Operating System

[R]

I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
perfect!!

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
(2) Western Digital Raptor

Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
out and the new software architecture would be
better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.


Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
adequate power supply?



Thanks!!

 

[Canus_Lupis]

Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and doesn`t fully
understand DDR ram.
XPee likes 512Mb of DDR ram and you would be silly to go the cost of a new
system and then start cutting it back just so you could run 98SE.
Use a good firewall, a decent spyware remover and a top anti virus programme
and you will be fine with XP Pro on your new machine.

 

[Lil' Dave]

Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and doesn`t fully
understand DDR ram.

Am running a tri-boot 98SE/98SE/XP. 2.4 GHz / 512MB DDR. Nothig modified
in 98SE to make use of memory.

XPee likes 512Mb of DDR ram and you would be silly to go the cost of a new
system and then start cutting it back just so you could run 98SE.

Another 98 OS Urban legend. Problem you're referring to, I guess, usually
begins when exceeding 512MB of physical memory. A couple of system.ini
entries will allow up to1GB.

Use a good firewall, a decent spyware remover and a top anti virus programme
and you will be fine with XP Pro on your new machine.

Same goes for 98SE.

98SE does not understand hyper-thread technology.

 

[Tim]

Hi,

Go with XP and as the others say good firewall, AV and spyware + healthy
computing habits.

Others have recommended the 2.4 / 2.6 / 2.8c chips in preference to the new
E chips in terms of bang for your buck, and reduced heat dissipation.

If you want a silent system start with quiet parts. The raptors are OK - not
much worse than most HDD's, so if this is a factor, then choose your PSU,
graphics and HSF with this in mind.

XP SP2 will be out soon, so don't fork out any dosh for a firewall - make do
with one of the free ones which will probably be about as effective.

- Tim

 

[rstlne]

I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
perfect!!

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
(2) Western Digital Raptor

Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
out and the new software architecture would be
better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.


Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
adequate power supply?



Thanks!!

Dont know about the PSU (maybee)
98se Would be okay but the HT support wouldnt be there as you say.
There are "unofficial" sites that do serice packs for windows.. and things
like the .NET framework HAVE BEEN ported to work on systems like 98 so in
many ways you can indeed run some of the latest software. I am not saying
that its going to be as easy as just installing a current OS in to your
system BUT if you "enjoy" modding your software settings then I would say
stick with 98se..
One other note if you DO stay with 98se then you can disable the swap file
(it's not as simple as turning it off) but you can force 98 to swap to ram
(sounds weird doesnt it) and it makes 98se BLAZING FAST..

 

[Leythos]

Win 98SE has trouble with anything over 256Mb of ram and

This is utter poppy-cock, Windows 98SE can handle 1GB of ram without
problem: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=304943

doesn`t fully understand DDR ram.

The OS doesn't understand anything about RAM, it's the job of the
chipset on the motherboards to make memory work, it has nothing to do
with the OS. Memory, other than limitations, is a product/function of
the chipsets used by the MB vendors.

If you've got a new board and 1GB of ram then Windows XP Professional is
the OS to use for a home user, it's fast, easy to use, and it will
detect almost all the hardware you already have without any problems. XP
Prof is the most stable OS that MS has pushed out to home users ever.

 

[Ken Marsh]

Hi,

#Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
#XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
#drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
#Win 98se or go with Win XP?

Don't run Unix on x86, unless you have a specific customer or work
requirement for it. Run Linux. I also suggest you keep whatever Windoze
you run on the primary ("C:") hard drive. This is by no means a
necessity, but it can make things easier.

If you do choose to run a commercial Unix like Solaris or <that other
company>, buy the OS first, then buy only hardware on its compatibility
list. Any other course of action is foolhardy, you'll end up running in
unaccelerated 640x480x16 with half your peripherals unrecogized. Or,
just run Linux, it has MUCH better h/w support.

I wouldn't install 98SE on a MB made after 2002. Again, it's not that it
can't be done, but you'll find the board was tested and optimized for XP
or Win2K. The best debugged drivers will be for XP or Win2K. You'll also
find very little interest from vendors in working on driver bugs for an
obsolete operating system.

#Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
#adequate power supply?

Probably, unless you have a really huge video card in a loaded system,
and/or you want to overclock. Personally, I'm not buying anything under
400W now, not because I need it, but because I don't know what is coming
down the road in 6 months. Some people have had problems with them, but
I consider Antec several steps above the generic 90-day-life chinese
power supply.

Ken.

 

[billh]

I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.
I've put together three systems with Asus boards and all worked
perfect!!

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)
(2) Western Digital Raptor

Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
XP. I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
drive, but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
Win 98se or go with Win XP? Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread? I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
out and the new software architecture would be
better with the newer processors, I just wondered if anyone is
successfully running Win98 on a newer processor.


Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
adequate power supply?



Thanks!!

Putting 98SE on a modern board is a waste of a good board since the boards
tend to be optomized for XP and have features that only work if W2000 or XP
are installed. New HW and SW are going to require later than W98 so you
might as well get into it now and that includes dealing with viruses and
other annoyances.

The short answer to W98 and the memory is some boards work up to a GB and
others don't regardless of the mods to the ini file and other patches.

Billh

 

[R]

Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
virus. I'll have to
look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
gather it's
a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.

I thought the E series chips were better and faster (but hotter), but not
sure if there is any reliability issues compaired to the C series pentium?

Thanks again!!

 

[Ben Pope]

Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
virus. I'll have to
look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
gather it's
a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.

It's a service pack for XP geared around security. The new firewall is
supposed to be quite good. I have the SR release on my computer at work (I
use W2K SP4 at home), and it seems ok.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and
installing them, then you'll probably be ok. Of course, a virus scanner is
almost essential these days, otherwise you just have to not run any programs
or connect to any other machine to be sure of not getting one. Symantec
Antivirus does a good job of looking after my machine.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better. Additionally driver support for
Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've come a long
way.

I thought the E series chips were better and faster (but hotter), but not
sure if there is any reliability issues compaired to the C series pentium?

They'll be just as reliable... just harder to keep at sane temperatures,
meaning you'll need louder fans. They're also a lot more expensive for not
that much gain in performance.

Ben

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

Hi,

Go with XP

[snip]

No, don't. See my other f'up in this thread for the "why".

XP SP2 will be out soon, so don't fork out any dosh for a firewall - make
do with one of the free ones which will probably be about as effective.

[snip]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for a
proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
absolute requirement in ALL cases.

Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
marginally close to adequate.

Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is attempting to
protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1125025>
<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1129165>
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.petch.html>
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[email protected]>
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[email protected]>
<http://www.pcpitstop.com/news/nl-200403.asp#A4>
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/z/zonekiller.asp>
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/f/firekiller_2000.asp>
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Firecracker.html>
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Killer3.0.html>

Or, to put it more eloquently:

You can't block a port with software that runs on the same machine where
the attacks are aimed. That's like trying to stop bullets by shoving
Kevlar up your backside. By the time the bullet hits the Kevlar, the
damage has been done.
-- Morely 'Spam is theft' Dotes in NANAE, 13-AUG-2003


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[rstlne]

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for a
proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
absolute requirement in ALL cases.

Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
marginally close to adequate.

Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is attempting to
protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

Explain yourself (to me it sounds like you dont have a full understanding of
firewalls or software based firewalls)

You can't block a port with software that runs on the same machine where
the attacks are aimed. That's like trying to stop bullets by shoving
Kevlar up your backside. By the time the bullet hits the Kevlar, the
damage has been done.
-- Morely 'Spam is theft' Dotes in NANAE, 13-AUG-2003

I think this backs up my first statement..
It's best to look at it LIKE THIS.. (in VERRY simple terms)
Say that someone is packetflooding port 80 on your pc.. so you block it
locally.. HERE is what happens..
Broadband -> Pc = Flooded PcPort (net is useless)
now..
Broadband -> Router -> PC = Flooded RouterPort (net is useless)

Either way .. the net is .. useless

ZoneAlarm/Symantic/(few others) Firewalls can do the job JUST AS GOOD as a
hardware router (that has a firewall)..
If you dont belive that's the case then You should get the tech docs to your
routers (Linksys would be a good place to start, as their firmware is open
source)

 

[Ben Pope]

Hi,

Go with XP

[snip]

No, don't. See my other f'up in this thread for the "why".

****up? Oh, followup Don't see it, sorry.

XP SP2 will be out soon, so don't fork out any dosh for a firewall -

make > do with one of the free ones which will probably be about as
effective. >
[snip]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

First, which flavor of Windows one uses has *NO* bearing on the need for a
proper outboard (commonly called "hardware") firewall which remains an
absolute requirement in ALL cases.

ALL cases? So you recommend that EVERYBODY purchases a hardware firewall?
Are you in the industry?

Seriously, for 99% of home users a software firewall is adequate. They are
not trying to protect commercially sensitive data in most cases. They
merely want to have some protection over which ports and services can be
accessed from outside, and which programs can access other machines. A good
software firewall is adequate in these cases.

Secondly, in *NO* case is the "pseudo-firewall" supplied with WinXP even
marginally close to adequate.

Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is
attempting to protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the
iceberg:

<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1125025>
<http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1129165>
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.petch.html>
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[email protected]

<http://www.pcpitstop.com/news/nl-200403.asp#A4>
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/z/zonekiller.asp>
<http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/f/firekiller_2000.asp>
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Firecracker.html>
<http://www.megasecurity.org/Firewalls/Killer3.0.html>

I don't think I'll bother reading them.

Or, to put it more eloquently:

You can't block a port with software that runs on the same machine
where the attacks are aimed. That's like trying to stop bullets by
shoving Kevlar up your backside. By the time the bullet hits the
Kevlar, the damage has been done.
-- Morely 'Spam is theft' Dotes in NANAE, 13-AUG-2003

Not sure how eloquent that is.

If you were a company with sensitive data to protect, then I would certainly
recommend a hardware router/firewall. But that is not the case for home
users. Suggesting home users purchase, set up and use a hardware firewall
is ridiculous and unnecessary in almost all cases.

If you want to protect a machine running a webserver from being flooded,
then there isn't a great deal you can do, depending on the type of attack.
If somebody floods you, you get flooded. The path from you to the internet
is going to be screwed until they give up, regardless of whether there is a
firewall there or not. OK, so with a firewall the webserver doesn't fall
over, but it's still not accessible by anybody. Oh, except that the
firewall will forward all packets to the webserver anyway (unless they can
be identified as non legitimate requests by the firewall) as thats exactly
what you will want it to do.

There are no completely infallible ways of protecting yourself from people
who want to attack your machine. A software firewall is close enough.

Ben

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

[Hrmpf... I just noticed several different, and apparently unrelated,
articles sitting in my Agent "Outbox", which for some unknown reason
apparently never got posted. This is one of them. Re-posting. Apologies if
duplicate.]

I built my Asus P3F with 700 pentium about 4 years ago, rock solid and
on win98se, but it's time for an upgrade.

[snip]

The P3B-F was indeed a great board, for its era; nearly as much so as the
legendary T2P4.

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

Asus P4C800-E DELUXE
Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz (Hyper Threading)

[snip]

I strongly prefer AMD CPUs, for several reasons; but that is an argument I'll

(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
opinions...

Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD model is
(currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale, while still maintaining
"passable" performance. The WD740GD is still bigger, but disproportionately
more expensive (today, anyway; wait an hour or two, and that will surely
change -- life in the ultra-competitive HDD market). And both include a
decent warranty (a relative rarity for WDC), as long as you buy it right. So
I can't say this is a *bad* choice. But if speed is the ultimate goal,
neither Raptor is a match for a good SCSI RAID array.

Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:

Seems like every other day I read about a new virus out attaching Win
XP.

[snip]

Windows-specific worms/virii/etc. are by no means limited to XP. As a rule,
they'll just as readily attack any other version of Windows more recent than
WfWG (some are specifically aimed at Windows-based servers, as opposed to
desktops; but that's another matter).

HOWEVER... WinXP, specifically, should be avoided for several *other*
reasons. Far too much to go into here; but see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

and (read all three):
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/14/11winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/28/13winman_1.html>

and finally:
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html>

If you want to go with an NT-based (as opposed to DOS-based) version of
Windows, then stick with Win2K/SP4; but be *SURE* to install it using

I plan to get into Unix operating system on one hard
drive,

[snip]

Good move, BUT...

Unless you have some very specific reason to favor a particular vendor's
version of Unix, I *strongly* suggest that for your purposes, "Unix" should
equal "Linux". Beyond that, everyone has their own pet Linux distro, and
rarely will any two randomly chosen penguin-heads agree on which that should
be. But the "bottom line" is that Red Hat is *generally* considered the most
"compromised by commercial marketing concerns" -- which may or may not
actually mean it's suitable to you. Personally, I have a soft spot for

...but not sure if the second hard drive (portable) should keep the
Win 98se or go with Win XP?

[snip]

See above WRT WinXP. As for Win98SE, there's no reason you couldn't install
that beside either Linux or an NT-based Windows (or both); and depending on
what applications and peripherals you plan to use, it may be a very good idea,
at least as a temporary "bridge" while you learn Linux. But if you do go this
route, it is again an "absolute must" to install it via 98lite:

Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread?

[snip]

Presuming that by "work with" you mean "take advantage of", no -- but that's
rather a moot point AFAIAC. You certainly do *NOT* need "HyperThreading" to
use and fully take advantage of Win98SE.

I already know Win98 would limit the new programs coming
out and the new software architecture would be
better with the newer processors,

[snip]

This is at least mostly Urban Legend.

The best fundamental lesson you can possibly learn, applicable in all sorts of
contexts beyond just this one, is:

"Newer" != "Better".

Oh yeah, another quick question. Would the Antec 380 True Power be an
adequate power supply?

[snip]

Probably, depending on what else you're putting in the box. The main thing to
keep in mind is that newer P4 systems can really load down the +12V rail, far
beyond what used to be considered "normal". So if you insist on going the
Intel route, look at that spec particularly close.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Ben Pope]

(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
opinions...

Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD
model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale,

Eh? It's 36GB for like £90, I can get a drive 4 times that size for less
money.

while still
maintaining "passable" performance.

Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available.

The WD740GD is still bigger,

Not a hard task.

but
disproportionately more expensive (today, anyway; wait an hour or two,
and that will surely change -- life in the ultra-competitive HDD market).

Disproportionately? It's £160, less than twice the price of the WD360GD,
and twice the capacity.

And both include a decent warranty (a relative rarity for WDC), as long
as you buy it right. So I can't say this is a *bad* choice. But if
speed is the ultimate goal, neither Raptor is a match for a good SCSI
RAID array.

No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh...

Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array - in
terms of price/performance. It's probably a tad slower (depending on your
usage patterns) for a tad less money.

Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:

<snip over-zealous rantings about windows security>

We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to
date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is
generally enough for most people.

Ben

 

[Leythos]

If you were a company with sensitive data to protect, then I would certainly
recommend a hardware router/firewall. But that is not the case for home
users. Suggesting home users purchase, set up and use a hardware firewall
is ridiculous and unnecessary in almost all cases.

Actually, considering that most people never run Windows Update, never
run their AV updates, a NAT router (which is not a firewall) at the cost
of $40 in most places around the US is about as safe as they can get
considering all that they don't do.

Most adults try and keep some banking information on their computers,
so, I would call that as sensitive as company data.

If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

 

[rstlne]

Actually, considering that most people never run Windows Update, never

run their AV updates, a NAT router (which is not a firewall) at the cost
of $40 in most places around the US is about as safe as they can get
considering all that they don't do.

How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
question)

Most adults try and keep some banking information on their computers,
so, I would call that as sensitive as company data.

I doubt that there is much ident theft in those cases (it's not worth the
time and effort when you can pay 5$ to a postial offical for a GoldCC with a
10,000$ limit)

If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

Yea, Highly possible that one..
Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
explanation).. Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
or really run ANY server..

But yea.. It would help..

 

[Leythos]

How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
question)

We have more than 100 of them across the country (the Linksys BEFSR41,
and BEFSX41 and BEFVP41) and have never found any trace of anything
getting past them that was not invited by the users. We log the in/out
bound traffic and have scripts that detect unusual items, and we do a
cursory scan by hand once a month.

I used a BEFSR41 for about 3 years myself and never had any problems.

 

[Leythos]

It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
or really run ANY server..

But most ISP's TOS prohibit that function, so it's not an issue for
most. An if the NAT function was on by default and could be requested to
be disabled, then customers would lose nothing.

 

[rstlne]

But most ISP's TOS prohibit that function, so it's not an issue for
most. An if the NAT function was on by default and could be requested to
be disabled, then customers would lose nothing.

MY Isp doesnt block any port (in or out).
My only limitation is that I cant use it to make money or for illegal stuff
(kiddieporn/warez/mp3z)

I say that IF an isp blocks that stuff then they should do like CenturyTel
do.. and block the port as soon as it's noticed on the network (isp
firewall)