Re: [H] NAS
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=97categoryid=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.
Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs
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
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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] HTPC remote?
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 http://www.wavijo.com
Re: [H] Which version?
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?
[H] This isn't - exactly - hardware, but dayam..
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] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs
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 http://www.wavijo.com -- Brian
[H] Win98 and USB mass storage devices
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)
