A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Motherboards » Asus Motherboards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Operating System



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 9th 04, 12:36 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:39:13 +1200, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"Tim" wrote:

Hi,

Go with XP

[snip]

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


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

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

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

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

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

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


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

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

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

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

http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1125025
http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1129165
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.petch.html





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


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

Or, to put it more eloquently:

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



Not sure how eloquent that is.

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

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

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

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ:
www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #12  
Old May 9th 04, 02:29 PM
Jay T. Blocksom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, R
wrote:

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

[snip]

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

I'm leaning for the new system to include:

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

[snip]

I strongly prefer AMD CPUs, for several reasons; but that is an argument I'll
gladly defer to another day, thank you. ~

(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to go with an NT-based (as opposed to DOS-based) version of
Windows, then stick with Win2K/SP4; but be *SURE* to install it using
"2000lite", available he http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html, so you can
tame some of its more egregious excesses (like MSIE, for example).

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

[snip]

Good move, BUT...

Unless you have some very specific reason to favor a particular vendor's
version of Unix, I *strongly* suggest that for your purposes, "Unix" should
equal "Linux". Beyond that, everyone has their own pet Linux distro, and
rarely will any two randomly chosen penguin-heads agree on which that should
be. But the "bottom line" is that Red Hat is *generally* considered the most
"compromised by commercial marketing concerns" -- which may or may not
actually mean it's suitable to you. Personally, I have a soft spot for
Knoppix http://www.knoppix.net/, which is near-certainly the hands-down
winner in terms of easing the transition for long-time Windows users.

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

[snip]

See above WRT WinXP. As for Win98SE, there's no reason you couldn't install
that beside either Linux or an NT-based Windows (or both); and depending on
what applications and peripherals you plan to use, it may be a very good idea,
at least as a temporary "bridge" while you learn Linux. But if you do go this
route, it is again an "absolute must" to install it via 98lite:
http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html, for the same reasons as apply to Win2K.

Would Win98se even work with
hyper thread?

[snip]

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

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

[snip]

This is at least mostly Urban Legend.

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

"Newer" != "Better".

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

[snip]

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

--

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


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  #13  
Old May 9th 04, 04:17 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, R
wrote:
(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

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

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


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

while still
maintaining "passable" performance.


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

The WD740GD is still bigger,


Not a hard task.

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


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

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


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

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

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


snip over-zealous rantings about windows security

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

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #14  
Old May 10th 04, 12:09 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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

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


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

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


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

But yea.. It would help..


  #15  
Old May 10th 04, 01:24 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article tRync.115$6b3.59@newsfe1-win,
says...
It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email

server,
or really run ANY server..


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


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

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


  #16  
Old May 12th 04, 07:46 AM
Jay T. Blocksom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:54:26 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"rstlne" wrote:

This is utterly *horrid* advice.

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

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

Third, *NO* "firewall" program running on the same WinBox it is

attempting to
protect can *ever* be trusted. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:


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

[snip]

On the contrary, when you make statements like this:

ZoneAlarm/Symantic/(few others) Firewalls can do the job JUST AS GOOD as a
hardware router (that has a firewall)..

[snip]

you belie your own serious misunderstanding of the situation.

In the simplest possible terms... The whole point of a "firewall" -- even the
etymology of the term -- is to form an impenetrable barrier standing *between*
the threat and whatever it is you're trying to protect. The so-called
"software firewalls" you mention *cannot* do that, because (at least some
parts of) the target system is left directly facing (i.e., exposed to) the
threat.

Read the articles I cited earlier. In each case, they document methodologies
by which and incidents where these software pseudo-firewalls have been *shown*
to be about as robust as a tissue-paper screen. And of course, that list is
by no means exhaustive.

But beyond all of this, "Tim" had recommended going without *any* firewall,
which is just too silly for words.

--

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


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  #17  
Old May 12th 04, 07:46 AM
Jay T. Blocksom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 9 May 2004 12:36:07 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:39:13 +1200, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"Tim" wrote:

Hi,

Go with XP

[snip]

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


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

[snip]

For some at-this-point-unknown reason, a semi-random handful of my articles
written over the past day or two didn't get posted when I thought they did.
Fixed now. The one I referred to above (Message-ID:
) was a direct f'up to the
OP's article which started this thread, and should be available well before
you see this.

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


ALL cases? So you recommend that EVERYBODY purchases a hardware firewall?

[snip]

Yes, actually, I do (although it may be *somewhat* less pressing for dial-up
users, presuming they have their house in order in all other ways).

Are you in the industry?

[snip]

What industry? Computer industry? Yes. Firewall industry? No.

Seriously, for 99% of home users a software firewall is adequate.

[snip]

No way. Not even close.

They are
not trying to protect commercially sensitive data in most cases.

[snip]

That's not the point, nor is it the primary or most serious threat.

By *far*, the biggest current issue is spammers planting proxy trojans on
unprotected WinBoxes hung off "residential broadband" connections, then using
these compromised systems to spew their crap (including DDoS attacks, and
still more trojans/virii/worms) to the rest of the world. Several of the
currently widely circulating WinWorms were written by/for spammers for this
precise purpose.

Here is just the tip of the
iceberg:

http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1125025
http://www.pcmag.co.uk/News/1129165
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.petch.html




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


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

[snip]

In which case, two clichés, taken together, seem startlingly on-point:

"Ignorance is curable with Education. Stupidity is forever."
- Thomas B. Barker

"Willful ignorance is indistinguishable from stupidity."
- Unknown

If you were a company with sensitive data to protect, then I would
certainly recommend a hardware router/firewall. But that is not the case
for home users.

[snip]

As I said above, that's not the point. And in point of fact, home users are
at *more* risk than most corporate/commercial users, these days.

Suggesting home users purchase, set up and use a hardware
firewall is ridiculous and unnecessary in almost all cases.

[snip]

Not at all. In fact, it should be considered S.O.P. Suitable (if, in some
cases, less than ideal) models are widely available for under $200, often less
than $100 -- certainly a modest investment compared to either the cost of the
system as a whole, or the permanent loss of one's 'net connection when you get
TOSed.

--

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


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  #18  
Old May 12th 04, 07:46 AM
Jay T. Blocksom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

R wrote:
Lots of good viewpoints, I appreciate the comments!! Sounds like
it would be best and easiest to just stay with Windows xp dispite many
virus.

[snip]

As you ("R") have hopefully seen by now, that is NOT a good choice -- or even
a rational one, given your acknowledged awareness of at least some of the
problems.

I'll have to
look into what XP SP2 is (as Tim suggested it will be out soon), but I
gather it's
a new xp version with additional software features inclusive.


It's a service pack for XP geared around security.

[snip]

And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention all
the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).

The new firewall is
supposed to be quite good.

[snip]

And life "is supposed to be" fair. It isn't.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and
installing them, then you'll probably be ok.

[snip]

Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as
opposed to yours.

Of course, a virus scanner is
almost essential these days,

[snip]

s/almost/absolutely/

And that's nothing new.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.

[snip]

In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as black-and-white
as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which applications and drivers
one happens to need/use.

Additionally driver support
for Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've come a
long way.

[snip]

Perhaps some new batteries for your calculator are in order?

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/Jun98/98AVALMA.asp

[2004-05-08] - [1998-06-25] == less than six years. And WRT driver support,
we really *should* be counting from the date new OS licenses ceased being
available from MS:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

So that's:

[2004-05-08] - [2004-03-31] == barely over ONE MONTH.

Your gullibility for MS marketing hype is showing.

--

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


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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  #19  
Old May 12th 04, 08:10 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"Ben Pope" wrote:
It's a service pack for XP geared around security.

[snip]

And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).


Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...

The new firewall is
supposed to be quite good.

[snip]

And life "is supposed to be" fair. It isn't.


Who says life is supposed to be fair? Who says you are entitled your
existence? Blimey, stop feeling sorry for yourself and get on with enjoying
it.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates

and installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
[snip]

Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as
opposed to yours.


OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend everybody
switches over to Linux.

You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer". You still
get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.

Of course, a virus scanner is
almost essential these days,

[snip]

s/almost/absolutely/

And that's nothing new.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.

[snip]

In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
applications and drivers one happens to need/use.


Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things like
applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of many
problems on Win9x.

Additionally driver support
for Win9x is fading... it's the past - it's 9 years old now, we've

come a long way.

[snip]

Perhaps some new batteries for your calculator are in order?

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/Jun98/98AVALMA.asp

[2004-05-08] - [1998-06-25] == less than six years. And WRT driver
support, we really *should* be counting from the date new OS licenses
ceased being available from MS:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

So that's:

[2004-05-08] - [2004-03-31] == barely over ONE MONTH.

Your gullibility for MS marketing hype is showing.


OK, separate the "driver support is fading" comment from the "Win9x is old"
comment, it should have been in a separate sentence.

Windows 9x is old... we've come a long way in terms of multitasking support,
memory management etc. OK, so it 8 and 3/4 years old, not 9. And the
memory management was probably tweaked between Win95 and Win98se...

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #20  
Old May 28th 04, 09:38 PM
Jay T. Blocksom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:17:29 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, R
wrote:
(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

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

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


Eh? It's 36GB for like £90,

[snip]

You're quite right. After looking up the specs, I somehow slipped a decimal
point when doing the arithmetic.

I can get a drive 4 times that size for less money.

[snip]

Yes, but not with anything like that level of performance.

while still
maintaining "passable" performance.


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

[snip]

Which is still only "passable", as compared to a good high-end SCSI drive;
probably less so if compared to an array.

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

Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array

[snip]

I don't think so. The underlying raw mechanicals may perform similarly; but
the as-installed *system* performance will still suffer due to the extra
overhead imposed by any flavor of IDE (granted, SATA may be *somewhat* less
given to this than the older incarnations; but it's still significant).

- in terms of price/performance.

[snip]

Well, if you sufficiently weight the comparison by price, then the
three-year-old clunker you pick up for $5.00 at a garage sale can "win"; but
it's a pretty pointless comparison.

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


snip over-zealous rantings about windows security

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

[snip]

No, it isn't. Not even close. That's why *the* biggest source (by a wide
margin) of spam and virii/worms/trojans are the vast numbers of compromised
WinBoxen hung off "residential broadband" connections.

--

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


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

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Operating system and drives Shiva Homebuilt PC's 2 January 5th 05 04:05 PM
"Operating System Not Found" - revisited seabat Homebuilt PC's 4 December 4th 04 02:25 PM
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software Timothy Daniels General 11 December 12th 03 06:38 AM
Overheating Overclocking PSU System Temps Inifinite Loop Nick Le Lievre Overclocking AMD Processors 0 November 27th 03 07:10 PM
"System temperature too high" warning Dave Ulrick Homebuilt PC's 0 September 3rd 03 03:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.