| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Comments:
<0> i am not sure she has the win2k cd
<0> can i just blank all the configuration or something?
<0> but keep the OS?
<1> no :D
<2> its kinda scary though. while its still legal id suggest trying it.
<3> REFORMAT
<1> is there a sticker on the computer with a win2K CD key?
<0> http://www.loginrecovery.com/
<0> i'll try that
<0> no, just a designed for blah blah
<4> god damnit
<4> i dont have tsadmin on this system
<5> Ediehow; sounds stolen to me. ANY business that sells used equipment wipes it first
<4> big pet peeve for me
<4> people logging on to terminals ervices admin and NOT LOGGING OFF
<4> ****ing jeez
<1> we have time out policies set
<1> so everyone gets logged off eventually
<1> of couse
<1> we only have three people :D
<1> who use TS
<6> balls.
<1> pale_blue: some dude was looking for you earlier
<7> Is there any reason to run XP over 2000? I mean, windows 2000 is based on the NT kernal, has stable security, uses lower resources, and there isn't any problem updating since there is no windows verification process.
<0> oh weird
<1> morganix: yeah, but you're not gonna get any useful update s:D
<5> XP is NT 5.1
<1> "oh boy, I can be up to date as recent as 2004"
<5> win2000 is NT 5.0
<5> XP has all of the above, and faster disk IO and better memory management for larger scale systems
<7> That means what to me though?
<1> additionally, the verification process is only an issue if you intend to STEAL THE OPERATING SYSTEM
<6> eh. if it's who i think you mean, he msg'd me. ho hum. if he comes back, just tell him i died and got converted into a bot. or something.
<1> because Product Activation and Verification for Patches works perfectly fine when your copy of Windows is legal.
<0> hmm, this one takes 48 hours
<4> **** speaking of that ****
<4> i tried to activate windows xp tonight
<1> but honestly, you don't want our answer. You're looking for justification to use Windows 2000, which you've already decided upon.
<4> but the nic hadnt installed yet
<1> So I'm not going to be baited :D
<4> and it wouldnt let the drivers install because i couldnt LOGON
<7> Well, I lost the copy of XP that came with my system, and ever since I have had to used cracked versions. 2000 is a nice workaround for that.
<4> so i had to call them ****ers
<4> ittook 10 minutes
<4> bastards
<6> um. you can defer activation for 30 days.
<7> Only problem so far is that XP has better wireless support.
<4> no
<4> not on a repair
<4> it wont let you log on
<7> (But that's fine with this computer since It's close the the router so I just stuck in a regular NIC and plugged it in.
<6> oh. that's retarded.
<7> Well, 2000 works with my wireless card fine, but linksys forces me to install a program to handle it (15 F-ing megs).
<7> Don't know if there is a workaround for that or not.
<1> In Windows 2000, you need the linksys **** I believe
<5> as 2000 has no native wireless support, you have to rely on the vendors.
<8> ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
<1> because 2000 doesn't have ntive wireless
<7> Alright... the regular NIC is fine anyway.
<7> Any real reason to care about the upgrade from net 5.0 to 5.5?
<7> nt*
<5> about a bajillion little tweaks and improvements and stuff. if what you got suits your needs, then whatever.
<7> I'm big on resources BTW, run nod32 (over systemworks), kiro firewall (over zonealarm), ETC>
<1> systemworks :D
<1> you know that has spyware right ?
<7> I left systemworks in 2003.
<9> ewf
<4> Received: from wamexch03.wamltd.com (wamexch03.wamltd.com [10.70.1.123])
<4> by wamacuda.texasnetworks.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A0183106
<4> sweet
<9> some ****wit stole my nick
<6> vanity kill!
<4> kerio OVER zone alarm?
<4> OMG
<4> both of those are **** products
<5> I think he means he runs kerio INSTEAD of
<4> oh
<4> well still!
<5> kerio personal firewall is discontinued, unsupported.
<4> i dont see why average people wont just run SP2 WF
<7> What would you recommend then?
<4> what comes with the OS
<7> I have no doubt I'm far safer with kiro than the firewall that comes with sp2.
<4> how so?
<1> why? because the SP2 firewall was made by "microsoft"?
<4> because you've trusted some third party vendor who has 0 access to the operating system source code to basicly replace your tcp/ip stack
<7> I remember reading a report on attacks certain firewalls block, and kiro being up there (sp2 firewall being very insuficient acording to the article).
<4> did you read that off kerio's site?
<10> SP2 is a decent firewall.
<5> yeah, SP2 firewall makes little or no attempt at stopping software you've installed and run.
<10> It could be a lot better.
<4> its totally fine for your average user
<4> if you need more
<5> once a virus is inside, its too late.
<4> run an independatn firewall
<4> exactly peerce
<10> digiwork: I actually think the average user needs more. :)
<4> and that doesnt matter what firewall you have
<4> "im blocking all my viruses from infecting other people"
<4> rworks, like?
<4> our laptop users have been 100% good so far in like a year
<10> The average user is likely to install a virus that will propogate itself using methods that a more advanced firewall would block.
<4> right
<1> yeah
<4> that is not and should never be a firewalls job to control
<10> I'm not talking about a corporate environment.
<4> prevention is the key there
<1> and I prefer to just keep the **** off my network
<1> instead of locking it inside
<10> I'm talking about a home network.
<4> i can sorta see that
<7> Remote access is a concern as well.
<10> And sure, firewalls can block certain types of outgoing traffic.
<4> but in the home network
<4> if it doesnt get in, it cant get out
<1> I don't need zone alarm or kerio or anything to block outbound attacks, because Windows Firewall keeps them from even getting here.
<10> There are several firewall products that can help stem virus propogation.
<4> but see
<4> to me
<4> thats not a firewall
<4> thats some all inclusive technology
<1> yeah
<4> that i find vague and mushy
<5> XP Pro Remote Desktop totally rocks.
<10> Well, no, I'm talking about just using firewall techniques.
<4> i know exactly what my firewall does
<4> and my updates
<10> Simply blocking specific outgoing ports.
<4> regardless
<1> they create a false sense of security because typically end-users are told to just "hit Ok" when the warning comes up to get their **** to "work"
<4> the installing of a third party firewall on the end user system has more cons than the pro's it offers over the manufactures idea of a fireall in my opinion
<10> The fact is, computer security is still *way* too hard for the average user.
<8> soooooooooooo much vodka
<8> i blame BBS
<10> That's a huge losing battle.
<10> Cause most of the all-inclusive protection software has a tendency to break things in bad ways, and average home users can't fix ****.
<4> well social engineering will always be an issue
<4> until we all have biocards in order to launch everything
<10> So then they don't install it.
<7> Anyway, I'm very carefull about the programs I give acces to the internet, anyone have a good firewall to recommend? (besides SP2)
<7> access*
<10> I just use SP2.
<10> :)
<4> if you dont trust SP2 because you read an article
<4> get to work
<4> install a dedicated system
<7> I've been thinking about a hardware firewall running linux.
<4> otherwise smarten up and install sp2
<4> morgan,thats a good idea
<1> morganix: that would have the exact same capabilities as SP2's firewall
Return to
#windows
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#gamedev
catawalks
#delphi
antimo tablets
+q-dell +lottery
jagex shallax
#politics
#beginner
#politics
|
|