Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Mike Rivers wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>
> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software doesn't
> crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware failures. But I
> know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't expect an operating
> system to do so under normal circumstances.
>
An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking up
to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use OS flaws.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Mike Rivers wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>
> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software doesn't
> crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware failures. But I
> know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't expect an operating
> system to do so under normal circumstances.
>
An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking up
to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use OS flaws.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>
>>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>>
>> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software doesn't
>> crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware failures. But I
>> know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't expect an operating
>> system to do so under normal circumstances.
>>
>
> An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking up
> to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use OS flaws.
>
What anti-virus software are you talking about that uses 50% of the
resources? Also, maybe you can clarify exactly 50% of what? YOUR system,
a 15 year old system, or a brand new one? I guess you're just
exaggerating to make a point, huh? What was your point, again?
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>
>>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>>
>> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software doesn't
>> crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware failures. But I
>> know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't expect an operating
>> system to do so under normal circumstances.
>>
>
> An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking up
> to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use OS flaws.
>
What anti-virus software are you talking about that uses 50% of the
resources? Also, maybe you can clarify exactly 50% of what? YOUR system,
a 15 year old system, or a brand new one? I guess you're just
exaggerating to make a point, huh? What was your point, again?
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>>>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>>>
>>> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software
>>> doesn't crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware
>>> failures. But I know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't
>>> expect an operating system to do so under normal circumstances.
>>>
>>
>> An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking
>> up to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use
>> OS flaws.
>>
>
> What anti-virus software are you talking about that uses 50% of the
> resources? Also, maybe you can clarify exactly 50% of what? YOUR system,
> a 15 year old system, or a brand new one? I guess you're just
> exaggerating to make a point, huh? What was your point, again?
The load of the virus scanner depends on the data traffic. With high
speed network interfaces, as used in modern client/server architectures,
scanning everything (that comes over a gigabit network or from a
removable disk) can take up to 50% of system resources. The speed of
data traffic evolves even at a higher rate than CPU power. Besides that
the number of threats is evolving too. Because of that the relative load
of virus scanners is worse than a decade ago.
The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting applications are
flawed, so everything that comes in should be checked against an ever
increasing number of threats.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Normally blaming Windows is the right thing to do, but we should not
>>>> totally exclude other errors., e.g. in hardware.
>>>
>>> I put a certain amount of stock in the principle that software
>>> doesn't crash, and that computer crashes are due to hardware
>>> failures. But I know that programs really DO crash, but I wouldn't
>>> expect an operating system to do so under normal circumstances.
>>>
>>
>> An OS also should not need software from independent sources, taking
>> up to 50% of the resources, to be protected against viruses that use
>> OS flaws.
>>
>
> What anti-virus software are you talking about that uses 50% of the
> resources? Also, maybe you can clarify exactly 50% of what? YOUR system,
> a 15 year old system, or a brand new one? I guess you're just
> exaggerating to make a point, huh? What was your point, again?
The load of the virus scanner depends on the data traffic. With high
speed network interfaces, as used in modern client/server architectures,
scanning everything (that comes over a gigabit network or from a
removable disk) can take up to 50% of system resources. The speed of
data traffic evolves even at a higher rate than CPU power. Besides that
the number of threats is evolving too. Because of that the relative load
of virus scanners is worse than a decade ago.
The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting applications are
flawed, so everything that comes in should be checked against an ever
increasing number of threats.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
> The load of the virus scanner depends on the data
> traffic. With high speed network interfaces, as used in
> modern client/server architectures, scanning everything
> (that comes over a gigabit network or from a removable
> disk) can take up to 50% of system resources.
Yes, logic says that it should take far more resources to check data
contents for patterns and certain data, than it does to simply pass the data
through.
> The speed of data traffic evolves even at a higher rate than CPU
> power.
I'm not sure about that. The fact that so much data is compressed suggests a
global situation where data communcations links are the constraint, and
sacrificing CPU power to compress and uncompress data is a reasonable
choice.
> Besides that the number of threats is evolving too.
Yes, but the threat/protection balance has varied considerably. Maybe 3
years ago I made quite a bit of money removing viruses and spyware from
client PCs, even PCs that had first-rate virus protection in place. These
days I hardly ever see a badly-infected PC. In fact, it is possible to put
an up-to-date XP system on the web with no add-on virus protection at all
and run it extensively without problems as long as you stay away from Warez,
Porno, and the like. The price of running an up-to-date XP system appears
to be RAM. At one time a 128 meg XP system was thinkable, but today there
can be a tangible advantage from running a 4 GB system. Increased CPU speed
and the nature of applications is partially responsible.
> Because of that the relative load of virus scanners
> is worse than a decade ago.
They obviously have a lot more different kinds of things to worry about.
> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
> should be checked against an ever increasing number of threats.
Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust. However, its all a matter
of requirments. When XP first came out many of the kinds of threats we now
have didn't exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human creativity
seems endless.
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
> The load of the virus scanner depends on the data
> traffic. With high speed network interfaces, as used in
> modern client/server architectures, scanning everything
> (that comes over a gigabit network or from a removable
> disk) can take up to 50% of system resources.
Yes, logic says that it should take far more resources to check data
contents for patterns and certain data, than it does to simply pass the data
through.
> The speed of data traffic evolves even at a higher rate than CPU
> power.
I'm not sure about that. The fact that so much data is compressed suggests a
global situation where data communcations links are the constraint, and
sacrificing CPU power to compress and uncompress data is a reasonable
choice.
> Besides that the number of threats is evolving too.
Yes, but the threat/protection balance has varied considerably. Maybe 3
years ago I made quite a bit of money removing viruses and spyware from
client PCs, even PCs that had first-rate virus protection in place. These
days I hardly ever see a badly-infected PC. In fact, it is possible to put
an up-to-date XP system on the web with no add-on virus protection at all
and run it extensively without problems as long as you stay away from Warez,
Porno, and the like. The price of running an up-to-date XP system appears
to be RAM. At one time a 128 meg XP system was thinkable, but today there
can be a tangible advantage from running a 4 GB system. Increased CPU speed
and the nature of applications is partially responsible.
> Because of that the relative load of virus scanners
> is worse than a decade ago.
They obviously have a lot more different kinds of things to worry about.
> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
> should be checked against an ever increasing number of threats.
Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust. However, its all a matter
of requirments. When XP first came out many of the kinds of threats we now
have didn't exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human creativity
seems endless.
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
> news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
..
>> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
>> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
>> should be checked against an ever increasing number of threats.
>
> Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust. However, its all a matter
> of requirments. When XP first came out many of the kinds of threats we now
> have didn't exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human creativity
> seems endless.
I have used MS software since systems like DOS 2.0 and Windows 86. To
put it mildly, after every improvement a lot of room for improvement
remained in every system. Older systems did not have to worry about
network attacks. They did not need viruses, the mere presence of any
network or modem device was sufficient to crash. That were the days of
".indo.s is .erfe.t for bac.gro.n. .ommunic.ti.n" ;-)
The current situation is that a MS PC connected to a network without
third party protection software will be compromized within minutes.
Other systems don't use or need virusscanners.
Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they exist because
of OS flaws.
BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
> news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
..
>> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
>> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
>> should be checked against an ever increasing number of threats.
>
> Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust. However, its all a matter
> of requirments. When XP first came out many of the kinds of threats we now
> have didn't exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human creativity
> seems endless.
I have used MS software since systems like DOS 2.0 and Windows 86. To
put it mildly, after every improvement a lot of room for improvement
remained in every system. Older systems did not have to worry about
network attacks. They did not need viruses, the mere presence of any
network or modem device was sufficient to crash. That were the days of
".indo.s is .erfe.t for bac.gro.n. .ommunic.ti.n" ;-)
The current situation is that a MS PC connected to a network without
third party protection software will be compromized within minutes.
Other systems don't use or need virusscanners.
Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they exist because
of OS flaws.
BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
> ..
>>> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
>>> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
>>> should be checked against an ever increasing number of
>>> threats.
>>
>> Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust.
>> However, its all a matter of requirments. When XP first
>> came out many of the kinds of threats we now have didn't
>> exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human
>> creativity seems endless.
>
> I have used MS software since systems like DOS 2.0 and
> Windows 86. To put it mildly, after every improvement a
> lot of room for improvement remained in every system.
> Older systems did not have to worry about network
> attacks. They did not need viruses, the mere presence of
> any network or modem device was sufficient to crash. That
> were the days of ".indo.s is .erfe.t for bac.gro.n.
> .ommunic.ti.n" ;-)
> The current situation is that a MS PC connected to a
> network without third party protection software will be
> compromized within minutes. Other systems don't use or
> need virusscanners.
This contrasts with my experience that a MS PC connected to the internet can
run uncompromised for years.
> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
> exist because of OS flaws.
Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness and curiosity of human
beings.
> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a ton of people have
already tried to install it.
I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times without any
difficulties, including twice yesterday.
Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any hardware bugs that
a system might have, particularly weaknesses in and around the hard drive.
Applying a ton of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I sell
and service.
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message news:6928sjF2voe9mU1@mid.individual . net
> ..
>>> The basic problem is that the MS OS and supporting
>>> applications are flawed, so everything that comes in
>>> should be checked against an ever increasing number of
>>> threats.
>>
>> Clearly the OS itself has become far more robust.
>> However, its all a matter of requirments. When XP first
>> came out many of the kinds of threats we now have didn't
>> exist and may not have even been imaginable. Human
>> creativity seems endless.
>
> I have used MS software since systems like DOS 2.0 and
> Windows 86. To put it mildly, after every improvement a
> lot of room for improvement remained in every system.
> Older systems did not have to worry about network
> attacks. They did not need viruses, the mere presence of
> any network or modem device was sufficient to crash. That
> were the days of ".indo.s is .erfe.t for bac.gro.n.
> .ommunic.ti.n" ;-)
> The current situation is that a MS PC connected to a
> network without third party protection software will be
> compromized within minutes. Other systems don't use or
> need virusscanners.
This contrasts with my experience that a MS PC connected to the internet can
run uncompromised for years.
> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
> exist because of OS flaws.
Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness and curiosity of human
beings.
> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a ton of people have
already tried to install it.
I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times without any
difficulties, including twice yesterday.
Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any hardware bugs that
a system might have, particularly weaknesses in and around the hard drive.
Applying a ton of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I sell
and service.
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
>> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
>> exist because of OS flaws.
>
> Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness and curiosity of human
> beings.
Current situation is that many viruses are created out of commercial
gain, to create botnets etc. We have not seen a virus that was a result
of a programming error of a lovesick teenager (I love You virus) for
some time now.
Viruses still need serious OS flaws to be created, and that explains
their current habitat completely.
>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>
> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a ton of people have
> already tried to install it.
Opinions might differ, but half a million crashing systems is quite a
lot. And remember, not every crashing system can be found with google.
> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any hardware bugs that
> a system might have,...
Remember the discussion started with a statement that a memory systems
that does error detection and correction are not needed, even if the
costs are only a few % of system price.
So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from perfect, if ECC
memory does not cost you a bundle, it is worth the money.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
>> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
>> exist because of OS flaws.
>
> Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness and curiosity of human
> beings.
Current situation is that many viruses are created out of commercial
gain, to create botnets etc. We have not seen a virus that was a result
of a programming error of a lovesick teenager (I love You virus) for
some time now.
Viruses still need serious OS flaws to be created, and that explains
their current habitat completely.
>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>
> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a ton of people have
> already tried to install it.
Opinions might differ, but half a million crashing systems is quite a
lot. And remember, not every crashing system can be found with google.
> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any hardware bugs that
> a system might have,...
Remember the discussion started with a statement that a memory systems
that does error detection and correction are not needed, even if the
costs are only a few % of system price.
So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from perfect, if ECC
memory does not cost you a bundle, it is worth the money.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:692u48F309gh0U1@mid.individual . net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message
>
>>> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
>>> exist because of OS flaws.
>>
>> Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness
>> and curiosity of human beings.
>
> Current situation is that many viruses are created out of
> commercial gain, to create botnets etc. We have not seen
> a virus that was a result of a programming error of a
> lovesick teenager (I love You virus) for some time now.
>
> Viruses still need serious OS flaws to be created, and
> that explains their current habitat completely.
OSs are always going to have flaws, and the more they do, the more flaws
they are prone to.
>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out,
>> a ton of people have already tried to install it.
> Opinions might differ, but half a million crashing
> systems is quite a lot.
I don't know how many of these are pile-ons, pass-ons, and obligatory flames
from Mac and Linux advocates.
> And remember, not every crashing system can be found with google.
The number of crashings systems might even be less than the number of posts
about systems crashing.
>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate
>> any hardware bugs that a system might have,...
> Remember the discussion started with a statement that a
> memory systems that does error detection and correction
> are not needed, even if the costs are only a few % of
> system price.
That seems to be the case. If a system has such a good chance of being
scrapped after a fruitful life without ever having the problem, why address
it?
> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
> worth the money.
The market seems to say otherwise, at least for single-user desktop and
portable systems.
"Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:692u48F309gh0U1@mid.individual . net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message
>
>>> Viruses are not a twist of nature or an act of god, they
>>> exist because of OS flaws.
>>
>> Well really, viruses exist because of the hatefulness
>> and curiosity of human beings.
>
> Current situation is that many viruses are created out of
> commercial gain, to create botnets etc. We have not seen
> a virus that was a result of a programming error of a
> lovesick teenager (I love You virus) for some time now.
>
> Viruses still need serious OS flaws to be created, and
> that explains their current habitat completely.
OSs are always going to have flaws, and the more they do, the more flaws
they are prone to.
>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out,
>> a ton of people have already tried to install it.
> Opinions might differ, but half a million crashing
> systems is quite a lot.
I don't know how many of these are pile-ons, pass-ons, and obligatory flames
from Mac and Linux advocates.
> And remember, not every crashing system can be found with google.
The number of crashings systems might even be less than the number of posts
about systems crashing.
>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate
>> any hardware bugs that a system might have,...
> Remember the discussion started with a statement that a
> memory systems that does error detection and correction
> are not needed, even if the costs are only a few % of
> system price.
That seems to be the case. If a system has such a good chance of being
scrapped after a fruitful life without ever having the problem, why address
it?
> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
> worth the money.
The market seems to say otherwise, at least for single-user desktop and
portable systems.
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:DdudnSZ7muDF2LHVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
[snip]
, why address
> it?
>
>> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
>> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
>> worth the money.
>
> The market seems to say otherwise, at least for single-user desktop and
> portable systems.
>
Arny, Chel is right. Listen to him.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:DdudnSZ7muDF2LHVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
[snip]
, why address
> it?
>
>> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
>> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
>> worth the money.
>
> The market seems to say otherwise, at least for single-user desktop and
> portable systems.
>
Arny, Chel is right. Listen to him.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:HY-dnVHdPMgK27HVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews . com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:DdudnSZ7muDF2LHVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message
> [snip]
>
> , why address
>> it?
>>
>>> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
>>> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
>>> worth the money.
>>
>> The market seems to say otherwise, at least for
>> single-user desktop and portable systems.
>>
> Arny, Chel is right. Listen to him.
No, Chel just seems to be agreeing with you, Robert. That proves nothing.
"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:HY-dnVHdPMgK27HVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews . com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:DdudnSZ7muDF2LHVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message
> [snip]
>
> , why address
>> it?
>>
>>> So to go back on topic, even if your OS is far from
>>> perfect, if ECC memory does not cost you a bundle, it is
>>> worth the money.
>>
>> The market seems to say otherwise, at least for
>> single-user desktop and portable systems.
>>
> Arny, Chel is right. Listen to him.
No, Chel just seems to be agreeing with you, Robert. That proves nothing.
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>
> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a
> ton of people have already tried to install it.
>
> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any
> hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
> sell and service.
Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
mixup in GDI.EXE.
Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
* support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use the recovery console
procedure.
Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure to be incorrect, in
that it includes a step that should have never been needed, and wasn't
needed in my situation. It involves editing the registry.
I also found that disabling auto-rebooting will faciliate trouble-shooting.
By doing that I found that I had this problem:
* w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new desktop with a NVIDIA 7300
video card with a DVI output and lots of high resolution settings for large
monitors.
So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
problem, and see what breaks next.
Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus infection.
I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>
> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a
> ton of people have already tried to install it.
>
> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any
> hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
> sell and service.
Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
mixup in GDI.EXE.
Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
* support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use the recovery console
procedure.
Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure to be incorrect, in
that it includes a step that should have never been needed, and wasn't
needed in my situation. It involves editing the registry.
I also found that disabling auto-rebooting will faciliate trouble-shooting.
By doing that I found that I had this problem:
* w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new desktop with a NVIDIA 7300
video card with a DVI output and lots of high resolution settings for large
monitors.
So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
problem, and see what breaks next.
Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus infection.
I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
> installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
> mixup in GDI.EXE.
>
..
> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
> problem, and see what breaks next.
>
> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
> procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus infection.
> I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
Those things just happen (they have happened since the first version of
DOS and will keep happening), and we should not close our eyes for that.
Just a simple way to avoid some of the effects of these problems:
I keep all my data, source and results, on my Linux server. This data is
in read-only shares for my DAW. I keep my DAW software as simple as
possible. No internet browsing, no internet radio and TV, no text
processing, no email etc. on my DAW. (I use the Linux server to do these
dangerous tasks ;) I always keep a number of images of the DAW software,
that I can simply restore with a "dd" command under Linux. You can call
me paranoid (one could say "better safe than sorry"), but I use ECC
memory on my systems too.
BTW big files in shares, stored on SATA drives on a Linux server
connected with gigabit ethernet, are fast.
Anyhow, good luck with your updates.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
> installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
> mixup in GDI.EXE.
>
..
> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
> problem, and see what breaks next.
>
> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
> procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus infection.
> I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
Those things just happen (they have happened since the first version of
DOS and will keep happening), and we should not close our eyes for that.
Just a simple way to avoid some of the effects of these problems:
I keep all my data, source and results, on my Linux server. This data is
in read-only shares for my DAW. I keep my DAW software as simple as
possible. No internet browsing, no internet radio and TV, no text
processing, no email etc. on my DAW. (I use the Linux server to do these
dangerous tasks ;) I always keep a number of images of the DAW software,
that I can simply restore with a "dd" command under Linux. You can call
me paranoid (one could say "better safe than sorry"), but I use ECC
memory on my systems too.
BTW big files in shares, stored on SATA drives on a Linux server
connected with gigabit ethernet, are fast.
Anyhow, good luck with your updates.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site * w w w .serg.vangennip . com
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:Ca-dnVfhLI_hH7DVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>
>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>>
>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a
>> ton of people have already tried to install it.
>>
>> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
>> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
>
>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any
>> hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
>> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
>> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
>> sell and service.
>
> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
> installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
> mixup in GDI.EXE.
>
> Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
>
> * support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
>
> Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use the recovery console
> procedure.
>
> Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure to be incorrect,
> in that it includes a step that should have never been needed, and wasn't
> needed in my situation. It involves editing the registry.
>
> I also found that disabling auto-rebooting will faciliate
> trouble-shooting. By doing that I found that I had this problem:
>
> * w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
>
> BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new desktop with a NVIDIA
> 7300 video card with a DVI output and lots of high resolution settings for
> large monitors.
>
> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
> problem, and see what breaks next.
>
> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
> procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus
> infection. I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths spyware? If it got you, it
could get a lot of people.
I have found this software to be excellent protection against random pain ;)
* w w w .acronis . com /homecomputing/products/trueimage/
They have a deal; two licenses for $70.
The motivation was this: Last Fall, sitting in an LA Starbucks, I had a
laptop become unbootable. According to Microsoft, the cause was the Realtek
AC'97 driver, which required an update not available on the Windows website,
but I also have suspicions that the wifi transport layer may have been
hacked in the airport. The Windows "repair" procedure resulted in a
temporary fix that lasted only two days. Since I always travel with two
laptops, and a few spare parts, I was able to perform a complete reinstall
on a new hard disk, but this involved dowloading hundreds of megabytes in
places as remote as Panguitch, UT (where they still have cows on the main
drag). I remember walking up and down Main Street in Panguitch with a WM6
phone, searching for a wifi signal -- and I found one, a good one! But I
resolved I never wanted to repeat the experience.
Six of my machines are now protected with this software. Two weeks ago, it
got the acid test. I was uninstalling Visual Studio 2005, and I removed the
components in the wrong order. The SQL database was required to complete the
install, and it could not be made functional by a restore operation. So I
copied the backup image for the laptop to the second partition, popped in
the boot CD, and, voila!, 35 minutes later, the laptop was back in shape. I
was able to remove VS2005, and install VS2008.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:Ca-dnVfhLI_hH7DVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>
>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>>
>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out, a
>> ton of people have already tried to install it.
>>
>> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
>> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
>
>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate any
>> hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
>> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
>> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
>> sell and service.
>
> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later downed this PC by
> installing SP3 on it later on yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software
> mixup in GDI.EXE.
>
> Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
>
> * support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
>
> Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use the recovery console
> procedure.
>
> Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure to be incorrect,
> in that it includes a step that should have never been needed, and wasn't
> needed in my situation. It involves editing the registry.
>
> I also found that disabling auto-rebooting will faciliate
> trouble-shooting. By doing that I found that I had this problem:
>
> * w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
>
> BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new desktop with a NVIDIA
> 7300 video card with a DVI output and lots of high resolution settings for
> large monitors.
>
> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on, fix the GDI
> problem, and see what breaks next.
>
> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding the backout
> procedure, I infected another computer with a nasty spyware/virus
> infection. I guess God thought I needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths spyware? If it got you, it
could get a lot of people.
I have found this software to be excellent protection against random pain ;)
* w w w .acronis . com /homecomputing/products/trueimage/
They have a deal; two licenses for $70.
The motivation was this: Last Fall, sitting in an LA Starbucks, I had a
laptop become unbootable. According to Microsoft, the cause was the Realtek
AC'97 driver, which required an update not available on the Windows website,
but I also have suspicions that the wifi transport layer may have been
hacked in the airport. The Windows "repair" procedure resulted in a
temporary fix that lasted only two days. Since I always travel with two
laptops, and a few spare parts, I was able to perform a complete reinstall
on a new hard disk, but this involved dowloading hundreds of megabytes in
places as remote as Panguitch, UT (where they still have cows on the main
drag). I remember walking up and down Main Street in Panguitch with a WM6
phone, searching for a wifi signal -- and I found one, a good one! But I
resolved I never wanted to repeat the experience.
Six of my machines are now protected with this software. Two weeks ago, it
got the acid test. I was uninstalling Visual Studio 2005, and I removed the
components in the wrong order. The SQL database was required to complete the
install, and it could not be made functional by a restore operation. So I
copied the backup image for the laptop to the second partition, popped in
the boot CD, and, voila!, 35 minutes later, the laptop was back in shape. I
was able to remove VS2005, and install VS2008.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:xf6dnWBhJ9kHWLDVnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@giganews . com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:Ca-dnVfhLI_hH7DVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
>> news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
>>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>>> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>>
>>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>>>
>>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out,
>>> a ton of people have already tried to install it.
>>>
>>> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
>>> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
>>
>>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate
>>> any hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
>>> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
>>> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
>>> sell and service.
>>
>> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later
>> downed this PC by installing SP3 on it later on
>> yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software mixup in
>> GDI.EXE. Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
>>
>> * support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
>>
>> Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use
>> the recovery console procedure.
>>
>> Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure
>> to be incorrect, in that it includes a step that should
>> have never been needed, and wasn't needed in my
>> situation. It involves editing the registry. I also found that disabling
>> auto-rebooting will faciliate
>> trouble-shooting. By doing that I found that I had this
>> problem:
>> * w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
>>
>> BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new
>> desktop with a NVIDIA 7300 video card with a DVI output
>> and lots of high resolution settings for large monitors.
>>
>> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on,
>> fix the GDI problem, and see what breaks next.
>>
>> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding
>> the backout procedure, I infected another computer with
>> a nasty spyware/virus infection. I guess God thought I
>> needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
> Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths
> spyware? If it got you, it could get a lot of people.
The spyware was composed of several distinct kinds of malware.
There was a trojan that I cleaned up in the heat of battle, whose name I've
already forgotten.
The main infection was fixed with SMITFRAUDFIX. The version I had was known
as XPAntivirus. This was a large-scale trojan that infected both XP and IE.
I cleaned up a nasty piece of spyware known as WLCtrl32.exe by hand. It also
targeted XP and IE.
> I have found this software to be excellent protection
> against random pain ;)
> * w w w .acronis . com /homecomputing/products/trueimage/ They have a deal;
> two licenses for $70.
I use Ghost to make image backups. I had fairly current ones on hand, but
getting back to the current live system is always worth the effort.
"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:xf6dnWBhJ9kHWLDVnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@giganews . com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:Ca-dnVfhLI_hH7DVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
>> news:BeidndXbj6L7o7HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast . com
>>> "Chel van Gennip" <chel-news@vangennip.nl> wrote in
>>> message news:692shqF2velq5U1@mid.individual . net
>>
>>>> BTW, XP-sp3 crash already gives 438,000 hits on Google
>>>
>>> That only shows that in the brief time it has been out,
>>> a ton of people have already tried to install it.
>>>
>>> I've installed it (actually the pre-release) 6 times
>>> without any difficulties, including twice yesterday.
>>
>>> Installing a service pack is a great way to stimulate
>>> any hardware bugs that a system might have, particularly
>>> weaknesses in and around the hard drive. Applying a ton
>>> of service is part of the stress testing for the PCs I
>>> sell and service.
>>
>> Just to show that God has a sense of humor, I later
>> downed this PC by installing SP3 on it later on
>> yesterday. I got nailed by a driver/software mixup in
>> GDI.EXE. Here's MS's take on the backout procedure:
>>
>> * support.microsoft . com /kb/950249
>>
>> Since my machine stopped during booting, I had to use
>> the recovery console procedure.
>>
>> Cynics will be happy to know that I found this procedure
>> to be incorrect, in that it includes a step that should
>> have never been needed, and wasn't needed in my
>> situation. It involves editing the registry. I also found that disabling
>> auto-rebooting will faciliate
>> trouble-shooting. By doing that I found that I had this
>> problem:
>> * w w w .biggandyy . com /2008/04/14/windows-xp-sp3-rc2-refresh-stop-error-c0000139-entry-point-not-found/
>>
>> BTW the computer wasn't a laptop. It's a very new
>> desktop with a NVIDIA 7300 video card with a DVI output
>> and lots of high resolution settings for large monitors.
>>
>> So when I'm feeling frisky, I'll try to put SP3 back on,
>> fix the GDI problem, and see what breaks next.
>>
>> Then to add insult to injury, in the middle of finding
>> the backout procedure, I infected another computer with
>> a nasty spyware/virus infection. I guess God thought I
>> needed to be a little more humble. ;-)
> Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths
> spyware? If it got you, it could get a lot of people.
The spyware was composed of several distinct kinds of malware.
There was a trojan that I cleaned up in the heat of battle, whose name I've
already forgotten.
The main infection was fixed with SMITFRAUDFIX. The version I had was known
as XPAntivirus. This was a large-scale trojan that infected both XP and IE.
I cleaned up a nasty piece of spyware known as WLCtrl32.exe by hand. It also
targeted XP and IE.
> I have found this software to be excellent protection
> against random pain ;)
> * w w w .acronis . com /homecomputing/products/trueimage/ They have a deal;
> two licenses for $70.
I use Ghost to make image backups. I had fairly current ones on hand, but
getting back to the current live system is always worth the effort.
Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:bsCdnYN7l9dlubPVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
[snip]
>
>> Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths
>> spyware? If it got you, it could get a lot of people.
>
> The spyware was composed of several distinct kinds of malware.
>
> There was a trojan that I cleaned up in the heat of battle, whose name
> I've already forgotten.
>
> The main infection was fixed with SMITFRAUDFIX. The version I had was
> known as XPAntivirus. This was a large-scale trojan that infected both XP
> and IE.
>
> I cleaned up a nasty piece of spyware known as WLCtrl32.exe by hand. It
> also targeted XP and IE.
>
[snip]
Interesting. According to this site,
* w w w .bleepingcomputer . com /forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=1341&showentry=1278
the mode of infection (as of 4/24/08) was unknown. Any guesses?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:bsCdnYN7l9dlubPVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
[snip]
>
>> Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What was ths
>> spyware? If it got you, it could get a lot of people.
>
> The spyware was composed of several distinct kinds of malware.
>
> There was a trojan that I cleaned up in the heat of battle, whose name
> I've already forgotten.
>
> The main infection was fixed with SMITFRAUDFIX. The version I had was
> known as XPAntivirus. This was a large-scale trojan that infected both XP
> and IE.
>
> I cleaned up a nasty piece of spyware known as WLCtrl32.exe by hand. It
> also targeted XP and IE.
>
[snip]
Interesting. According to this site,
* w w w .bleepingcomputer . com /forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=1341&showentry=1278
the mode of infection (as of 4/24/08) was unknown. Any guesses?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Next: CHINA SUPPLY CHEAP UGG BOOTS AF1 JORDAN 3 4 5 FUSION SHOES AT w w w .SNEAKER-OUTLET...
Previous: Question about fan noise of Crown XS500
