary DNS fields... my LOCAL primary and secondary DNS machines are. I have forwarding set up so they can find what they are looking for if it's not local. yadda yadda.....

That might make accessing your local machines a tad slower though since you are searching the web first for the IP of your local machines. The way I have it set up is that my DNS server is first, and if an IP is not found on my 3 machines, THEN it hits the net. But hey.. it might not make a difference. It just seems this way is more efficient.