OK, this is kind of silly - P1 question

On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:46:43 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


Its really not necessary that he have an anti-virus program on his
machine...nor necessary that he have any kind of real-time protection.
As a matter of fact, installing such protection may slow down his
machine considerably...depending on how you configure that software.

If you are on broadband, you NEED realtime AV. The internet is so polluted
out there and there are so many different ways to attach a machine that
realtime AV and firewall software are a necessity these days.

There is no distinction to being on broadband vs. dialup excpet percentage
of time system is online, yet these days systems are scanned often enough
that on dialup an insecurity would be found anyway.

The same typical entry points, email and sometimes browser (or warez but
that goes without saying) are same risk with or without broadband. If you
mean open ports, the first line of defense is usually enough, any
inexpensive router.


If you NEVER download software and NEVER get email (and this includes online
stuff as many of the new viruses just need you to see there webpage) and run
Win95 then you MIGHT be able to stay safe... otherwise something will bite
you in the ass eventually.

Yet this is a very old system that is being questioned for upgrade due to
sluggishness even before considering adding MORE software, overhead.
When a system is too slow it might be better to just have antivirus
software installed but not actively scanning, and make regular backups of
anything important. Tpically a backup of OS and apps made bimonthly and
documents in a single folder or partition on a more regular basis as
warranted.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:00:39 GMT, JT wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:36:32 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:



Check the Intel timeline. Pentium 60 was the slowest
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm and

ftp://download.intel.com/intel/intel...lect/timeline/
TimelineChron.pdf
for a time line of products.
http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/ has links to the
developers manuals. The Pentium 60/66 was a relatively short lived
processor with a different socket (socket4 if I remember correctly)
than the later processors.

And they also ran at something like 5v, very hot and nowhere to go from
there without cooking. Socket 5 I believe.

Socket 5 was the same as socket 7, except it wasn't dual voltage. Would do
classic Pentium 75-200, and overdrives but no MMX.

JT

Nope, socket 5 was physically different, and socket 7 was not inherantly
dual-voltage, many boards accepted only "P54C" or lower chips that were
all single, 3.3-3.5V chips. Notation of "P55" ( Pentium MMX) support
corresponded to 2.8V support on socket 7.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:38:40 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:


Don't forget about the P60...

Probably is best -to- forget that one! :-)

I disagree. I've been trying to get a P60 and a P66 for my collection of
older CPUs for ages. I have all the 486's, P1's and P-Pro's except those
two.

How much you wanna pay for postage? Have at least one or two P60
"somewere", maybe even a board for 'em. I keep meaning to throw all that
old stuff out but being older, they're towards the bottom of the stacks
and get thrown out last.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:54:17 GMT, kony wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:00:39 GMT, JT wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:36:32 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:



Check the Intel timeline. Pentium 60 was the slowest
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm and

ftp://download.intel.com/intel/intel...lect/timeline/
TimelineChron.pdf
for a time line of products.
http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/ has links to the
developers manuals. The Pentium 60/66 was a relatively short lived
processor with a different socket (socket4 if I remember correctly)
than the later processors.

And they also ran at something like 5v, very hot and nowhere to go from
there without cooking. Socket 5 I believe.

Socket 5 was the same as socket 7, except it wasn't dual voltage. Would do
classic Pentium 75-200, and overdrives but no MMX.

JT

Nope, socket 5 was physically different, and socket 7 was not inherantly
dual-voltage, many boards accepted only "P54C" or lower chips that were
all single, 3.3-3.5V chips. Notation of "P55" ( Pentium MMX) support
corresponded to 2.8V support on socket 7.

Should have said "basically" the same
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cpu/char/...Socket5-c.html
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cpu/char/...Socket7-c.html
forgot about the 1 extra pin in socket 5. And as it says, the Socket 7 was
designed for voltage regulation needed for MMX, but not all manufacturers
actually implemented it.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cpu/char/...Socket4-c.html
was the pentium 60/66 socket.

Socket 5 processors would plug in to socket 7 motherboards. Socket 4
processors would only work in socket 4.

JT

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:46:43 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


Its really not necessary that he have an anti-virus program on his
machine...nor necessary that he have any kind of real-time protection.
As a matter of fact, installing such protection may slow down his
machine considerably...depending on how you configure that software.

If you are on broadband, you NEED realtime AV. The internet is so
polluted
out there and there are so many different ways to attach a machine that
realtime AV and firewall software are a necessity these days.

There is no distinction to being on broadband vs. dialup excpet percentage
of time system is online, yet these days systems are scanned often enough
that on dialup an insecurity would be found anyway.

I'm not arguing this part. The connections are the same as far as the
software goes. Speed doesn't make a difference in how likely you are to be
attacked/infected. The difference is that with broadband the typical usage
for the connection changes. The user actually uses the connection
differently and this is where it becomes more likely to get a bad file or a
port attack.

The same typical entry points, email and sometimes browser (or warez but
that goes without saying) are same risk with or without broadband. If you
mean open ports, the first line of defense is usually enough, any
inexpensive router.

Routers that will deal with dialup are rare. SMC had (still has) one model
that would dial out if the WAN connection was down, but I don't know what
kind of functionality it offered through the dialup port. You also had to
have an external serial modem for this, which most folks don't have.

Software firewalls like Zonealarm (ick) will do the job, but they take
overhead and when they break will they break open or closed? Software
firewalls still have to get the data into the PC before it can processes it
and I don't trust that process either.

If you NEVER download software and NEVER get email (and this includes
online
stuff as many of the new viruses just need you to see there webpage) and
run
Win95 then you MIGHT be able to stay safe... otherwise something will
bite
you in the ass eventually.

Yet this is a very old system that is being questioned for upgrade due to
sluggishness even before considering adding MORE software, overhead.
When a system is too slow it might be better to just have antivirus
software installed but not actively scanning, and make regular backups of
anything important. Tpically a backup of OS and apps made bimonthly and
documents in a single folder or partition on a more regular basis as
warranted.

If realtime scanning affects performance noticably, then I'd agree. I know
that human nature will cause the backups to lag and the scanning to be done
less frequently than it should be, etc. so I prefer automatic processes. The
only manual process should be removing your backups from the site on a
regular basis... but at this point I don't think Grandpa is going to want to
do this (or need to). Just make him aware that if anything on the PC is
important, it should be copied elsewhere just in case.

Speed has little to do with it.

Most of this is answered in my reply to Kony...

Why? You make an anti-virus program sound like the endall in data
protection. Its not...and it was never intended to be.

If more protection can be added with little hit to performance, then it
really should be in place. There's no point crippling a PC just to add a bit
more protection though. I've seen PC's with the XP firewall, McAfee firewall
and ZoneAlarm all installed... that's just silly.

And, eventually, you'll get a virus that will get thru...or
spyware...or ? So its really not important to protect against
those...at least not on an individual machine basis.

It IS important, however, to be able to RECOVER from such an
intrusion.

Even if you backup daily, you could still lose 24 hours worth of
productivity from a recovery. And who's to say that a recovery will totally
repair the system? I remember when the Happy99 virus was alive and well...
Folks would clean the virus and then have no internet connection because of
missing Winsock files. You could restore a Ghosted image to get back to
where you were and that would recover you to that point in time, but what if
you've had a time delayed attack stored on your system for weeks... you
probably just restored it to your system as well.

Many folks run real-time protection...even when they're not connected
to the Internet...and then complain about poor performance.

Yup... Usually the same folks with 27 icons in their system try and not a
clue what any of them are.

Everyone should devise their own plan for data protection. But
real-time protection is not necessary in every scenario...especially
in this gentleman's case.

Everything is a matter of balance. If protection can be added with minimal
impact on performance, then it should be done. Adding more memory to his
system to allow more protection isn't a bad suggestion, assuming memory can
be found at a reasonable price.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:39:58 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

...and why would someone in a McLaren
been driving through a school zone anyhow???

Wow...like, they sure are breeding them stupid these days... *rolls eyes*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

kony wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:38:40 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:


Don't forget about the P60...

Probably is best -to- forget that one! :-)

I disagree. I've been trying to get a P60 and a P66 for my
collection of older CPUs for ages. I have all the 486's, P1's and
P-Pro's except those two.

How much you wanna pay for postage? Have at least one or two P60
"somewere", maybe even a board for 'em. I keep meaning to throw all
that old stuff out but being older, they're towards the bottom of the
stacks and get thrown out last.

Whaddaya reckon it would cost to pst to New Zealand? How would you like to
be paid for the postage? My email addy can be un-mung-ed.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message
news:gouv901fjo6nr7973fk1cl9brif2o0egks@farfoos...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:39:58 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

...and why would someone in a McLaren
been driving through a school zone anyhow???

Wow...like, they sure are breeding them stupid these days... *rolls
eyes*

You're the one who put a McLaren into the school zone!

Noozer wrote:
"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message
news:gouv901fjo6nr7973fk1cl9brif2o0egks@farfoos...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:39:58 GMT, "Noozer"
wrote:

...and why would someone in a McLaren
been driving through a school zone anyhow???

Wow...like, they sure are breeding them stupid these days...
*rolls eyes*

You're the one who put a McLaren into the school zone!

Are you aware of the word "Rhetorical"? How about "Metaphor"?
--
~misfit~