HEY XP owners...I TOLD YOU SO!!!! <evil laugh!!>

Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP are wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your sy..... dave henrie

LOL, if XP is vulnerable, then so is 2000 ... What is your point? That a 16 bit Win98 is more secure than a 32 bit OS, LOL. Hardly ... "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XPare

Quoted text (20 lines)

> wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > are > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email > or other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's > shakey security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes > over your sy..... >

And Win95, 95, ME. Were you advocating Win2000? That's the only one not on the list. Also, any firewall will block this vulnerability almost completely. Dave

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP are > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > sy..... > > dave henrie

From: "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Subject: HEY XP owners...I TOLD YOU SO!!!! <evil laugh!!> Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 You're looking real secure there too, Dave. :-P -- Fester

Never said I was secure Uncle...I've even gone thru the experience of having a hacker take over my machine while I was on the keyboard...hehe. Just everyone keeps saying XP is this big upgrade...seems more of the same to me.. (I'll be quiet now and go back to my run down ratty system...) (I think I'll be chopped up pretty good by morning.) dave henrie "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Dave Henrie wrote: > > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XPare > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the emailor

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > dave henrie > > > From: "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > Subject: HEY XP owners...I TOLD YOU SO!!!! <evil laugh!!> > Lines: 21 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 > > > You're looking real secure there too, Dave. :-P > > -- > > Fester

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%3zU7.38$[email hidden]... > Never said I was secure Uncle...I've even gone thru the experience of > having a hacker take over my machine while I was on the keyboard...hehe. > Just everyone keeps saying XP is this big upgrade...seems more of thesame > to me.. > (I'll be quiet now and go back to my run down ratty system...) > (I think I'll be chopped up pretty good by morning.) > dave henrie Everyone? hehe...only people i've heard that keep saying how secure XP is has been Microsoft. =) -- - Will DeRivera - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll be working on it again soon! - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com

The risk is limited to Windows XP and can occur in WinMe if the code is installed. I don't recall the exact name of the software, but it's standard in XP and is related to allowing computer control of home appliances - that whole computerized home thing. Trouble is XP installs this component by default with no way verify users, and it allows complete takeover of the PC. Just a stupid thing to do. Leave it to MS! "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > LOL, if XP is vulnerable, then so is 2000 ... What is your point? That a16

Quoted text (8 lines)

> bit Win98 is more secure than a 32 bit OS, LOL. Hardly ... > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > are > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email

or

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > >

well here's a link to the story on msnbc, they should have a fix posted at ms. I didn't check but there might be alink in the story. http://www.msnbc.com/news/675850.asp#BODY dave henrie "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SxzU7.5616$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%3zU7.38$[email hidden]... > > Never said I was secure Uncle...I've even gone thru the experience of > > having a hacker take over my machine while I was on the keyboard...hehe. > > Just everyone keeps saying XP is this big upgrade...seems more of the > same > > to me.. > > (I'll be quiet now and go back to my run down ratty system...) > > (I think I'll be chopped up pretty good by morning.) > > dave henrie > > Everyone? hehe...only people i've heard that keep saying how secure XP is > has been Microsoft. =) > -- > - Will DeRivera > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll be working on it again soon! > - http://www.numic.net > - http://www.luxt.com > >

Frankly, I am shocked to learn there is gambling at Rick's night club.

Frankly, I am shocked to learn there is *** at Rick's night club.

Nope, W2K is not affected. It doesn't have that service. Achim "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > LOL, if XP is vulnerable, then so is 2000 ... What is your point? That a16

Quoted text (8 lines)

> bit Win98 is more secure than a 32 bit OS, LOL. Hardly ... > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > are > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email

or

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > >

Luckily W2K is not affected, it doesn't have that service. Win98/ME are affected only if you've explicitely installed or enabled that service. WinXP is the only OS that has the service installed and enabled by default. Achim "David Geesaman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52: > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > > are > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email > > or other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's > > shakey security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes > > over your sy..... > > > > And Win95, 95, ME. Were you advocating Win2000? That's the only one > not on the list. > Also, any firewall will block this vulnerability almost completely. > > Dave

OE5/6 is pretty secure if it's using the Restricted Sites Zone settings and the user doesn't allow anything to execute in either it's preview pane or mail window. Achim "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Dave Henrie wrote: > > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XPare > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the emailor

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > dave henrie > > > From: "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > Subject: HEY XP owners...I TOLD YOU SO!!!! <evil laugh!!> > Lines: 21 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 > > > You're looking real secure there too, Dave. :-P > > -- > > Fester

WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the NG's? ;-) Achim "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XPare > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > sy.....

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52>... > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP are > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > sy..... I like the quotes I've seen on cnn and news.com from Microsoft security employees. Sounds like there are some people there who aren't too happy with company security policy. It's amazing that any piece of software, nevertheless an OPERATING SYSTEM, would ship with a service enabled like that. I mean come on, every service on every OS eventually is compromised, the least MS could do is face this and stop putting network services into their software that either can't be disabled or shouldn't be enabled by default but are anyway. I'm also not sure what people were expecting when they upgraded to what is essentially Windows NT 4.2, but there's no point in preaching here. Hopefully eventually Microsoft will release an OS that holds some sort of gaming advantages over Win 98, since that's all their software is useful for.

a.) Windows 98 is 32-bit (actually, Windows 95 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 were 32-bit also). b.) Windows 98 is infinitely more secure than Windows XP. Then again, this is to be expected since Windows 98 has the benefit of 3 years of patches, where XP was apparently sent to a bunch of morons for beta testing (actually, based on the people I know who did beta testing, there's probably some truth to that statement). c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what with the number of operating systems available now that make more efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that only run in XP. d.) The security exploit found in Windows XP dwarfs all security exploits found in any software in the history of computing. Because of a bug in the Universal Plug and Play feature (I'm guessing a buffer overflow, based on comments by Microsoft's Security Team) and the fact that UPnP is enabled by default in XP (can you say bad design decision) it is possible to gain access to any unpatched Windows XP machine that is connected to the internet (or any network that you have access to, for that matter). Period. This is a default install of what MS has hyped as the most robust, secure OS ever designed (wonder if they're familiar with FreeBSD, since they've stolen so much of the source code for their TCP/IP utilities from it). "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> LOL, if XP is vulnerable, then so is 2000 ... What is your point? That a 16 > bit Win98 is more secure than a 32 bit OS, LOL. Hardly ... > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > are > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > >

I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it is untrue anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley and his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the media reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable channels. Alanb "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XPare

Quoted text (20 lines)

> wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email or > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > >

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > OE5/6 is pretty secure if it's using the Restricted Sites Zone settings and > the user doesn't allow anything to execute in either it's preview pane or > mail window. Granted. But it's default install settings leave a lot to be desired. And considering all the new folks buying their first computer & getting on the internet these days, using OE can be dangerous for them. All the latest worms/virii are plenty enough evidence of that. :-( -- Fester

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that > only run in XP.

A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago, nobody ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had people tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over 21GB on this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the better choice in gaming. B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your thinking that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show that it's as fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are usually driver related and not OS related. The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) -- - Will DeRivera - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com

Dave Henrie wrote: > > ...both versions of XP are wide open to hackers. What a surprise from the careful folks who gave the world the sieve-like Outlook Express! Bill Gates -- the Ron Popeil of the computer industry...

Hi Jason, I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable than Win98 for gaming. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about WinXP. I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My current personal choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot of installing/deinstalling and experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers. Achim "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> a.) Windows 98 is 32-bit (actually, Windows 95 and Windows for > Workgroups 3.11 were 32-bit also). > > b.) Windows 98 is infinitely more secure than Windows XP. Then again, > this is to be expected since Windows 98 has the benefit of 3 years of > patches, where XP was apparently sent to a bunch of morons for beta > testing (actually, based on the people I know who did beta testing, > there's probably some truth to that statement). > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that > only run in XP. > > d.) The security exploit found in Windows XP dwarfs all security > exploits found in any software in the history of computing. Because > of a bug in the Universal Plug and Play feature (I'm guessing a buffer > overflow, based on comments by Microsoft's Security Team) and the fact > that UPnP is enabled by default in XP (can you say bad design > decision) it is possible to gain access to any unpatched Windows XP > machine that is connected to the internet (or any network that you > have access to, for that matter). Period. This is a default install > of what MS has hyped as the most robust, secure OS ever designed > (wonder if they're familiar with FreeBSD, since they've stolen so much > of the source code for their TCP/IP utilities from it). > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>... > > LOL, if XP is vulnerable, then so is 2000 ... What is your point? That a16 > > bit Win98 is more secure than a 32 bit OS, LOL. Hardly ... > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions ofXP > > are > > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the emailor > > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS'sshakey > > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes overyour

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > >

Hi Will, benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are wrong. Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll see that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as compared to 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter shows the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in Win9x. You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. Run N4 in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still smooth. Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects (some of the yellow traffic lights). But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the Registry (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe drivers chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed. If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower. Achim "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qXFU7.6124$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order > > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming > > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that > > only run in XP. > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago,

nobody > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i hadpeople > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over 21GBon > this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the > better choice in gaming. > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk yourthinking > that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show that it'sas

Quoted text (12 lines)

> fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are > usually driver related and not OS related. > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) > -- > - Will DeRivera > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... > - http://www.numic.net > - http://www.luxt.com > > >

Yes, that is - alas - true. You need to _make_ a system secure, as by default it usually isn't. All for the sake of user friendliness... Achim "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Joachim Trensz wrote: > > > > OE5/6 is pretty secure if it's using the Restricted Sites Zone settingsand > > the user doesn't allow anything to execute in either it's preview paneor

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > mail window. > > > Granted. But it's default install settings leave a lot to be desired. > And considering all the new folks buying their first computer & getting > on the internet these days, using OE can be dangerous for them. All the > latest worms/virii are plenty enough evidence of that. :-( > > -- > > Fester

with all the news about WinXP, its instability issues, incompatibilities and now severe security leaks, I'm pretty convinced we'll be seeing a 'successor' soon. A la Win98SE. Achim "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > It's amazing that any piece of software, nevertheless an OPERATING > SYSTEM, would ship with a service enabled like that. I mean come on, > every service on every OS eventually is compromised, the least MS > could do is face this and stop putting network services into their > software that either can't be disabled or shouldn't be enabled by > default but are anyway.... > here. Hopefully eventually Microsoft will release an OS that holds > some sort of gaming advantages over Win 98, since that's all their > software is useful for.

it's a very dangerous and serious security problem. Microsoft describes it in detail in a security bulletin. It's AAMOF more serious than the messages in this thread make it look like. Achim "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EcFU7.16347$[email hidden]... > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it isuntrue > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley and > his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when themedia

Quoted text (9 lines)

> reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable channels. > > Alanb > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP > are > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email

or

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > >

I bet. I'm certainly worried, so much so that I've packed up and moved to Florida, after having melted to a plastic nothingness my computer and everything associated with it. My poor dog was caught up in the frenzy, along with a few neighbors of mine and a large oak tree which used to provide shade for nearly the whole state of Ohio. Alanb "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vvc79$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > it's a very dangerous and serious security problem. Microsoft describes it > in detail in a security bulletin. It's AAMOF more serious than themessages

Quoted text (10 lines)

> in this thread make it look like. > > Achim > > > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:EcFU7.16347$[email hidden]... > > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it is > untrue > > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley

and

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the > media > > reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable channels. > > > > Alanb > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of

XP > > are > > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email > or > > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS'sshakey > > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes overyour

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Whodaguy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TTzU7.132766$[email hidden]... > The risk is limited to Windows XP and can occur in WinMe if the code is > installed. I don't recall the exact name of the software, but it'sstandard > in XP and is related to allowing computer control of home appliances -that > whole computerized home thing. > > Trouble is XP installs this component by default with no way verify users, > and it allows complete takeover of the PC. Just a stupid thing to do.Leave > it to MS! Wow! I'm glad you told me this, because just this morning, when I awoke after a series of troubling dreams, I noticed that things were not right in my home. For one thing my computer was not in its normal place, in my office. After noticing this and suspecting that I had been robbed, I rushed upstairs to the living room. The Television was on very loud, tuned to the Home Shopping Network. And there spralled out on the couch, as comfortable as a dog after a bath, was my computer. Using its mouse to hold the phone to the side of its head (monitor), with its feet (part of what used to be my Nascar Pro Digital 2) covered up to its ankles (acutally half way up the tower) in receipts, this computer of mine was ordering every imaginable item from the HSN. Over the sound of the percolating coffee pot, the humming of the refrigerator, and the rumbling of the dishwasher, I heard muffled voices from a nearby closet. I opened the door as swift as a man ripping tape from a box just dropped off by the UPS man, and there was my family, all taped up and scared. "What's going on here?", I hurriedly asked. My smallest child quickly answered, I suspect from not really knowing what was happening and thinking it was a game, said-- "It's him!". My wife and other daughter, whimpering and covered with hangers and old clothes from the 70s, suddenly rushed toward "him." Before I knew it, they were at "him", smashing it with their fists and kicking wildly. The tide had suddenly changed. Within seconds the bulbs in the back of the computer's head exploded with an unbelievable crash, the coffee pot stopped its indecent percolation and the dishwasher ground to a rubber-sounding halt. I knew then that my security issues were over and we as a family and as a Nation were safe again. Alanb

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > Yes, that is - alas - true. You need to _make_ a system secure, as by > default it usually isn't. All for the sake of user friendliness... > What's that old saying? Make computers idiot-proof & only idiots will operate them. :-)) -- Fester

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). Can I back-update W98SE to use the 95 shell? Jonny

Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk with a nice new iMac. Alan Bernardo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Q2IU7.16537$[email hidden]... > The tide had suddenly changed. Within seconds the bulbs in the back ofthe > computer's head exploded with an unbelievable crash, the coffee potstopped > its indecent percolation and the dishwasher ground to a rubber-sounding > halt. > > I knew then that my security issues were over and we as a family and as a > Nation were safe again.

Bart Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What a surprise from the careful folks who gave the world the sieve-like > Outlook Express! Bill Gates -- the Ron Popeil of the computer industry... What's wrong with Outlook? I've been using it for two years without trouble.

On 21 Dec 2001 03:30:02 -0800, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: ... >b.) Windows 98 is infinitely more secure than Windows XP. Then again, >this is to be expected since Windows 98 has the benefit of 3 years of >patches, where XP was apparently sent to a bunch of morons for beta >testing (actually, based on the people I know who did beta testing, >there's probably some truth to that statement). Hey, you're right. Just read about some guy calling himself 'in the top 100 of beta testers'. With statements like that, yikes! ... >This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to >kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with >IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the >Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). I recently installed a 486DX2-66 (16Mb!) machine with Windows95 for my mother. I runs at about the same speed as my PII400/256Mb Win2000 machine. :( >This is a default install >of what MS has hyped as the most robust, secure OS ever designed >(wonder if they're familiar with FreeBSD, since they've stolen so much >of the source code for their TCP/IP utilities from it). Or ANY Unix for that matter. Too bad security isn't valued by Microsoft's customers as much as real computer users. ;-) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Once upon a time "James Anatidae" <[email hidden]> scribed carefully: >:Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk with a >:nice new iMac. And swap my lovely 21 inch monitor for a crappy 15inch one? No thanks.... I would rather have a G4. Tsunami

Once upon a time "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> scribed carefully: >:we _told_ ya it's dangerous. Yeah, lets all start using Linux, then we can just throw away all those lovely racing sims we bought (after all you can have more fun with a command line interface anyway), and see how long it takes the crackers and virus writers to punch holes in it. Pretty much the only reason there are so many viri that attack MS OSs is due to it's popularity. I read a while ago in a Mac magazine someone almost bemoaning the fact that no-one hardly ever writes viri for Mac OS due to its lack of popularity! I don't mind as long as MS keep patching up the holes... It is still more fun to use than Linux. Tsunami

we _told_ ya it's dangerous. Achim "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KOHU7.16518$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I bet. I'm certainly worried, so much so that I've packed up and moved to > Florida, after having melted to a plastic nothingness my computer and > everything associated with it. My poor dog was caught up in the frenzy, > along with a few neighbors of mine and a large oak tree which used to > provide shade for nearly the whole state of Ohio. > > Alanb > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vvc79$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > it's a very dangerous and serious security problem. Microsoft describes

it

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > in detail in a security bulletin. It's AAMOF more serious than the > messages > > in this thread make it look like. > > > > Achim > > > > > > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:EcFU7.16347$[email hidden]... > > > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it is > > untrue > > > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley > and > > > his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the > > media > > > reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable

channels.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > > Alanb > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:CJxU7.16851$Ah.620181@rwcrnsc52... > > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of > XP > > > are > > > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the

email

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > or > > > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's > shakey > > > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over > your > > > > sy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

we _told_ ya it's dangerous. Achim

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I bet. I'm certainly worried, so much so that I've packed up and moved to > Florida, after having melted to a plastic nothingness my computer and > everything associated with it. My poor dog was caught up in the frenzy, > along with a few neighbors of mine and a large oak tree which used to > provide shade for nearly the whole state of Ohio. > Alanb > > it's a very dangerous and serious security problem. Microsoft describes

it

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > in detail in a security bulletin. It's AAMOF more serious than the > messages > > in this thread make it look like. > > Achim > > > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it is > > untrue > > > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley > and > > > his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the > > media > > > reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable

channels.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Alanb > > > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of > XP > > > are > > > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the

email

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > or > > > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's > shakey > > > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over > your > > > > sy..... > > > > dave henrie

What use is a Mac for playing the latest sims ? NONE ! Come to think about it, they're not really useful for anything besides desktop publishing and you can do that on a PC anyway. Did I mention the price ? ... The reason Macs don't get hacked is because no one uses them anymore ;) Hehehehe -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Tsunami" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Once upon a time "James Anatidae" <[email hidden]> scribed > carefully: > > >:Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk with a > >:nice new iMac. > > And swap my lovely 21 inch monitor for a crappy 15inch one? No > thanks.... > I would rather have a G4. > > Tsunami

Well said !! To be perfectly honest I don't give a rats ass about security problems, If hackers get into my PC all they'll get are my crappy GPL setups anyway ;) The computer I use for work is not even connected to the net so that'd take some seriously skilled hackers to get into. I really don't want to use a Linux or, God forbid, a Mac system because none of my games (or work programs for that matter) will work on them. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Tsunami" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Once upon a time "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> scribed > carefully: > > >:we _told_ ya it's dangerous. > > > Yeah, lets all start using Linux, then we can just throw away all > those lovely racing sims we bought (after all you can have more fun > with a command line interface anyway), and see how long it takes the > crackers and virus writers to punch holes in it. Pretty much the only > reason there are so many viri that attack MS OSs is due to it's > popularity. I read a while ago in a Mac magazine someone almost > bemoaning the fact that no-one hardly ever writes viri for Mac OS due > to its lack of popularity! > I don't mind as long as MS keep patching up the holes... > It is still more fun to use than Linux. > > Tsunami

James Anatidae <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a000uj$4vc7$[email hidden]... > Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk with a > nice new iMac. There's no GPL... :-P Jonny

In a rare attempt at honesty, MicroDoodle admits there's a huge hole in XP's head. They've also posted what they're terming a "critical security patch" on their tech site: Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play can Lead to System Compromise http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-059.asp

The benchmarks are wrong?? LMAO @ you!! I guess 3dmark, Winbench, and the other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Since they have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid as well?? Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just run N1 and watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with 512MB of RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vvc75$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > Hi Will, > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 arewrong. > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll see > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as comparedto > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps countershows > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in Win9x. > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. Run N4 > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still smooth. > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects (someof

Quoted text (39 lines)

> the yellow traffic lights). > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the Registry > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe drivers > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed. > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower. > > Achim > > > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:qXFU7.6124$[email hidden]... > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > > > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order > > > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming > > > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > > > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that > > > only run in XP. > > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago, > nobody > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had > people > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over

21GB

Quoted text (7 lines)

> on > > this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the > > better choice in gaming. > > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your > thinking > > that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show that

it's

Quoted text (15 lines)

> as > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are > > usually driver related and not OS related. > > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) > > -- > > - Will DeRivera > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... > > - http://www.numic.net > > - http://www.luxt.com > > > > > > > >

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<p3JU7.13373$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > Can I back-update W98SE to use the 95 shell? > > Jonny

Check out www.98lite.net. It allows you to remove all superfluous components in Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, 98, 98SE, and ME including IE. Personally I'm currently using a normal 98 install with IE upgraded to 6.0 since there aren't really any other worthwhile web browsers for Windows. I was running 98lite without IE and the help system for a long time and it was great. It also gives you the option of using the 95 shell (you need a 95 CD tho) while still having the ActiveX controls for IE installed which avoids possible software incompatibilities with the badly coded software out there that requires IE. Jason

Hey, I'm pleased to see you're in such a good mood - cheers! :-) What I said is correct. XP/W2K can be faster for some applications, but they're not in games with a lot of 3D action. The reasons being among others that DirectX in these OS'es can't access the hardware as directly as in 9x, the permanent rights checking, and the immense number of Registry accesses made in 2K/XP. Recent drivers seem to sometimes show identical fps in all four OS'es, but the screen doesn't scroll as smoothly under XP/2K as it does in 9x. I don't know what you're trying to say with your reference to 5 years of benchmarking as neither 2K nor XP have existed for that long. But in the last 3 years it's been undisputed that W2K is slower for gaming than ME/98. That doesn't suddenly change miraculously. And XP is hardly any faster. As for N1 turning objects off on a P3 1Ghz - well, you can't expect miracles from such a slow and obsolete CPU <g> Achim "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The benchmarks are wrong?? LMAO @ you!! I guess 3dmark, Winbench, and the > other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Sincethey > have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid as > well?? Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just run N1and > watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with 512MBof

Quoted text (10 lines)

> RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vvc75$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > Hi Will, > > > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are > wrong. > > > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll

see > > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (ascompared > to > > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter > shows > > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than inWin9x. > > > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. RunN4 > > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's stillsmooth. > > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background > > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects(some > of > > the yellow traffic lights). > > > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in theRegistry > > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believedrivers

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed. > > > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower. > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:qXFU7.6124$[email hidden]... > > > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > > > > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in

order

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to > > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > > > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most gaming > > > > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason why > > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > > > > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed

that > > > > only run in XP. > > > > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago, > > nobody > > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Nowwe're

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had > > people > > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over > 21GB > > on > > > this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the > > > better choice in gaming. > > > > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your > > thinking > > > that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show that > it's > > as > > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are > > > usually driver related and not OS related. > > > > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) > > > -- > > > - Will DeRivera > > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... > > > - http://www.numic.net > > > - http://www.luxt.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Win2000 - 6fps in Nascar4. WinXP - 127fps. Win98SE - 113fps. WinXP is definitely a better, faster gaming system than Win2000. Win98SE was decent in it's day, but now with all the latest hardware, I still get lock-ups daily with Win98SE, but have yet to get the lock-up with XP. As for the Security issue. XP is still the better OS IMO. You download the patch, install it, and you are done. All other OS's from MS have had the same type troubles. I am sure that if we were all running DOS we wouldn't be having these problems. But I for one am willing to have to download patches from time to time to improve my OS. To think that there could ever be such a thing as a perfect OS that never needs attention is simply unrealistic. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a00te7$hfb7v$[email hidden]... > Hey, I'm pleased to see you're in such a good mood - cheers! :-) > > What I said is correct. > > XP/W2K can be faster for some applications, but they're not in games witha > lot of 3D action. The reasons being among others that DirectX in theseOS'es

Quoted text (9 lines)

> can't access the hardware as directly as in 9x, the permanent rights > checking, and the immense number of Registry accesses made in 2K/XP. > > Recent drivers seem to sometimes show identical fps in all four OS'es, but > the screen doesn't scroll as smoothly under XP/2K as it does in 9x. > > I don't know what you're trying to say with your reference to 5 years of > benchmarking as neither 2K nor XP have existed for that long. But in the > last 3 years it's been undisputed that W2K is slower for gaming than

ME/98. > That doesn't suddenly change miraculously. And XP is hardly any faster. > > As for N1 turning objects off on a P3 1Ghz - well, you can't expectmiracles

Quoted text (9 lines)

> from such a slow and obsolete CPU <g> > > Achim > > > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The benchmarks are wrong?? LMAO @ you!! I guess 3dmark, Winbench, and

the > > other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Since > they > > have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid as > > well?? Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just run N1 > and > > watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with512MB

Quoted text (21 lines)

> of > > RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9vvc75$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are > > wrong. > > > > > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll > see > > > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as > compared > > to > > > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter > > shows > > > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in > Win9x. > > > > > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen.

Run > N4 > > > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still > smooth. > > > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see thebackground

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects > (some > > of > > > the yellow traffic lights). > > > > > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the > Registry > > > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe > drivers > > > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed. > > > > > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower. > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:qXFU7.6124$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > > > > > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in > order > > > > > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided

to > > > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorerwith > > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite usingthe > > > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 isamazing). > > > > > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > > > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for mostgaming > > > > > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reasonwhy

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what > > > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more > > > > > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP > > > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed > that > > > > > only run in XP. > > > > > > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago, > > > nobody > > > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now > we're > > > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i

had > > > people > > > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over > > 21GB > > > on > > > > this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever bethe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > better choice in gaming. > > > > > > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your > > > thinking > > > > that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show that > > it's > > > as > > > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP

are

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > > usually driver related and not OS related. > > > > > > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) > > > > -- > > > > - Will DeRivera > > > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... > > > > - http://www.numic.net > > > > - http://www.luxt.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the NG's? > ;-) > > Achim I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something new why don't you?

"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Un2V7.2102$[email hidden]... > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in theNG's? > > ;-) > > > > Achim > > I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new > there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something newwhy > don't you? > > I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making the decision to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. Don Burnette

Hi Glen, thanks for the info. I'm glad you're happy with your system :-) Achim "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Win2000 - 6fps in Nascar4. WinXP - 127fps. Win98SE - 113fps. > > WinXP is definitely a better, faster gaming system than Win2000. Win98SE > was decent in it's day, but now with all the latest hardware, I still get > lock-ups daily with Win98SE, but have yet to get the lock-up with XP. > > As for the Security issue. XP is still the better OS IMO. You download

the > patch, install it, and you are done. All other OS's from MS have had the > same type troubles. I am sure that if we were all running DOS we wouldn't > be having these problems. But I for one am willing to have to download > patches from time to time to improve my OS. To think that there couldever

Quoted text (11 lines)

> be such a thing as a perfect OS that never needs attention is simply > unrealistic. > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a00te7$hfb7v$[email hidden]... > > Hey, I'm pleased to see you're in such a good mood - cheers! :-) > > > > What I said is correct. > > > > XP/W2K can be faster for some applications, but they're not in games

with

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a > > lot of 3D action. The reasons being among others that DirectX in these > OS'es > > can't access the hardware as directly as in 9x, the permanent rights > > checking, and the immense number of Registry accesses made in 2K/XP. > > > > Recent drivers seem to sometimes show identical fps in all four OS'es,

but

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > the screen doesn't scroll as smoothly under XP/2K as it does in 9x. > > > > I don't know what you're trying to say with your reference to 5 years of > > benchmarking as neither 2K nor XP have existed for that long. But in the > > last 3 years it's been undisputed that W2K is slower for gaming than > ME/98. > > That doesn't suddenly change miraculously. And XP is hardly any faster. > > > > As for N1 turning objects off on a P3 1Ghz - well, you can't expect > miracles > > from such a slow and obsolete CPU <g> > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > The benchmarks are wrong?? LMAO @ you!! I guess 3dmark, Winbench, and > the > > > other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Since > > they > > > have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid

as > > > well?? Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just runN1

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > and > > > watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with > 512MB > > of > > > RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:9vvc75$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and

you'll > > see > > > > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as > > compared > > > to > > > > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fpscounter

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > > shows > > > > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in > > Win9x. > > > > > > > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. > Run > > N4 > > > > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still > > smooth. > > > > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the > background > > > > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects > > (some > > > of > > > > the yellow traffic lights). > > > > > > > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the > > Registry > > > > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe > > drivers > > > > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed. > > > > > > > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower. > > > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:qXFU7.6124$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice

for > > > > > > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in > > order > > > > > > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MSdecided

Quoted text (13 lines)

> to > > > > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer > with > > > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using > the > > > > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is > amazing). > > > > > > The sole gaming advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but > > > > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most > gaming > > > > > > applications. I mention this because gaming is the only reason > why > > > > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point,

what > > > > > > with the number of operating systems available now that makemore > > > > > > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope thatXP > > > > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed > > that > > > > > > only run in XP. > > > > > > > > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too longago,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > nobody > > > > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now > > we're > > > > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i > had > > > > people > > > > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have

over

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > 21GB > > > > on > > > > > this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be > the > > > > > better choice in gaming. > > > > > > > > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your > > > > thinking > > > > > that XP is less efficient for gaming. They all pretty much show

that

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > it's > > > > as > > > > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP > are > > > > > usually driver related and not OS related. > > > > > > > > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =) > > > > > -- > > > > > - Will DeRivera > > > > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime... > > > > > - http://www.numic.net > > > > > - http://www.luxt.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hi STP, you want something that's news to you? Well... <thinking> erm... <still thinking> ummm... <more thinking> ok, here's something that's apparently news for you: the NG's are full of messages from people with probs in WinXP... ;-) But please note the ' ;-) ' as that's the core part of this message, just as it was the core portion of the previous message ;-) Achim "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Un2V7.2102$[email hidden]... > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in theNG's? > > ;-) > > > > Achim > > I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new > there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something newwhy > don't you? > >

Good luck Don! :-) Achim "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mf3V7.4758$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Un2V7.2102$[email hidden]... > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > > > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the > NG's? > > > ;-) > > > > > > Achim > > > > I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new > > there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something new > why > > don't you? > > > > > > I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be > putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making the decision > to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. > > Don Burnette > > >

Jonny Hodgson wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > Can I back-update W98SE to use the 95 shell? > > Jonny

Another cool shell. http://www.cygwin.com :-) -- Fester

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the NG's? What probs mine is rock solid and Fast. A majority of postings I see are quite positive.Use what you like, 9...................whats it called ? Oh ya 98,.... I forgot been years since I used that POS. Been only 2K and now XP for quite some time now.

You'll love it Don. You will never look back. "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mf3V7.4758$>

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be > putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making the decision > to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. > > Don Burnette > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vvc77$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > with all the news about WinXP, its instability issues, incompatibilitiesand > now severe security leaks, I'm pretty convinced we'll be seeing a > 'successor' soon. A la Win98SE. > > Achim Oh yes I'm sure of that................LOL

"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a00fg2$lp7$[email hidden]... > Well said !! > To be perfectly honest I don't give a rats ass about security problems, If > hackers get into my PC all they'll get are my crappy GPL setups anyway ;) > Exactly who cares. If they can get by firewall more power to them I've got nothing to hide.

Wrong . Patch availability Download locations for this patch a.. Microsoft Windows 98/98SE: http://www.windowsupdate.com or http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34991 b.. Microsoft Windows ME: http://www.windowsupdate.com or http://download.microsoft.com/download/winme/Update/22940/WinMe/EN-US/314757 USAM.EXE c.. Microsoft Windows XP: http://www.windowsupdate.com or http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951 > The risk is limited to Windows XP

Hi JJ, Microsoft's security bulletin 01-059 clearly says that W2K is _not_ affected. It doesn't have the vulnerable service. In Win9x you can install this service, but it isn't there by default. The prob with WinXP is that this service is by default installed and enabled, but not visible to the not so technically inclined users (the group of users WinXP is primarily aimed at). These are in danger, because they are unsuspecting. Achim "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wEbV7.8604$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Wrong . > Patch availability > Download locations for this patch > a.. Microsoft Windows 98/98SE: > http://www.windowsupdate.com > or > http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34991 > b.. Microsoft Windows ME: > http://www.windowsupdate.com > or > >

http://download.microsoft.com/download/winme/Update/22940/WinMe/EN-US/314757

Quoted text (10 lines)

> USAM.EXE > c.. Microsoft Windows XP: > http://www.windowsupdate.com > or > http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951 > > > > The risk is limited to Windows XP > >

"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mf3V7.4758$[email hidden]... > I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be > putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making the decision > to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. > > Don Burnette The only XP related problem I have had was with my MSPP joystick not working in one game. I replaced it with a MS FF2 stick to resolve the issue. XP has been smooth sailing for me and I bought it when it was first released. I guess it depends on what hardware you have, but that applies to any OS.

This reminds me of the heat issue I was having when I built my newest system - a P4 1.7Ghz. It was about 90 in my apartment, and I was playing NASCAR Racing 4 online. In turn 2, the game locked up. Ctrl-Alt-Del, kill N4, check system temps, see its way hot, turn the A/C on, reload N4 and continue to play without ever rebooting. Running WinXP. Try that with 95, 98 or ME. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9vvc74$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > Hi Jason, > > I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable thanWin98 > for gaming. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about WinXP. > > I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My current personal > choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No > bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot of installing/deinstallingand > experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers. > > Achim >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a02gqs$ig6om$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hi STP, > > you want something that's news to you? Well... <thinking> erm... <still > thinking> ummm... <more thinking> ok, here's something that's apparently > news for you: the NG's are full of messages from people with probs in > WinXP... ;-) > > But please note the ' ;-) ' as that's the core part of this message, just

as > it was the core portion of the previous message ;-) > > Achim OK, I'll take note of the ;-). But, if I did a search on Win95 going back to 1995 on Google's archives I bet I would find a ton more complaints about problems in Win95 than XP. For every complaint I see about XP I see 10 positive posts in comparison. I think the general consensus on XP is a thumbs up.

If I've learned anything from usenet (or from life in general for that matter) it's never argue the following, no matter how ignorant most people are of the subjects: 1. political science 2. computer science I'm nearly crying here between this thread, reading the Rally Trophy tech support forum, and dealing with the war mongering religious fanatics I have to share a country with. =) I don't have a URL handy, but there are people on the JoWood board posting stuff like "THIS GAME IS A PIECE OF SHIT THE GRAPHICS ARE CHOPPY" while trying to run full details on a Voodoo 3 (there are also at least 4 posts from people wondering why they get 'No Valid Hardware Detected' with their Voodoo 2 cards). Oh yeah, there's also a nice long thread where someone is complaining that their Celeron 366 isn't old technology and should be better supported. Those poor guys at Bugbear. I thought Papy had it bad. Jason --Final non-sequitor...seeing that Nvidia and ATI are apparently working on graphics drivers to cheat on benchmarks brings a smile to my face. =) "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<a04isc$ie1ap$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> Hi JJ, > > Microsoft's security bulletin 01-059 clearly says that W2K is _not_ > affected. It doesn't have the vulnerable service. > > In Win9x you can install this service, but it isn't there by default. The > prob with WinXP is that this service is by default installed and enabled, > but not visible to the not so technically inclined users (the group of users > WinXP is primarily aimed at). These are in danger, because they are > unsuspecting. > > Achim > > > > "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wEbV7.8604$[email hidden]... > > Wrong . > > Patch availability > > Download locations for this patch > > a.. Microsoft Windows 98/98SE: > > http://www.windowsupdate.com > > or > > http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34991 > > b.. Microsoft Windows ME: > > http://www.windowsupdate.com > > or > > > > > http://download.microsoft.com/download/winme/Update/22940/WinMe/EN-US/314757 > > USAM.EXE > > c.. Microsoft Windows XP: > > http://www.windowsupdate.com > > or > > http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951 > > > > > > > The risk is limited to Windows XP > > > >

"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MioV7.3203$[email hidden]... > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mf3V7.4758$[email hidden]... > > I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be > > putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > > I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making thedecision > > to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. > > > > Don Burnette > > The only XP related problem I have had was with my MSPP joystick notworking > in one game. I replaced it with a MS FF2 stick to resolve the issue. XPhas > been smooth sailing for me and I bought it when it was first released. I > guess it depends on what hardware you have, but that applies to any OS. > Ok gang, yesterday evening I built a complete new system, Athlong XP1600, EPoX 8KHA+ mb, and installed a fresh install of XP on the new hard drive. So far, it is working flawless. XP recognized all my new hardware just fine, have had no conflicts. I am still learning abou it, but so far I love this OS, appears to be very powerful! Don Burnette

STP wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mf3V7.4758$[email hidden]... > > I will soon find out, assembling a new system later today and will be > > putting a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > > I lurked in the MS newsgroups for several weeks before making the decision > > to go with XP, and am comfortable with my decision. > > > > Don Burnette > > The only XP related problem I have had was with my MSPP joystick not working > in one game. I replaced it with a MS FF2 stick to resolve the issue. XP has > been smooth sailing for me and I bought it when it was first released. I > guess it depends on what hardware you have, but that applies to any OS.

Well done, you solved your problem very easily! It cost you though!!!

STP wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the NG's? > > ;-) > > > > Achim > > I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new > there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something new why > don't you?

That's the point! But you boys sort out XP for me before I waste anyone of my precious time testing it for M$.

Alan Bernardo wrote: > > Wow! I'm glad you told me this, <PATHETIC ATTEMPT AT HUMOUR SNIPPED> Comedy, Alan, hmmmm...you've never really grasped the concept, have you?

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well done, you solved your problem very easily! It cost you though!!! Yea, but it gave me a good excuse to get a FFB joystick. :-)

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That's the point! But you boys sort out XP for me before I waste anyone > of my precious time testing it for M$. Compared to the amount of free testing I do for the buggy games released the amount of downtime with XP has been minute in comparison. *Way* less downtime than with Win98 too. And I can always use system restore or roll back a driver under XP if something does get screwed up. But, there is nothing wrong with your method, just that if we all thought like you then the wheel would never have been invented.

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for > gaming if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order > to look nice. Duh...then turn it off. My XP desktop looks exactly like Win98 did.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:18:05 -0500, "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote: ... >As for the Security issue. XP is still the better OS IMO. You download the >patch, install it, and you are done. All other OS's from MS have had the >same type troubles. I am sure that if we were all running DOS we wouldn't >be having these problems. Problem is that MS is still designing from the DOS perspective; open everything up, and start closing down and patching when things are discovered that are insecure. The Unix way is the other way round; close the thing down, and start opening up what you need. Intrinsically that makes Windows insecure, no matter what you do. Unix isn't that secure if you'd install it with everything wide open. That's why by default, they don't, generally. Something where MS must pay attention to, and is a matter which has nothing to do with 'perfect OSes' or anything; it's purely a design choice. Don't throw netlinks open by default. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:59:54 -0000, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well said !! >To be perfectly honest I don't give a rats ass about security problems, If >hackers get into my PC all they'll get are my crappy GPL setups anyway ;) A creative use I recently saw was hacking into a computer, but silently using it as a storage place for warez. So you really became another point of of download. Eating resources, until you start wondering why the internet was becoming so slow. But ofcourse, this computer was always on, so a good target for that. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

What I found funny is for such a critical situation, in which they were all but ordering everyone to install the patch, it took the THREE days to make it available on Windows Update. -Larry "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In a rare attempt at honesty, MicroDoodle admits there's a huge hole in > XP's head. They've also posted what they're terming a "critical security > patch" on their tech site: > > Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play can Lead to System Compromise > >

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/ bulletin/MS01-059.asp

Another thoroughly informed computer user. \Sarcasm Off LOL! -Larry "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a00fg1$lp7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> What use is a Mac for playing the latest sims ? > NONE ! > > Come to think about it, they're not really useful for anything besides > desktop publishing and you can do that on a PC anyway. > > Did I mention the price ? ... > > The reason Macs don't get hacked is because no one uses them anymore ;) > > Hehehehe > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> > > > "Tsunami" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Once upon a time "James Anatidae" <[email hidden]> scribed > > carefully: > > > > >:Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk > with a > > >:nice new iMac. > > > > And swap my lovely 21 inch monitor for a crappy 15inch one? No > > thanks.... > > I would rather have a G4. > > > > Tsunami > >

STP wrote: > But, there is nothing wrong with your method, just that if we all thought like > you then the wheel would never have been invented. And if you'd been around in the first days of wheel development no doubt you'd have shelled out for one of the early SQUARE ones ;)

If someone started downloading stuff of my PC, believe me, I would know my internet was slowing down. I'm only on 64K ISDN ;) Besides which, I'm on dialup with a dynamic IP address and never stay online long enough for anything worth downloading to be uploaded in the first place :) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:59:54 -0000, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Well said !! > >To be perfectly honest I don't give a rats ass about security problems, If > >hackers get into my PC all they'll get are my crappy GPL setups anyway ;) > > A creative use I recently saw was hacking into a computer, but > silently using it as a storage place for warez. So you really became > another point of of download. Eating resources, until you start > wondering why the internet was becoming so slow. > > But ofcourse, this computer was always on, so a good target for that. > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

So enlighten me as to what I don't know. Does GPL (or any other decent sim) run on a MAC ? Which industry uses predominantly Macintosh computers ? How much cheaper are they to purchase than a PC ? Are there enough MAC users for the hackers to consider MAC a target ? -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DHIV7.59007$[email hidden]... > Another thoroughly informed computer user. > > \Sarcasm Off > > LOL! > > -Larry > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a00fg1$lp7$[email hidden]... > > What use is a Mac for playing the latest sims ? > > NONE ! > > > > Come to think about it, they're not really useful for anything besides > > desktop publishing and you can do that on a PC anyway. > > > > Did I mention the price ? ... > > > > The reason Macs don't get hacked is because no one uses them anymore ;) > > > > Hehehehe > > > > -- > > > > Ian P > > <email invalid due to spam> > >

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > And if you'd been around in the first days of wheel development no doubt > you'd have shelled out for one of the early SQUARE ones ;) Hehe...at least I would get bragging rights in my communal cave for owning the first wheel invented.

Have been running XP for some time now. No problems at all. GPL, N4, NHeat etc all run fine : ) Gary "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Un2V7.2102$[email hidden]... > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vutr8$huuv7$[email hidden]... > > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in theNG's? > > ;-) > > > > Achim > > I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new > there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something newwhy > don't you? > >

If it was ME, it probably would have never even booted without blue-screening, so you're right. It wouldn't have had a chance to freeze. :) -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a0psi2$mb8p7$[email hidden]... > Hi Rob, > > maybe under ME it wouldn't have frozen at all ( I live in the south ofSpain

Quoted text (11 lines)

> BTW ;-) > > Achim > > > "Rob Berus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sooV7.10511$[email hidden]... > > This reminds me of the heat issue I was having when I built my newest > > system - a P4 1.7Ghz. > > > > It was about 90 in my apartment, and I was playing NASCAR Racing 4

online. > > In turn 2, the game locked up. Ctrl-Alt-Del, kill N4, check systemtemps,

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > see its way hot, turn the A/C on, reload N4 and continue to play without > > ever rebooting. Running WinXP. Try that with 95, 98 or ME. > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9vvc74$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable than > > Win98 > > > for gaming. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about

WinXP. > > > > > > I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My currentpersonal > > > choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No > > > bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot ofinstalling/deinstalling

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > and > > > experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers. > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > >

Hi Rob, maybe under ME it wouldn't have frozen at all ( I live in the south of Spain BTW ;-) Achim "Rob Berus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sooV7.10511$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> This reminds me of the heat issue I was having when I built my newest > system - a P4 1.7Ghz. > > It was about 90 in my apartment, and I was playing NASCAR Racing 4 online. > In turn 2, the game locked up. Ctrl-Alt-Del, kill N4, check system temps, > see its way hot, turn the A/C on, reload N4 and continue to play without > ever rebooting. Running WinXP. Try that with 95, 98 or ME. > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9vvc74$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > Hi Jason, > > > > I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable than > Win98 > > for gaming. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about WinXP. > > > > I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My current personal > > choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No > > bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot of installing/deinstalling > and > > experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers. > > > > Achim > > > > >

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:18:05 -0500, Glen Pittman <[email hidden]> wrote: > As for the Security issue. XP is still the better OS IMO. You download the > patch, install it, and you are done. All other OS's from MS have had the For now, this might be true. Until the next major exploit trundles along. > same type troubles. I am sure that if we were all running DOS we wouldn't > be having these problems. But I for one am willing to have to download > patches from time to time to improve my OS. To think that there could ever Yep, you could give Linux a try. I use Linux Mandrake 8.1 for near most of my daily work such as email, program development, office stuff, browsing the web, usenet, playing mp3's, answering machine and so on, on a "lowly" 350Mhz AMD K6-2 with "only" 256MB RAM, which runs 24/7, so all I have to do is switch the monitor on. Heck, I even start FlightGear and take the old Cessna for a spin from time to time or run Racer 0.4.x around Carrera just for the fun of it. Also it runs the DSL firewall for my home LAN consisting of a gaming machine (win98SE, GPL mostly) and a laptop (Red Hat Linux 7.2). > be such a thing as a perfect OS that never needs attention is simply > unrealistic. > Point taken, just choose an OS that has a better track record in security than everything that MS has so far managed to put out and grab your money for (the above Linux distribution just costs you the download if you so choose). Remember they touted XP the "most secure Windows ever"? Linux isn't rocket science any more, folks. Cheers & have a happy new year, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/ PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

BTW, Microsoft now admits that the security hole problem that started this whole thread is NOT confined to XP -- it's also a problem on ME, Win2K, and any other iteration of WinBlows that uses the same PlugNPray architecture... BB

Bart Brown wrote: > > BTW, Microsoft now admits that the security hole problem that started > this whole thread is NOT confined to XP -- it's also a problem on ME, > Win2K, and any other iteration of WinBlows that uses the same PlugNPray architecture... It's only an issue with "Universal PnP" installed.......a feature hardly ever used, or installed Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke" --Groucho Marx--

Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:18:05 -0500, Glen Pittman > <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> > Yep, you could give Linux a try. I use Linux Mandrake 8.1 for > near most of my daily work such as email, program development,What do you use for program development? I have to admit there is one Microsoft product that I am missing on Linux and it is developer studio. Thanks in advance, Alex.

alexti wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:18:05 -0500, Glen Pittman > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > <snip> > > Yep, you could give Linux a try. I use Linux Mandrake 8.1 for > > near most of my daily work such as email, program development, > What do you use for program development? I have to admit there is > one Microsoft product that I am missing on Linux and it is > developer studio. > > Thanks in advance, > Alex.

http://www.kdevelop.org/ -- Fester

a shame you didn't back this up with by giving a source or a link to that statement from MS. So far what MS said was that in ME, while you can install the vulnerable service, you have to do so on purpose and knowingly. It is not installed or enabled by default (as it is in XP) and as such, it is no danger to unsuspecting normal users (which is the real problem with this issue in XP). As for W2K - in the security bulletins MS01-59 and MS01-60 and the URL's referred to by these bulletings, MS says that W2K is not affected because it doesn't have the vulnerable service. Where did they now say that W2K is affected? Achim "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > BTW, Microsoft now admits that the security hole problem that started > this whole thread is NOT confined to XP -- it's also a problem on ME, > Win2K, and any other iteration of WinBlows that uses the same PlugNPrayarchitecture... > > BB

Hi Goy, as I understand it, the prob is, Universal PnP isn't installed in ME by default, but it is apparently installed and enabled by default in WinXP. I.e., any WinXP default installation is affected. As for W2K, MS said in their security bulletins MS01-59 and MS01-60 and the respective webpages referred to by these bulletins that W2K is not affected as it doesn't have the service at all!? Achim "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bart Brown wrote: > > > > BTW, Microsoft now admits that the security hole problem that started > > this whole thread is NOT confined to XP -- it's also a problem on ME, > > Win2K, and any other iteration of WinBlows that uses the same PlugNPrayarchitecture...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > It's only an issue with "Universal PnP" installed.......a feature hardly > ever used, or installed > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > http://www.teammirage.com > > "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke" > --Groucho Marx--

<g> Achim "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yb%X7.12307$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> If it was ME, it probably would have never even booted without > blue-screening, so you're right. It wouldn't have had a chance to freeze. > > :) > > -Larry > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a0psi2$mb8p7$[email hidden]... > > Hi Rob, > > > > maybe under ME it wouldn't have frozen at all ( I live in the south of > Spain > > BTW ;-) > > > > Achim > > > > > > "Rob Berus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:sooV7.10511$[email hidden]... > > > This reminds me of the heat issue I was having when I built my newest > > > system - a P4 1.7Ghz. > > > > > > It was about 90 in my apartment, and I was playing NASCAR Racing 4 > online. > > > In turn 2, the game locked up. Ctrl-Alt-Del, kill N4, check system > temps, > > > see its way hot, turn the A/C on, reload N4 and continue to play

without

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > ever rebooting. Running WinXP. Try that with 95, 98 or ME. > > > > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:9vvc74$i2ns6$[email hidden]... > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable

than

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > Win98 > > > > for gaming. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about > WinXP. > > > > > > > > I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My current > personal > > > > choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No > > > > bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot of > installing/deinstalling > > > and > > > > experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers. > > > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, Bart Brown <[email hidden]> writes: >BTW, Microsoft now admits that the security hole problem that started >this whole thread is NOT confined to XP -- it's also a problem on ME, >Win2K, and any other iteration of WinBlows that uses the same PlugNPray >architecture... They just now admitted that? We found that out last month on our network. College students have TONS of idle time to hack into stuff... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 01:45:05 GMT, alexti <[email hidden]> wrote: > one Microsoft product that I am missing on Linux and it is > developer studio. > > Thanks in advance, > Alex. Hi Alex, for program development I use Xemacs (a fork of GNU/Emacs). It has modes for all major languages that I program in (Java, Perl, Python, C/C++,...) and most more obscure ones (heck, it even has an SQL mode if you can believe it ;-) I've tried some IDE's like Kdevelop, Forte, JBuilder, Visual Age (all of which are available on Linux) and so on but I think I am of the "old school" of using the right tools for the job, and emacs is just too powerful an environment to give up. Cheers, Uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/ PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Schuerkamp wrote: > > I've tried some IDE's like Kdevelop, Forte, JBuilder, Visual > Age (all of which are available on Linux) and so on but I think > I am of the "old school" of using the right tools for the job, > and emacs is just too powerful an environment to give up. Guess I won't ask then if you've tried Kylix yet. (http://www.borland.com/kylix) :-) Haven't gotten around to it myself but was wondering how it was. -- Fester

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > a shame you didn't back this up with by giving a source or a link to that > statement from MS. "'The more I look at the security problems in the Universal Plug-and-Play (UPNP) feature of Windows, the more I think it is a big mistake to characterized them as Windows XP problems. It is entirely possible that there are more Windows ME (Millennium Edition) users who are vulnerable to the security hole than XP users. The risk here is that Windows ME users won't get the Microsoft patch because they assume the problems are only for XP given most of the press coverage so far," said Smith, proprietor of PC technology watchdog site ComputerBytesMan.com. ".... this bug is a Windows ME bug that got passed along to Windows XP.' "To be sure, Microsoft said customers using Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows ME with UPnP should also use the patch." Here's your link: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article/0,,10_945371,00.html

Hi Bart, thanks for the info. This is what I thought. W2K is not affected, and ME only if you've installed the service on purpose. Or someone else has done it for you <g> Achim "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Joachim Trensz wrote: > > > > a shame you didn't back this up with by giving a source or a link tothat

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > statement from MS. > > "'The more I look at the security problems in the Universal > Plug-and-Play (UPNP) feature of Windows, the more I think it is a big > mistake to characterized them as Windows XP problems. It is entirely > possible that there are more Windows ME (Millennium Edition) users who > are vulnerable to the security hole than XP users. The risk here is that > Windows ME users won't get the Microsoft patch because they assume the > problems are only for XP given most of the press coverage so far," said > Smith, proprietor of PC technology watchdog site ComputerBytesMan.com. > ".... this bug is a Windows ME bug that got passed along to Windows XP.' > > "To be sure, Microsoft said customers using Windows 98, Windows 98 > Second Edition and Windows ME with UPnP should also use the patch." > > Here's your link: > > http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article/0,,10_945371,00.html

In article <a0sv47$mk2oh$[email hidden]>, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Hi Bart, > >thanks for the info. This is what I thought. W2K is not affected, and ME >only if you've installed the service on purpose. Or someone else has done it >for you <g> > >Achim >

Our students were using ME. I don't know if the students installed the service, or if their computer manuf.(Dell, Gateway, etc) do it. One student shut down every ME system in the dorm with his PNP attack... :( Of course he denied having anything to do with it... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing). > > > > Can I back-update W98SE to use the 95 shell?

Tried Win98Lite a short while back, and Windoze is now not responding to my application shortcut keys (things like Ctrl+Alt+I for ICQ, Ctrl+Alt+N for Notepad and a whole load of others I've got set up on my system). I'm currently waiting (though not holding my breath) for a response from the guys at 98Lite, having first replaced the usual shell and then uninstalled W98L; I may shortly be forced to try an over-the-top Windoze reinstall, then after that I might have to consider a full format-and-reinstall :-( Next machine will almost certainly run Linux, especially since I'm now using Unix at work... Jonny

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> writes: > Next machine will almost certainly run Linux, especially > since I'm now using Unix at work... Why not use unix at home as well, then? http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/keys.cgi?intel (You still need a Windows box for the games, unfortunally.) -- -asbjxrn, putting on my asbestos now.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes: >Why not use unix at home as well, then? > >http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/keys.cgi?intel > >(You still need a Windows box for the games, unfortunally.) You just answered your own question...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.