Slashdot Mirror

In both hardware & software @ NTCompatible.com since 1997: FACT -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/ra... ( + long BEFORE that 2001 post as well, as far back as 1996 in fact, see next "proof thereof"):

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

APK

P.S.=> As far back as 1997, I was doing what the "mainstream masses" have been only recently up to, using memory based devices vs. disks for less latency +f aster seek/access (both in software AND in hardware 1999 onwards via a CENATEK "RocketDrive" 2gb PC-133 SDRAM PCI 2.2 bus ramdrive board & more recently a Gigabyte IRAM 4gb DDR-2 SATA I/II bus ramdrive board too).

I use them as follows for home systems:

Since 1992 or so, 1st using separate HDDs (slower seek/access by FAR) & then using software ramdisks per the list below (on a MS-DDK based one I wrote in fact, on how I apply them):

Then applying Software-Based Ramdrives to database work with EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on paid contract (which did me VERY WELL @ both Windows IT Pro magazine in reviews, & also MS TechEd 2000-2002 in its hardest category: SQLServer Performance Enhancement & SuperSpeed.com too - since I improved their wares efficacy by up to 40% via programmatic control & tuning programs for them) - which, only the past few years now it seems, OTHERS are finally "latching onto" for performance purposes in database work in industrial environs! The EEC/SuperSpeed.com unit had 1 great thing going for it - mirroring back to HDD to save state of data!)

I move the following off my wd Velociraptor SATA II 10,000 rpm 16mb buffered harddisks that are driven off a Promise Ex-8350 128mb ECC ram caching raid sata 1/2 controller (which defers/delays writes via said cache, & also lessens physical head movement on disks & this is where I am going to make it even faster via lessening its workloads, read on & reduces fragmentation as well in the same stroke - "bonus") onto my 4gb DDR2 Gigabyte IRAM PCIExpress ramdisk card 2006-present (& before it, a CENATEK "RocketDrive" 4gb PC-133 SDRAM based one on PCI 2.2 bus circa 2002-2006):

A.) Pagefile.sys (partition #1 1gb size, rest is on 3gb partition next - this I didn't do on software ramdrives though)
B.) OS & App level logging (EventLogs + App Logging)
C.) WebBrowser caches, histories, sessions & browsers too
D.) Print Spooling
E.) %Temp% ops (OS & user level temp ops environmental variable values alterations)
F.) %Tmp% ops (OS & user level temp ops environmental variable values alterations)
G.) %Comspec% (command interpreter location, cmd.exe in this case, & in DOS/Win9x years before, command.com also)
H.) Lastly - I also place my custom hosts file onto it, via redirecting where it's referenced by the OS, here in the registry (for performance AND security):

HKLM\system\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters

(Specifically altering the "DataBasePath" parameter there which also acts more-or-less, like a *NIX shadow password system also!)

* All of which lessen the amount of work my "main" OS & programs slower mechanical hard disks have to do, "speeding them up" by lessening their workload, fragmentation, and speeding up access/seek latency for the things in the list above too.

HDD's concentrate on program &/or data fetches that are still hdd bound (& not kernelmode diskcaching subsystem cached in 4gb of DDR3 system ram here either yet) done on a media that has no heads to move, & thus, more mechanical latency + slower seek/access as you get on hard disks + reduced filesystem fragmentations due to that all, also & it works!

... apk

"You are the one who started this off-topic discussion about what you consider unfair down mods. I am staying on the topic of discussion you started, you are the one going off-topic. =P" - by Jeng (926980) on Saturday February 02, @11:19AM (#42771357)

Here's the root of the discussion tree between you & I -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269

* :)

---

"Fine, what do you think of the hostfile modifications that Spybot does? Is their list comprehensive enough? - by Jeng (926980) on Saturday February 02, @11:19AM (#42771357)

It's pretty good, just not as comprehensive as mine is & I incorporate their data into mine too PLUS that of another dozen or so reputable & reliable sources for custom hosts files data that ends up gaining a user of them added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent as well!

Here's a quote I often use from a respected security expert from a division of SYMANTEC in fact, regarding that very thing, Spybot & hosts files' efficacy too:

the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll g

Well, say what you WANT about me, but how about these folks (your peers on /., as well as security pros & more):

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608

Hi APK!

http://www.ntcompatible.com/postprint81050.html

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=453001

APK has been "amusing" for many years, under a variety of nicks.

Google: site:arstechnica.com APK

Any psychiatrists care to chime in on the characteristic "speech patterns" in the posts?

http://www.ntcompatible.com/postprint81050.html

Here's your fix: IF you use a relatively "larger" HOSTS file to fix that all you have to do is stop the local DNS clientside cache service in services.msc!

That "lag" goes away for good... very easy to do!

This is a "fault" in MS Windows OS', not in Linux or MacOS X afaik though, & one I've had active debates with, w/ MS' own senior mgt. no less...

I.E.-> The local DNS clientside cache service "flakes out" w/ larger hosts files, & is apparently designed to use a "Fixed Size" structure for its member entries ( imo @ least? VERYbad design & what you see proves that much easily!).

PUT IT THIS WAY, by example: I current have 1,648,110++ entries in my HOSTS file (250 are my fav. sites sped up via hardcodes in it, the rest are blocked out known malicious sites/servers or adbanners)... &, I have an "experimental mode" (uses AIRELLE HOSTS data, bit overkill imo & has erroneous entries but has gotten better over the years imo), as many as 3,383,650 entries in it, no lag either - as long as you kill the local DNS clientside cahe that is.

The caching of HOSTS for better read/re-read speeds is then taken up by the kernelmode diskcache subsystem (like it does for any file).

So, if you don't change it (flagging it as changed/dirty which means a read back into cache), it remains in memory to speed up hosts-domain names resolution to IP addresses from RAM.

(The latter's what "offsets" diskread latencies/speeds, but I don't get that here, as a direct my system to read my HOSTS up from a Gigabyte IRAM RamDisk/RamDrive card (4gb DDR2)).

As to speed gains (as well as security ones using a HOSTS file? Here are some testimonials "to that effect"):

E.G. #1 - The words of a security expert, Oliver Day (SECUNIA) CLEARLY disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less...

Additionally - Guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly!

(& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive

In my init. post you replied to? There, I note I use a firewall too (learn to read) & per my subject-line above? Ok, here goes:

E.G. #1 - The words of a security expert, Oliver Day (SECUNIA) CLEARLY disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less...

Additionally - Guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly!

(& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also)

PLUS?

Well, you'll also get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

Slashdotters've "modded up" my posts on HOSTS files in these posts also - you're outnumbered approximately 23:1 in them:

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722

HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608

HOSTS MOD UP:2009 ->

On HOSTS files? Many others on /. no less (and security pros too) disagree with you:

E.G. #1 - The words of a security expert, Oliver Day (SECUNIA) CLEARLY disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less...

Additionally - Guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly!

(& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also)

PLUS?

Well, you'll also get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

Slashdotters've "modded up" my posts on HOSTS files in these posts also - you're outnumbered approximately 23:1 in them:

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722

HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608

HOSTS MOD UP:2009 ->

The 15 year age gap is based on guesswork based on things you've said here and there about when you graduated college. But you completely failed to address why it is that you demand that I have more public accomplishments than you, and that they all be at a younger age than the earliest accomplishment on your list. Why is that a prerequisite to talk to you?

I should also note that I've developed applications as well, but they've been internal things for companies I've worked for, not packaged software sold in stores. Most programmers work is never seen by the public at all as most software written is for internal use. Having software you worked on being reviewed by a magazine is hardly the gold standard for what makes a good programmer.

Could you elaborate more on what exactly you did for this Superdisk-NT software? You mention increasing the speed of the software 40%. I assume you mean you increased the speed of the core functionality of the software, rather than just decreasing the programs loading time or something like that. What details can you give on how that 40% speed increase is calculated. Does it mean making the program operate the same, but use 40% less CPU time, or does it mean adding 40% to the average speed boost that the program grants to disk access?

I've sent an e-mail to superspeed's pr dept to try to reach Eric Dickman since you didn't provide any contact info. I imagine it will take time to get a reply. Can you tell me what year he offered you a job. Was it 2003 2003 or 1999. I sometimes get confused about the precise year of things that happened years ago as well.

You wrote:

LEARN TO READ "ne'er-do-well":

"For Ultradefrag64, it looks like you contributed an icon" - by tragedy (27079) on Saturday November 12, @03:14AM (#38033346)

http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html

or here

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873

That first link, in regards to you, says only:

Special thanks for good suggestions (in alphabetical order):
Alexander Peter Kowalski - Process priority control (not implemented yet).

and the second link is to you contributing an icon, which wasn't accepted for the program as far as I can tell. Since what I wrote (and you clipped off halfway) was actually:

For Ultradefrag64, it looks like you contributed an icon that does not seem to have been accepted (it was a pretty nice icon, but might have been considered too derivative of other Windows icons, or it might just not have scaled down well to their size requirement) and suggested that they use a particular Windows API. In the credits, they thanked you for your suggestions. It was nice of you to contribute, but it's far from a towering achievement.

Unless there's some additional thing you did for that project that's contained in that link, then it looks like I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read.

As for my question about what was in those other magazine articles you quoted, I'm not saying you're lying about it, I'm saying that I don't have any access to those articles, so I don't know what's in them. So, why don't you just tell me? What applications of yours did they talk about in those magazines and what did they say (no need to quote in full, just a general overview).

Regarding your postscript. Are you trying to imply that I create additional accounts to jump into the conversation, pretending to be someone else, and support myself? Where exactly are you getting any indication I do this? Your imagination

The words of a security expert, Oliver Day (SECUNIA)
disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

Slashdotters've "modded up" my posts on HOSTS files in these posts also - you're outnumbered 23:1 in them:

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 ->

FIRST - I don't use 127.0.0.1, first of all (you're WRONG):

"And yet in your stupid hosts file stuff you use 127.0.0.1" - by hakahaka (2485890) on Monday October 31, @04:58AM (#37892484)

See the above, lol... you're WRONG (I use 0, or 0.0.0.0).

---

"and flood your local HTTP daemon and other ports with useless requests that need to time out EVERY FUCKING TIME, SLOWING DOWN BROWSER AND WHOLE SYSTEM as more threads need do be created and applications need to wait for the time out." - by hakahaka (2485890) on Monday October 31, @04:58AM (#37892484)

SECOND - YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN, & I'll even have Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM back me on it, as far as what HOSTS files do for websurfers:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

"Maybe you're too stupid to see why this i a problem." - by hakahaka (2485890) on Monday October 31, @04:58AM (#37892484)

Ahem/THIRD: See above... lol, & perhaps YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO KNOW THAT TURNING OFF THE LOCAL DNS CLIENTSIDE CACHE SERVICE IN WINDOWS (for large HOSTS files only) WHICH STOPS ANY SLOWDOWNS, & also saves CPU/RAM, & other forms of I/O associated with that unnecessary service running (not the http daemon as you stated by the by also)..

(AND, because the HOSTS file is just a FILE, like any other? IT GETS CACHED BY LOCAL KERNELMODE DISKCACHE SUBSYSTEMS, for speed of access/re-access)

Please, I am going to tell you what you TRIED to tell me & where wrong about: LEARN YOUR MODERN OPERATING SYSTEMS BOY AND HOW THEY WORK!

---

"but that wouldn't surprise me BECAUSE YOU'RE A NOOB AND JUST GOT SERVED!" - by hakahaka (2485890) on Monday October 31, @04:58AM (#37892484)

No, I don't just *THINK* this, I truly now KNOW this: You're the noob that just got served, & for opening your BIG MOUTH & INSERTING YOUR OWN FOOT INTO IT.

* How's it taste? The bitter "taste of defeat"?? Absolutely... see the above!

APK

P.S.=> This? Ah, I just GOTTA SAY IT, as-per-my-usual with noobs like yourself: This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...

Now I KNOW why you "talk a big game" but have zero to show for yourself in freeware/shareware, commercial softwares code, or your work being featured in any publications of note in the computer sciences arena (as I have to them all), lol, per the above... BOTTOM-LINE HERE IS "know your role boy", and you just smoked yourself... badly!

... apk

conserve bandwidth, easily, and can help get you back SOME of what you spend your hard-earned dollars for, easing this and off-setting your concerns, & to a decent degree, with quoted proofs below and in terms of online security also - read on:

Far better than not doing it at all.

Hey, listen:

If "the man" wants to start burning you for the monies you spend to be online, burn him back by stalling yourself spending time hauling in his advertisements & processing their contents ( adbanners are just designed to psychologically make you spend your money too anyhow ).

Speaking of "processing adbanner content"?

Blocking banners not only gets you speed, noticeable speed (per Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM, who read my articles on them in the mid to late 90's in forums and now wrote about them in 2009) but, also more "layered security" too vs. malware poisoned adbanners (evidences below):

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE: from the yr. 2009

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

and

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

ADBANNERS HAVE ALSO BEEN SEEN MANY TIMES SINCE 2003 WITH MALICIOUSLY SCRIPTED CONTENT IN THEM AS WELL:

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/21

"Your "highly excessive" use of "quotation marks" makes it really hard to hide your "obvious" "advertisement" for your "help article". - by trapnest (1608791) on Saturday November 27, @02:35PM (#34359258)

1st of all: Learn to read better then, or, just don't read it IF you don't like it (simple).

(Additionally, accusing me of "advertisement"? You give away the way YOU think pal, & I was only replying to what was stated, with proof that others are doing what was stated SHOULD be done - I mean, accusing me of that? Hey - it's JUST LIKE when another guy calls another guy "fag" etc./et al, & the person being razzed that way is definitely NOT gay! The name tosser doesn't KNOW the person, or their thoughts especially... but, they sure are giving away their OWN "weaknesses" in the very act of the name tossing or accusation... drink that in, & digest it as "Food4Thought4U").

Secondly: Didn't "girlintraining" say this? Here's the 'pertinent quote' from her +5 'max-good' rated posting:

"If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement"

?

I only responded w/ actual PROOF that others like myself ARE out there + doing well @ it, & doing just what she notes... that's all.

I've been doing guides like this one for securing Windows as well as speeding it up (lol, my "Mark II Iron Man Armor online" as I like to call it, is the latest/greatest one which I posted about) since 1997 (where its init. version was initially written & featured as "Article #1" over @ NTCompatible.com (the "Mark I Iron Man Armor online", & since I have "perfected my design" + freely given it to others to use so they surf not only SAFER, but also FASTER to boot!))

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT PROOF:

NT Compatible ... Tuning Guide for Windows NT/2000. Alexander Peter Kowalski ... defragger & open up a DOS Windows & switch to where the fragmented ... you're on a dialup modem ISP rather than cable ...
http://www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml

FROM -> http://www.speed-up-computer.com/modem-tweak/modem-tweak-software/windows-2000-modem-tweak-.html

(Just showing what "girlintraining" requests has been going on online, from myself personally as an example thereof, since 1997 onwards...)

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Perhaps you ought to do the same as I have over time, provided you CAN that is... instead of trolling others? I mean, someone called this post a "troll" before YOU posted, and yes, I do STRONGLY suspect that init. downmod as "troll" I received initially IS most likely, from you!

Now, since you now post here though?? Heh - you can't mod it down again, if it was you (& yes, I suspect it was, too bad for you now though, eh?)... and you didn't need to post 2x here and here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1885890&cid=34359264 , you COULD have just said it once in 1 post, just as I have to you (to your 2nd one? Hey - see the first thing I stated above in this reply to you, & thanks!)

However, since you're in the business here of suggesting what others ought to do?? Well, there's my suggestion, to YOU, in this 'P.S.' section... so "touche"... apk

I thought you said that this AlecStaar \ APK person's posts were deleted over at ntcompatible. Making mistakes are we, PeterB, or is this not proof thereof?

"If this is this APK person? I remember him - he posted as AlecStaar there dimwit (I knew your brain had been rotted by AIDS, but I had no idea to what extent. Apparently to the point where you have become forgetful, eh?) and his posts still exist there DIMWIT -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread17711-1.html [ntcompatible.com]" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, @03:28AM (#31398368)

If you're going to debate with someone, I suggest you not make so many mistakes DrPizza. It would appear to the casual observer that his posts still do indeed, exist there and are in fact, there alongside your own in that very posting.

Additionally?

You apparently did go over there to ntcompatible in the url above here that you yourself posted no less crying like a baby:

  http://www.compatdb.org/support/topics/81050_good_old_apk.html#Post81050

After having your IRC chat room flooded out lol, and to complain (instead of just banning out the range of IP addresses it came from, or just KLINE'ing the single IP the attack came from - you really are a noob at IRC aren't you?), and what was the result??

Everyone pretty much told you to piss off. Not a good showing DrPizza, not at all, on any level.

"re: IRC Since I'm friends with the owners of the server, and since the Ars Technica IRC chanserv recognizes me and ops me on those channels that I moderate, and since this has been true since the early days of the IRC server, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you have any links that might provide elucidation?

I remember this incident: http://www.compatdb.org/support/topics/81050_good_old_apk.html#Post81050" - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Oh, so finally the poof here admits a bit of truth (I thought it was full blown AIDS that wasted your mind and memory away).

Poof, face it - you're not a good liar (but, thanks for the link - it will be useful in the future I am sure for me).

BESIDES YOU WERE THE ONE BEING TOLD TO LEAVE THERE TOO you cry baby little "poof".

And about IRC dumbbell? APK was one of the mods on one of the original IRC networks on DALNET as an Op on #Windows95 (recognized by K. Mardem Bey creator of MIRC no less, as the "OFFICIAL HELP CHANNEL" on DALNET IRC circa 1995-2001 iirc) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/Mapped_Drives_Failed_to_Reconnect_at_Boot-up_t27540.html

Is your b.s. that he did years before you ever did supposed to impress me? You and your entire arstechnica crew got "run out" of your own chat room servers, lol, and you came crying over to NTCompatible.com about it (everyone told you to piss off too, right in the URL you put up no less).

----

"1) If they want." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Newsflash queer boy - Men aren't supposed to screw other men (even though poofs like you think so)

----

"2) Homosexuals breed all the time. Homosexual doesn't mean sterile." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

New News: Men cannot ejaculate into another man's hairy ass and procreate, freak. Learn your biology on this account please.

----

"3) I wouldn't have said so, no." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

PeterB/DrPizza: I've gone to arstech long enough to have gotten the "word" on you - you are a homosexual, though nowadays apparently, you are loathe to admit it. Why is this poof? You used to admit to it quite freely years ago circa 2000-2001 or so?

----

"4) Yes, of course." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Little tidbit - homosexuality, which you are known to be gay and admittedly so on arstech, is not normal freak.

----

"But it does not contain the details that you claim. It's a bit hard to tell, of course, since all your posts seem to have been deleted (funny that)." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

If this is this APK person? I remember him - he posted as AlecStaar there dimwit (I knew your brain had been rotted by AIDS, but I had no idea to what extent. Apparently to the point where you have become forgetful, eh?) and his posts still exist there DIMWIT -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread17711-1.html

In fact, right alongside yours.

"re: IRC Since I'm friends with the owners of the server, and since the Ars Technica IRC chanserv recognizes me and ops me on those channels that I moderate, and since this has been true since the early days of the IRC server, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you have any links that might provide elucidation?

I remember this incident: http://www.compatdb.org/support/topics/81050_good_old_apk.html#Post81050" - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Oh, so finally the poof here admits a bit of truth (I thought it was full blown AIDS that wasted your mind and memory away).

Poof, face it - you're not a good liar (but, thanks for the link - it will be useful in the future I am sure for me).

BESIDES YOU WERE THE ONE BEING TOLD TO LEAVE THERE TOO you cry baby little "poof".

And about IRC dumbbell? APK was one of the mods on one of the original IRC networks on DALNET as an Op on #Windows95 (recognized by K. Mardem Bey creator of MIRC no less, as the "OFFICIAL HELP CHANNEL" on DALNET IRC circa 1995-2001 iirc) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/Mapped_Drives_Failed_to_Reconnect_at_Boot-up_t27540.html

Is your b.s. that he did years before you ever did supposed to impress me? You and your entire arstechnica crew got "run out" of your own chat room servers, lol, and you came crying over to NTCompatible.com about it (everyone told you to piss off too, right in the URL you put up no less).

----

"1) If they want." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Newsflash queer boy - Men aren't supposed to screw other men (even though poofs like you think so)

----

"2) Homosexuals breed all the time. Homosexual doesn't mean sterile." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

New News: Men cannot ejaculate into another man's hairy ass and procreate, freak. Learn your biology on this account please.

----

"3) I wouldn't have said so, no." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

PeterB/DrPizza: I've gone to arstech long enough to have gotten the "word" on you - you are a homosexual, though nowadays apparently, you are loathe to admit it. Why is this poof? You used to admit to it quite freely years ago circa 2000-2001 or so?

----

"4) Yes, of course." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

Little tidbit - homosexuality, which you are known to be gay and admittedly so on arstech, is not normal freak.

----

"But it does not contain the details that you claim. It's a bit hard to tell, of course, since all your posts seem to have been deleted (funny that)." - by DrPizza (558687) on Monday March 08, @03:01AM (#31398270) Homepage

If this is this APK person? I remember him - he posted as AlecStaar there dimwit (I knew your brain had been rotted by AIDS, but I had no idea to what extent. Apparently to the point where you have become forgetful, eh?) and his posts still exist there DIMWIT -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread17711-1.html

In fact, right alongside yours.

Like this one or any other application with 3 stars rating on ntcompatible.com?

"and was just code based off of the standard MS code which gave it far too many limitations." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04, @05:54PM (#29317793)

Software Ramdisks are ALL built from the same Microsoft DDK template, so you know... &, they're initially based on a FAT-12 filesystem (floppy type iirc? Not sure on this trivia anymore), iirc on filesystem, no less (hence the 32mb sizelimit, this can be overcome & discussions I had w/ ArSoft Ramdisk's designer turned me onto that much, how to beat the size limits, but... I moved on, to SSD's - REAL ONES, not the "plastic imitations" based on FLASH the thread here @ /. is talking about - but ones with much faster dedicated RAM (not shared like system memory))

----

"I HATED APK ramdisk...it had far too many problems" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04, @05:54PM (#29317793)

Opinions + experiences vary -> http://72.3.248.187/bbs/t52080.html

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

----

"kenancy2000

Active Member Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 217

VERY EXCELLENT thread on hard drive setup and page/swap files!

See here...
http://www.ntcompatible.com/postprint137030.html

This thread mostly covers WinNT/2000/XP, but the principles probably could be applied to Win9x systems, too.

I will be trying this out for my rig in the next few days and report back if successful.

This thread has responses from Alec Staar, creator of APK RamDisk 4.

My initial question was about sectioning off part of a large system memory (like 512MB or 1GB) RAM and using it as a drive letter, and putting the paging/swap file there because RAM is so much faster than a hard drive. We answer that and several other important hard disk topics related directly to video editing performance.

From what I can tell, you can significantly improve the performance of not only your video editing by placing certain files and services off your main hard drive, but you can improve other aspects as well, like program launching and web surfing. The only drawback will be a little additional noise and heat generated by an extra hard drive or two - but with todays Fluid Bearing hard disks coming from most manufacturers these days, the noise is no so bad at all, and the heat issue can be overcome by choosing drives that are known not to heat up too much (I noticed my Seagate Barracuda IV drive (and probably the V models, too) is much cooler idle than my new Maxtor Series 9 drive is at idle, so there is a tip for you).

Last edited by kenancy2000 : 03-18-2004 at 02:25 PM."

----

(HEY - Still: The person you quoted may have a point & that might be possible though, as I have not looked @ or tried it (even here) in years (too small @ 32mb size limits (Fat12 is why), & on Windows Server 2003 let alone 2000 or XP on service packs + hotfix patches also (they can change a LOT of things & there IS the LEGACY DRIVER registry areas to worry about here in this situation, possibly, in regards to installing this software based MS-DDK driver + GUI combination, after you have put in service packs &/or hotfix patches))...

So, I am not even sure if it will run with current Service Pack Patch Levels, in other words!

IF you were to install it? Do it on a FRESH unpatched model of an OS (2000/XP)...

See, if you do not install it from the "get-go" with an UNPATCHED model of the Operating System nowadays in fact, to be quite honest about it, it may not work (LEGACY DRIVER ENTRIES again etc. & all that comes with them).

So what you quoted, might be possible on today's fully patched distributions of Windows for all I know (I went hardware ramdisks & have not looked back since, much less maintenancing an old ware I wrote)... that might be something that pe

So instead you ignore that Windows NT-based OSes are hit and miss with respect to game compatibility from 10-15 years ago?

How young must you be that the simple fact that lots of software stops working between OS revisions is a shock to you? Hell, my GameTap can't even handle the upgrade to Windows 7.

OR MAYBE - MANY end-users are now starting to use the numerous tuning guides for Windows NT-based OS' that show folks how to trim off unnecessary services &/or other background processes, to lessen how much RAM is recommended or needed, as well as various registry hacks that aid in speed AND security?

(Easily done via native tools like regedit.exe, services.msc &/or msconfig.exe)

All done to aid them in conserving RAM (& thus lessening the "recommended amount" (which granted, is the bare minimum & the OS runs like a snail, paging like mad, if left in the default configuration (services that many users do NOT need left running, to which I am alluding to here))).

Personally, I've been doing that type of thing on oldschool OS like DOS/Win3x/Win9x & decided to one day back then, start hacking away @ NT's settings to see what could be done in the same capacity... NT-based OS' turned out far more flexible/reconfigurable, than any of the older MS' OS, in fact!

I've been using & putting out (publicly online) techniques like that since 1996 or so!

Proof? Well, I put it online in 1997 as "article #1" @ NTCompatible.com, the first & oldest one online afaik (started life with NTCompatible.com, as NT Gaming Palace, back in 1997 in fact):

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:1ZEbfhemlA4J: www.hexus.net/content/news/news_archive_month.php% 3Fmonth%3D200104+Alexander+Peter+Kowalski&hl=en&ct =clnk&cd=107&gl=us

Salient quote proof: "Alexander Peter Kowalski over at NT Compatibel has updated his Windows NT/2000 tweaking guide." & pointing to THIS url -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml!

Though that's from 2001, the proof it was there, is that. Philipp over @ NTCompatible.com can substantiate the birthdate of this site if anyone's doubting this, & there usually is that - doubting thomas' abound online, so I have to "back up my bluster" ahead of time, bloating my post here.

(Yes, my article's no longer there anymore, but is on another site, but the proof it was in that URL @ that date is what I needed here (to back up my 'bluster', so-to-speak) remains online though (search NTCompatible on that page), & the idea's started to sail everywhere, since (entire sites are based on the premise now in fact)).

I also must admit that I didn't 'invent the settings', MS did! This is one of the reasons I never "went after other sites telling them to remove them putting out the same info." I had earlier. I don't own those settings (well, a few I wrote of are 'original thought' but, what the heck - every windows user should be made aware of this OS' families' flexibility in this capacity, no matter the source!)

Microsoft, rather smartly, designed well this way - leaving their OS very flexible!

Back then, I started messing with this stuff @ around 1992-1996 onwards, & "lo & behold", tuning the NT-based OS family from MS?

It works!

(And, just for this type of thing - saving RAM, cpu cycles, other forms of I/O as well (like to disk) & more, like better security (chopping off potentially hackable/crackable services, for instance)).

APK

It was like the first time I used NT, except that NT was probably not consumer prime time game playing ready.

Actually, you could get primitive versions of DirectX on NT4, and you could play any games that properly used the Win32 API just fine on NT. Before that there was the WING.dll (WINdows Graphics) 2d graphics driver layer, which IIRC also provided direct graphics memory access (as well as various drawing primitives? I'm not a windows programmer by any means) and which was used by some Windows 3.1 games.

There's been something fishy going on at nVidia for a while.

One is nVidia's policy that *they* don't support nVidia techology; the OEMs do. They tell you if you have problems to contact your OEM. Now Apple is a big company and could conceivably do this, but many nVidia cards are made by small OEMs who slap electronics on a board and sell it. Are they going to help you with a crashing nVidia driver. And when you follow the link on the nVidia to their OEM "support partners", this is what you get:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/partner_support.html "Page not found"

nVidia has gone so far to shut down the feedback page on their website: It says "This module is still under construction." You really believe nobody at nVidia knows how to make a web feedback page?

There's a long running bug in nVidia drivers known as the nv4_disp bug. You'll be typing away on your PC, then suddenly your monitor goes blank. A few seconds later, your PC power down. This was happening to me and I though it was some perculiarity with my PC. It turns out, this is affecting a lot of people, and it has been around for many years. nVidia know about it (they mention it in passing on one of their forums), but haven't fixed it. Windows BSOD diagnoses it as an infinite loop "device driver programming error." Independently some skilled owners worked out it was a timing problem with how nVidia writes to an I/O register. If you're lucky this bug will hit you only once a week. If you're unlucky, several times a day. THIS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, yet nVidia won't fix this damned thing!

Want to see how widespread the problem is? Google for nv4_disp. The owner of this web page says he's amazed how many hits this page gets, and theorises a lot of people are affected:

http://s13.invisionfree.com/nv4_disp/index.php?sho wtopic=10
http://byronmiller.typepad.com/byronmiller/2005/10 /stupid_windows_.html
http://www.computing.net/drivers/wwwboard/forum/49 55.html
http://www.christopherjason.com/articles/nvidia-nv 4disp-problem/
http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread27150-1.html
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread18930. html

The most frustating thing is that nVidia do everything they can to put you off. A "under construcion" feedback page. The fob-off to their partners, with a support page that doesn't even exist. Ignored e-mail. Ignored forum questions.

One solution is of course to buy an ATI card, but if you're paid hundreds of bucks for an nVidia card, what do you do? Does anyone know how we can make nVidia fix this damned thing?

Windows 2000 was evolutionary for servers. For home users it was revolutionary. It was the end of all the blue-screen and rebooting jokes.

Bullshit. BULLSHIT, I SAY. I've bluescreened Windows 2000 on stable hardware so many times, you just have no idea. And have you installed even Windows XP recently? If you do all the updates from XP with no service pack up to the latest and greatest, you reboot somewhere between eight and ten times just during installation and updates. First you have to do some updates and reboot, then you get to upgrade windows update, then download some more updates and reboot, then you install sp2 and reboot, then some updates and reboot, then some updates and runtimes and reboot, then some more updates (some of them are for the runtimes) and then reboot again! I think there's another reboot or two in there someplace too, but these are the ones I'm sure about.

They should have pushed it for that, but they waited for XP to do that and by then it wasn't anything new.

They didn't sell Windows 2000 for home use because it is much more complicated than windows 9x and they figured it would confuse people to try to do "administration" tasks on it. They were probably right. XP has a much more friendly interface.

I've bluescreened XP many times, as well. Well, it does tend to just reboot itself instead of displaying a blue screen, but I've had a few reproducible blue screens where it crashed too hard to automatically reboot itself.

I didn't mean that DirectX was revolutionary, I meant that it was important that it was included in 2000 and could be used (as opposed to you couldn't use it on NT4 IIRC).

Actually, DirectX did make it to NT4, but it was late, and only version 3.

Costs for hardware substitution is not found only on the linux side.

How about PaperPort 6.5?

Note: PaperPort 6.5 is not supported on Windows XP.

How about Epson GT-6000?

This is a parallel scanner, parallel scanners are not supported under the TWAIN standard in Win XP. EPSON will only support scanners under the TWAIN standard, therefore it is not possible to install this scanner in WIn XP with EPSON drivers, period. This is a very old scanner and will not have a useful lifespan left, you can buy a more reliable and higher spec unit for less than =A370 ($100).

How about the visioneer 6000 series?

It looks like you're out of luck. After Win 2000 came out, Visioneer said they wouldn't update the 6000b driver to work with Win 2000 - which almost certainly means it won't work with XP either. http://www.ntcompatible.com/story346.html

How are you going to convince me to replace a perfectly working scanner just to upgrade my OS? :) It looks to me like linux is not the only OS that doesn't support all hardware. The difference being, once supported in linux, support never goes away. On the other side, windows support is built by the same people that make the hardware, thus the fast initial support but also the small period of support. When upgrading PC+OS, more likely than not, you _will_ have older peripherals, probably not currently supported by their vendors. So, I'll boldly say that while linux may cost _you_ money, it also may save money to others in other circumstances.

This happens because at least 51 percent of consumers[2] in the United States don't care enough about freedom. Case in point: Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, lost the 2004 Presidential election.

Well, you could always vote with your wallet and incourage others to do the same... ;-)

http://www2.ntcompatible.com/For_the_old_DOS_gamer s_OpenGL_ports_of_CLASSICS_t18800.html

A good read for those of you wanting the "old school" games redone with modern OpenGL &/or DirectX 3D graphics displays added.

(Many of them! Ones like Wolf3D, Doom I & II, Quake I & II (redone even BETTER on the latter one), etc. (plus, others, not just ones from IDSoftware! (ALL are excellently done by 3rd party coders & pretty highly 'polished' by this point))

* Enjoy!

(What's listed in that thread are the original/true "blast-from-the-past" with the gameplay since they are the ORIGINAL game, but redone with modern display methods as mentioned above, no more grainy looking bitmaps & sprites blasted to the screen buffer anymore... OpenGL &/or DirectX 3D goodness!)

APK

P.S.=> Special thanks to folks from the shops like IDSoftware have to go out here - they open-sourced their code, & others took the ball & ran with it like NO tomorrow, truly great work! :) ... apk

http://www.ntcompatible.com/Win2k_command_line_opt ions_to_disable_memory_check_t23403.html

On the ntcompatible.com website it says Star Control 3 will run with VDMSound and the appropriate settings. Details provided there. Go to http://www.ntcompatible.com/, go to the games section, go to "S", go forward a page or two, click on the "Show" link on the right side of the page across from "Star Control 3".

Not having tried this, I can't guarantee it will work. If you don't have luck with VDMSound, you might want to try DosBox 0.65 instead.

However, I've had to install a couple of codec-related patches to get FF7's FMVs working in WinXP; here's a direct link to the details at NT Compatible: http://www.ntcompatible.com/cdetail5701.html

Check out http://www.ntcompatible.com/. Do a search for Final Fantasy and you'll get a bunch of hits regarding how to get it working.

No, NT 4 had full DirectX 3 support.

No, it moved GDI into kernel mode. Win32 remains a mix between user-mode and kernel-mode; many Win32 APIs are just thin wrappers around the NT kernel API, others are more complex and have relatively significant user-mode portions.

here, here, here and here.

The imilly site is just a shill for Alexa. Just check out the class action lawsuit (on Alexa's own site) as well as http://simplythebest.net/info/spyware/alexa_spywar e.html, http://www.ntcompatible.com/story6200.html, and http://www.barbarabrabec.com/homebiz/computer_Alex a_IE_crashproblem.htm to name a few. Face it: Alexa has a very long and ugly history of spyware.

Dear CharlesDonHall: THINK! Why do you think an outfit such as Alexa provides a built-in web search? To give you something with no strings attached? To say "sorry about all that spyware in the past, see we are nice folks now". No they setup yet another service to SPY ON YOU!

And microsoft lets them ... not because people were urging microsoft to provide them with yet another Alexa experience. The fact that Microsoft gives you a builtin "feature" to download the Alexa toolbar just shows where their prioritie$ lie.

Harmless indeed!

Check NT Compatible's database for Win9x game tips. They have instructions for Grim Fandango at least.

That's too bad. I haven't tried it myself, I only read this.

Maybe some day...

The point I was trying to make is this:

You do not have any choice about what can and can not be supported under Microsoft products.

Your original post was that NT 4 doesn't support USB. But you can get 3rd party drivers for USB. Obviously you're not really all that limited.

But it is true that you cannot arbitrarily modify any part of the Windows OS. But it's not like Windows lacks extensibility points. Infact, it is FILLED with extensibility points; and Microsoft even typically provides binary compatibility between versions of those extensibility points [insert gripe about Linux module APIs not being binary compatible].

Hell, you can even get ext2 drivers for Windows! So let's be realistic: Typically if customers want to extend Windows MS makes APIs available to do so.

WinOSCentral, NTCompatible, and too many other decent Windows sites to list.

I'm talking about games by companies with names like "LucasArts" and "Westwood" that are circa late 90's. NTCompatible.com is a good site for compatibility info.

Well, let's differentiate. I can understand if it was Windows 2000, since that's exactly what happens in Win2K. It crashes in NT and 2K, but actually ran in XP fine. Other people are reporting this too. I'm not sure what went on in your case...but it does work. Maybe consider switching to Worms World Party. Sure...it means you have to pay money, but the better network support is *more* than worth it. No more WormNet!

You aren't bugged as much if you uninstall Windows Messenger (ignoring that Microsoft says you're SOL if you're not running Home Edition.) Then again, you also aren't bugged if you take Windows XP off the system completely, which also helps you with today's little bug as well. I'm glad I did last week, even though I only used it for games and DVDs...

• http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/guide/compariso n.asp
• http://home.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-6526091-1 .html
  
• http://www.ntcompatible.com/article2.shtml
  

Check the boards on http://www.ntcompatible.com/, and you will see a laundry list of problems people are having with homerolled AMD (and some Intel) systems and Windows 2000. So, it's not quite as simple as AMD + Abit/Asus = Working System.

The problems seem to range from shady ACPI support to bad RAM to weak power supplies to beta drivers. Of course, Win NT/2000 is much more finicky about it's hardware than Linux or Win98 (so no need to respond re-making that point), but it does point to the greater risks with rolling your own system.

The original question was about a 'vendor approved' commercial-quality system, where you are paying for the integration services to avoid hardware debugging headaches. Unfortunately, this market is primarily dominated by Intel -- primarily for marketing reasons, but also due to the fact that AMD doesn't sell 2-way SMP systems, which are essential for the workstation/low-end server market.

From everything I've heard, AMD/Asus/Abit make a quality product, and people have lots of success with their stuff. However, they've yet to convince Dell or Compaq or IBM to put AMD hardware in a commerical system, leaving AMD's market to the lower-end desktops and commodity systems.