[H] Win98 and USB mass storage devices

[joeuser]

Win98 original (.1998) Samsung digimax digital camera.

When I plug the camera in it attempts to load the 'USB mass storage 
device' driver and promptly blue screens. Pressing any key recovers and 
then the camera is accessible via the software provided by Samsung but 
not through windows explorer as a removable drive. That's fine but the 
blue screen is a bummer and when you check device manager the 'USB mass 
storage device' is disabled because windows stopped responding when it 
attempted to load it. You have to remove that from device manager to get 
the camera to work again when it is plugged in.


The Samsung driver disk just has a driver for the camera and nothing for 
 'USB mass storage device' I have downloaded other drivers for other 
USB mass storage devices hoping to over write the current one with 98. 
No luck. Anyone familiar with a USB mass storage device driver that I 
can download?





--
Cheers,
joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)

Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Brian Weeden]

Mine is a machine that is my RAID server, BitTorrent machine, and HTPC
so CPU usage can be at a premium.

On 1/17/06, Wayne Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I thought that I had read that someplace as well but don't recall
> where. I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] over 802.11g all the time & bandwidth wise it's
> not too bad. I don't care about the cpu usage on the remote machines
> as they usually aren't doing much if anything at the time I connect
> to them anyway. I update my virus definitions or windows while
> playing back a HD video on the remote machine while I'm connected &
> don't have a problem but I doubt that I'd want to un-rar a huge file
> while playing back a HD video. ;-)
>
>
> --+--
>Wayne D. Johnson
> Ashland, OH, USA 44805
> 
>
>


--
Brian

RE: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Wayne Johnson]

At 11:19 AM 1/17/2006, Chris Reeves typed:

I was pretty sure UltraVNC used TightVNC as it's base.

I could be wrong.


I thought that I had read that someplace as well but don't recall 
where. I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] over 802.11g all the time & bandwidth wise it's 
not too bad. I don't care about the cpu usage on the remote machines 
as they usually aren't doing much if anything at the time I connect 
to them anyway. I update my virus definitions or windows while 
playing back a HD video on the remote machine while I'm connected & 
don't have a problem but I doubt that I'd want to un-rar a huge file 
while playing back a HD video. ;-)



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805
 

[H] This isn't - exactly - hardware, but dayam..

[G.Waleed Kavalec]

January 17, 2006
  

  Custom-Made Microbes, at Your Service
  By ANDREW POLLACK
  There are bacteria that blink on and off like Christmas tree
lights and bacteria that form multicolored patterns of concentric
circles resembling an archery target. Yet others can reproduce
photographic images.
  These are not strange-but-true specimens from nature, but rather
the early tinkering of synthetic biologists, scientists who seek to
create living machines and biological devices that can perform novel
tasks.
  "We want to do for biology what Intel does for electronics,"
said George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard and a leader in
the field. "We want to design and manufacture complicated biological
circuitry."
  While much of the early work has consisted of eye-catching, if
useless, stunts like the blinking bacteria, the emerging field could
one day have a major impact on medicine and industry.
  For instance, Christina D. Smolke, an assistant professor at the
California Institute of Technology, is trying to develop circuits of
biological parts to sit in the body's cells and guard against cancer.
If they detected a cancer-causing mechanism had been activated, they
would switch on a gene to have the cell self-destruct.

[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17synt.html

Re: [H] Which version?

[warpmedia]

Well both my XP & 2000 boxes say 6.x something so he must have an error 
somewhere or is mis-reading the version string.


He could just d/l & re-install IE6 & then worry. Simply put he should be 
using FF for everything (if not already) except MS Update if at all 
possible esp on 2000 which did not benefit from most of the XP only 
security updates to IE.


Tell him to boot to safe mode & run AV, Spybot, & AdAware scans to see 
if anything shows up.


dhs wrote:



My older Bro says he uses IE version 6.0 -because- he says:
1. His update history indicates install of critical updates for IE6sp1, and,
2. The opening top blue banner of the IE window shows "Microsoft Internet 
Explorer 6.02.
But,
When he clicks Help and then About IE with the browser active, he reads the version as 
IE v5.5.


His machnes both run Win2Kpro sp4. One is a Sony laptop, the other is a full PC he ordered 
from some vendor.  To my knowledge he has never removed/replaced the default OS sw 
either machine came new with. I recall this as a problem/glitch back in 2002, but have 
not seen this since.


Anyone have ideas what is going on here? Could this be some lingering 3rd-party "helper" 
app still active from the machine's inception?

Re: [H] HTPC remote?

[Wayne Johnson]

At 10:15 PM 1/16/2006, Brian Weeden typed:

Anyone out there found a good remote for your HTPC?  I need something
that can do the basic functions, works with both the HTPC software and
can be programmed for standard home theater devices, which I think
means it needs to be IR not RF.


My HTPC does NOT run MCE but I don't care about that and there was a 
remote that came with the MyHD MDP-120 HDTV capture card. Like most 
peeps I don't care to have a ton of remotes around so I have a 
programmable One 4 All URC 8910 with a JP1 cable. I was able to find 
the codes for the MyHD remote & then plugged them into my 8910 so now 
my 8910 controls a Samsung DVD recorder w/ firewire, Samsung 30" 
HDTV, Philips DVP 642, Sony AV Receiver, Sony 200 CD changer, 
Magnavox DVR, JVC VHS & the HTPC.  It may not be the best home 
theater setup but it's the best that I could do on a tight budget & 
it's more than acceptable.  It's a good thing we have the Audio 
Authority HD auto switcher as I have 5 inputs going into a HDTV that 
only has 2 Y,Pb,Pr connections. ;-)



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805
 

RE: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Chris Reeves]

I was pretty sure UltraVNC used TightVNC as it's base.

I could be wrong.




--
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:55 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs
> 
> Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one
> worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC
> with
> TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built
> in
> "graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other
> perks
> like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is
> smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a
> citrix/TS
> session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).

Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Hayes Elkins]

Over a LAN or clean broadband connection, RDP/TS/Citrix is the king. 
However, the remote desktop connection does have it's limits in that it is 
great for servers, but is a pain when trying to assist an active user 
session on a workstation. It requires coordination with the user to shadow a 
live session or they must get kicked out to log in via remote desktop. Not 
the best solution for helping somebody out remotely.


The key component of VNC lag is cursor tacking and graphics. Both products 
say they improve this lag considerably using two different methods. It's 
hard for me to form an opinion just yet after just a day or so of playing 
around.




From: Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:05:23 -0700

I have used them both but not really done any comparisons.  I found
that across the board while network bandwidth use was low, CPU usage
on the server was rather high.  Around 30% or so.  And there was a
noticeable lag between commanding an action and the server performing
it.  However, over the WAN or a slow LAN it is probably beneficial.
Over a fast LAN I think maybe another solution might be better  - I am
going to look into Windows Remote Desktop and see if that is any
better.

On 1/17/06, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one
> worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC 
with
> TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built 
in
> "graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other 
perks

> like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is
> smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a 
citrix/TS

> session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).
>
>
>


--
Brian

Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Richard Quilhot]

I think that ultraVNC uses TightVNC code as part of it's base product.
Rick Q
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On 1/17/06, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have used them both but not really done any comparisons.  I foundthat across the board while network bandwidth use was low, CPU usage
on the server was rather high.  Around 30% or so.  And there was anoticeable lag between commanding an action and the server performingit.  However, over the WAN or a slow LAN it is probably beneficial.Over a fast LAN I think maybe another solution might be better  - I am
going to look into Windows Remote Desktop and see if that is anybetter.On 1/17/06, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one
> worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC with> TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built in> "graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other perks
> like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is> smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a citrix/TS> session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).
>>>--Brian-- Richard E. Quilhot C.N.A.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Brian Weeden]

I have used them both but not really done any comparisons.  I found
that across the board while network bandwidth use was low, CPU usage
on the server was rather high.  Around 30% or so.  And there was a
noticeable lag between commanding an action and the server performing
it.  However, over the WAN or a slow LAN it is probably beneficial. 
Over a fast LAN I think maybe another solution might be better  - I am
going to look into Windows Remote Desktop and see if that is any
better.

On 1/17/06, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one
> worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC with
> TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built in
> "graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other perks
> like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is
> smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a citrix/TS
> session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).
>
>
>


--
Brian

[H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs

[Hayes Elkins]

Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one 
worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC with 
TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built in 
"graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other perks 
like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is 
smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a citrix/TS 
session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).

Re: [H] NAS

[JRS]

Hmm.  Just checked those Infrant prices, kinda steep.  

How about the Buffalo Terabyte NAS, only $999 list but like $709 at
Newegg..  :)

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=97&categoryid=19#

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822155306




>>I want something cheap and with RAID support.
>>
>>I've been looking at the Infrant NASes.  Are they any good?
>>
>>__
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>>http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 

JRS   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please remove  **X**  to reply...

Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.

[H] Which version?

[dhs]

My older Bro says he uses IE version 6.0 -because- he says:
1. His update history indicates install of critical updates for IE6sp1, and,
2. The opening top blue banner of the IE window shows "Microsoft Internet 
Explorer 6.02.
But,
When he clicks Help and then About IE with the browser active, he reads the 
version as 
IE v5.5.

His machnes both run Win2Kpro sp4. One is a Sony laptop, the other is a full PC 
he ordered 
from some vendor.  To my knowledge he has never removed/replaced the default OS 
sw 
either machine came new with. I recall this as a problem/glitch back in 2002, 
but have 
not seen this since.

Anyone have ideas what is going on here? Could this be some lingering 3rd-party 
"helper" 
app still active from the machine's inception?

Thankyou.
Duncan




This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net 

Re: [H] NAS

[JRS]

They look fine.  :)

I have an older SNAP server here, I think they are owned by Adaptec now
but it wasn't cheap, like 2400 bucks when new.  But it's been up and
running for 3-4 years.

Also built one of my own, an old P3-800 PC with an Adaptec 2400a RAID 5
controller and 4 80 gig IDE drives.  I just installed Win2K on it and
share the drive out over the network.  Gives me 240 gigs of RAID 5
storage.  I suppose I should update it to 3 or 4 250 gigger's or
something.  :)

Clark Connect and NAS Lite are also software solutions for sharing out
drives using old PC boxen.



>>I want something cheap and with RAID support.
>>
>>I've been looking at the Infrant NASes.  Are they any good?
>>
>>__
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>>http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 

JRS   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please remove  **X**  to reply...

Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.

RE: [H] NAS

[Neil Davidson]

I've not used one myself, but have looked at them for. Their support forums
seem to be really good, and they do well in reviews. I really like the sound
of their X6 as you can add a drive at a time and it will upgrade the RAID as
appropriate.

With 1 drive you just get that one drive (obviously)
With 2 drives you get RAID-1
With 3 and 4 drivers it automagically migrates to RAID-5

You can also upgrade the raid to higher capacity drives by replacing one at
a time and letting it automatically rebuilt without loosing data.

It can also run Slimserver to communicate with Squeezeboxes. Major advantage
to me (for more info on SlimDevices see here http://www.slimdevices.com they
are sweet)

:)

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Zulfiqar Naushad
> Sent: 17 January 2006 09:43
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: [H] NAS
> 
> I want something cheap and with RAID support.
> 
> I've been looking at the Infrant NASes.  Are they any good?
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
> around http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 

[H] NAS

[Zulfiqar Naushad]

I want something cheap and with RAID support.

I've been looking at the Infrant NASes.  Are they any good?

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com