Re: [H] usb?
I found a company that makes them. It might have had only one open header for one set of USB2 port pins... (Cases generally need two sets.) They have no distributors that handle them, so I tried to set up an account to buy direct, but they might have low-balled me at $6 ea, and the guys secretary never got back to me... I lost interest and started changing MBs instead to ones that had USB2 embedded and mutiple extra pin headers for USB2... If I can find their e-mail... (might not be easy...) Rick Glazier From: DHSinclair What I really need is a PCI card that has 4x the 6 copper pins on-board so I can plug in my case's 4x usb ports. Does a card like this even exist (anymore?)
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
DHSinclair wrote: j, I've put my comments inline below... At 01:51 12/16/2007 -0800, j maccraw wrote: Non-domain system's volume root shares are generally local users list folder/read data + transverse folder/execute file for this folder, sub-folder, and files with most user created subfolders set to inherit those settings. I do accept that you completely understand this stuff. I admit that I do not. I accept that winXP does this business 'more restrictively' than win2k does; as I have seen it in action. Is this a good place to start? I am always finding something I did not know, it's a ongoing learning process. What you need are good books that discuss these topics in context of 2k, XP, an how XP/2k interact differ. All of the MS MCSE training books for each operating system and networking/TCPIP are a good start, so are many of the XP 2K administration books by authors like Mark Minasi. Yes, I did notice that all the local users were all (GXP/-somevalue-). Never saw 'workgroup' where I work on all my w2k machines. If I log on to ALL of my machines as UName2/pw2, then I expect that all of my machines accept this user as valid. W2k does. XP does not. Very strange. That is all. Just very strange. Still. I will get over it, eventually... :) No they don't, you have simply lucked out by having created same username/passowrd on all systems in the past. All workgroup machines maintain their own username/passwords no mater if 2k or XP. There is no workgroup common user database, they're all stand-alone systems using the workgroup name to associate with (see) each other but nothing more. Main difference vs. 2K is that XP comes with Simple File Sharing feature which forces all access to shares on a machine through the machine's guest account, enabled by default. Once SFS is disabled you can access machine\share with any user account from machine with rights mapped to share same as 2K. Just because you have user bob on machine1 and a same name user/pw on machine2, both machines in same workgroup, does not mean the user is literally the same user. If you rename or delete bob on either system, then access to that system by bob user will fail because he no longer exists. There is no workgroup\username method of security. Now in a domain a centralized database of users is created and, rights permitting, have access to any machine in the domain. So share machine1\share would have domain\bob listed for access instead of machine1\bob, etc... Rename bob to jim on the domain controller and the shares would automatically understand that bob is jim and that any new user named bob is not the old bob, etc... Rule of file share rights is most restrictive settings define the effective rights to a share. So a folder set to full control for everyone shared as read+execute for everyone will only allow RX. Directory/file security works similarly: Explicit Deny rights trumps implied or explicit Allow rights. Perhaps I am confused by the everyone label. I thought that anybody in the workgroup might be part of everyone. Seems not for winXP. WinXP seems to focus on itself. And even when it might be part of a larger LAN group of workgroup. Yes, I remain stubborn and confused. No, the workgroup is not a security entity, there is no workgroup\username account. Everyone on a standalone machine means all users from that machine's user database which is not shared with workgroup member machines. In a domain Everyone CAN mean all domain users or it could mean all users of a member machine depending on how it's declared (i.e. domain\everyone vs machine1\everyone). Even with inherit, you can add rights for a subfolder by simply adding the user/group setting their ACL's as long as the parent does not set a Deny, or as you have found you can disable inheritance define the ACL explicitly per folder. Well there is the ACL acronym again. Is this like Access Control License? Admit, I just do not get it, but it might be why XP does not play well with w2k. Perhaps w2k is more liberal. XP is more locked down. OK... :) Access Control Lists, the list of who what they can do to a resource. XP is similar to 2K but if SFS is enabled and/or the xp machine's firewall is setup to block File Print Sharing. I have to live with this situation, or, kill the XP machine and redo it as w2k for basic synergy. Do not wish to do this. I do know that I have to move to XP sooner or later. Perhaps I need to look at my long range LAN plan again... LOL! Ultimately, I do have it working, but now when I view my NetNieghborhood for GXP, it now shows me Documents as another 'share' directory. More research needed I will get this one day. I know I am thick about this. I ask for a bit of patience.. Best, Duncan If you create the same name user on all computers with same password, then all
[H] gigabyte MB's ?
Never used one of their mb's b4 Newegg back ordered a mb I ordered and on some suggestions I have heard here ordered and GA-M57SLI-S4 NF570 SLI way overkill but customer needs a LPT port and a lot of others are loosing this port. fp -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Not everything in life is funny.
Re: [H] MMORPGs
I have been playing EVE for a few years. They just upgraded all the grfx content. Looks like a new game. Hello, So I've been doing WoW (because of this list mind you) for 3 years. It was better (and worse - mostly better) then EQ. My guild is nearly thru the end game content. I'm not excited about WotLK expansion. I'm pretty disgusted with the lack of work done by the artists in this game. I think overall, my WoW days are drawing to an end. However, once again, the list did well by me in getting me into this game. So, now my question are these. What are you playing now and what do you plan to play? Thanks. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. FORC5 wrote: Never used one of their mb's b4 Newegg back ordered a mb I ordered and on some suggestions I have heard here ordered and GA-M57SLI-S4 NF570 SLI way overkill but customer needs a LPT port and a lot of others are loosing this port. fp
Re: [H] usb?
Generally you are going to be wiring front panel usb connectors and internal usb devices directly to header pins on your motherboard. The Koutech IO-PU222 is is the only card I've found that has two internal header pins like the type normally found on a motherboard. It is a 4-port USB 2.0 PCI card with 2 external and 2 internal header pin connectors. It goes for about $10-15. There are also cables that can adapt internal headers to the external style. Some are made for staying inside of the case and others might have a through hole in an internal bracket for looping the wire out the rear of the case and back into a rear usb port. Have a look at http://www.frontx.com/ http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=34_81_250 -Tharin O. DHSinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I admit to belonging to the noob class of usb. I do know about v 1.1. I do know about v2.0. I will pick v2.0. But, am hdw limited, I suspect. Have searched for internal USB cards that might work. What I really need is a PCI card that has 4x the 6 copper pins on-board so I can plug in my case's 4x usb ports. Does a card like this even exist (anymore?) If I am screwed, so be it. Wondering I am. Just because I can. Screwed does not bother me ATM. Thank you. Best, Duncan
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
I think the advice is to stay away from Nvidia's 680i chipset completely, regardless of the board maker. I could not agree more. Awful chipset. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:22 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? At 09:31 12-17-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. Why as I've had great experience with nforce based Gigabyte boards? I'm typing this on one now. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak.
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
I have had nothing but good Experiences and Customers as well with 680i Chipset boards. Although, none from Gigabyte. The 680i boards I get are from either Asus or eVGA. If you are going to do SLI 680i is the only way to go. Regards, Tim The Beave Lider MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/dowbeave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:26 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? I think the advice is to stay away from Nvidia's 680i chipset completely, regardless of the board maker. I could not agree more. Awful chipset. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:22 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? At 09:31 12-17-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. Why as I've had great experience with nforce based Gigabyte boards? I'm typing this on one now. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak.
Re: [H] usb?
Rick, Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree that I am stretching on this. It's just that I don't have the funds to completely rebuild an otherwise running machine. Slow, to be sure, but for what I want it to do, it is fast enough. Appreciate the help.. :) Best, Duncan At 03:07 12/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: I found a company that makes them. It might have had only one open header for one set of USB2 port pins... (Cases generally need two sets.) They have no distributors that handle them, so I tried to set up an account to buy direct, but they might have low-balled me at $6 ea, and the guys secretary never got back to me... I lost interest and started changing MBs instead to ones that had USB2 embedded and mutiple extra pin headers for USB2... If I can find their e-mail... (might not be easy...) Rick Glazier From: DHSinclair What I really need is a PCI card that has 4x the 6 copper pins on-board so I can plug in my case's 4x usb ports. Does a card like this even exist (anymore?)
Re: [H] usb?
Tharin O., You've saved my bacon again. I'd lost the link to FrontX. The other link is very interesting also. More inline below.. At 08:24 12/17/2007 -0800, you wrote: Generally you are going to be wiring front panel usb connectors and internal usb devices directly to header pins on your motherboard. Oh, that wish this was true! The Abit BX6 r2.0 that I own does not have any USB header pins on the m/b. I will scan the board anyway just to see if they are part of the map. All I have at the moment is a pair of TypeA connectors on the rear I/O panel. The Koutech IO-PU222 is is the only card I've found that has two internal header pins like the type normally found on a motherboard. It is a 4-port USB 2.0 PCI card with 2 external and 2 internal header pin connectors. It goes for about $10-15. I will go search for this item! Thanks!!! :) I may just give up using the default TypeA USB ports the current case has. Would be nice, but I can do an alternate too. There are also cables that can adapt internal headers to the external style. Some are made for staying inside of the case and others might have a through hole in an internal bracket for looping the wire out the rear of the case and back into a rear usb port. Yes, found them at FrontX. Still working on an order... Have a look at http://www.frontx.com/ http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=34_81_250 -Tharin O. Best, Duncan DHSinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I admit to belonging to the noob class of usb. I do know about v 1.1. I do know about v2.0. I will pick v2.0. But, am hdw limited, I suspect. Have searched for internal USB cards that might work. What I really need is a PCI card that has 4x the 4 copper pins on-board so I can plug in my case's 4x usb ports. Does a card like this even exist (anymore?) If I am screwed, so be it. Wondering I am. Just because I can. Screwed does not bother me ATM. Thank you. Best, Duncan
[H] OT can anybody make this out
I have a voice recording that got picked up after I hung up. I can't make it out. Maybe it's generational, current vernacular... does this make sense to anybody ?? I hear Wow, he gave me a . and then here is the part I don't understand ??? www.winterlight.net/what.wav thanks
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
In favor of an Intel X38 then or something else down the road at top dollar again? It's my impression 680i is OK as long as you don't want to do Quad core? Not that I plan on buying quad and the recommended rev 2.0 Gigabyte 680i board is off the market as of November anyway. Meanwhile here sits my empty TT Armor case waiting for a mobo to get cheap enough! Greg Sevart wrote: I think the advice is to stay away from Nvidia's 680i chipset completely, regardless of the board maker. I could not agree more. Awful chipset. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:22 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? At 09:31 12-17-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. Why as I've had great experience with nforce based Gigabyte boards? I'm typing this on one now. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
I just found any build I've done on that chipset to be generally less stable than comparable P35-based builds I've done. Supposedly the 680i chipset is hit-or-miss in terms of quirkiness...but I must have missed 3 times in a row. eVGA (2) and Gigabyte (1). Once I dumped the 680i and went P35, I've been treated with, bar none, the most stable workstation I've ever used. I've been averaging about 6 weeks between reboots, which for my main machine is outstanding. That being said, the builds I've done for others on 680i seem to be doing reasonably well, but they don't demand nearly as much from their machines as I do. While I can appreciate the fact that SLI is only available for Intel platforms on the 680i (and now 780i) chipsets, I would argue that SLI itself is a waste of time, money, and patience. I find it quite entertaining that the 680i is incompatible with Intel's 45nm chips, whereas the ancient 965 (and a select few 975 boards) work with it quite well... Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Beave Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:15 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? I have had nothing but good Experiences and Customers as well with 680i Chipset boards. Although, none from Gigabyte. The 680i boards I get are from either Asus or eVGA. If you are going to do SLI 680i is the only way to go. Regards, Tim The Beave Lider MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/dowbeave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:26 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? I think the advice is to stay away from Nvidia's 680i chipset completely, regardless of the board maker. I could not agree more. Awful chipset. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:22 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? At 09:31 12-17-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. Why as I've had great experience with nforce based Gigabyte boards? I'm typing this on one now. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak.
Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ?
X38 is exceptionally nice. The Asus p5e3 wifi is easily one of the best boards I've ever used. We got in the first round of 780is on Friday, 5 EVGA boards and 2 Asus Striker 2s. The striker 2s are pure garbage, using a qx9650 they still freak out, are unstable and frequently bluescreen. The eVGAs are nothing special, but they seem solid: the new layouts resemble the 790fx boards. I do like the pure coal look to the evga though. Sent via BlackBerry by ATT -Original Message- From: j maccraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:56:39 To:hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? In favor of an Intel X38 then or something else down the road at top dollar again? It's my impression 680i is OK as long as you don't want to do Quad core? Not that I plan on buying quad and the recommended rev 2.0 Gigabyte 680i board is off the market as of November anyway. Meanwhile here sits my empty TT Armor case waiting for a mobo to get cheap enough! Greg Sevart wrote: I think the advice is to stay away from Nvidia's 680i chipset completely, regardless of the board maker. I could not agree more. Awful chipset. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:22 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] gigabyte MB's ? At 09:31 12-17-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: I've had very good experience with Gigabyte boards...don't use an n-force, though. Why as I've had great experience with nforce based Gigabyte boards? I'm typing this on one now. ---+-- I'm a geek that loves to tweak. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [H] LAN access to XP still flakey!
j., Thanks for you very kind reply. Ouch! yes I know RTFM. more inline below.. At 01:49 12/17/2007 -0800, you wrote: snip I am always finding something I did not know, it's a ongoing learning process. Yes, but at my age the learning gets more difficult and painful as fast as this stuff changes. Do understand though. What you need are good books that discuss these topics in context of 2k, XP, an how XP/2k interact differ. All of the MS MCSE training books for each operating system and networking/TCPIP are a good start, so are many of the XP 2K administration books by authors like Mark Minasi. Yes, am waiting for my closet librarian to find/snag the last Minasi book on w2k. It suddenly got real expensiveor out of print. :) snip No they don't, you have simply lucked out by having created same username/passowrd on all systems in the past. All workgroup machines maintain their own username/passwords no mater if 2k or XP. Ah! OK, so all my machines act as independent environments, even though they seem to be part of my LAN. Most strange, still. I've used this uname/pw method for the last 8 years. OK, never mind. XP is just tighter in security on a machine-to-machine basiscorrect...? There is no workgroup common user database, they're all stand-alone systems using the workgroup name to associate with (see) each other but nothing more. Got it. DING! And all this time I thought using the default workgroup for w2k or MSHome for XP had some big mana for networking. Hmm. OK, I am a fool. Main difference vs. 2K is that XP comes with Simple File Sharing feature which forces all access to shares on a machine through the machine's guest account, enabled by default. Once SFS is disabled you can access machine\share with any user account from machine with rights mapped to share same as 2K. Yes, I have run into XP's SFS. Had to disable it to get the ESET nod32 sw to properly update. It seems that nod32 and XP's SFS do not play nice. Even so, with SFS and the XP firewall disabled, XP is just a pill on my LAN. Know it is me, and I will fix it. Just because you have user bob on machine1 and a same name user/pw on machine2, both machines in same workgroup, does not mean the user is literally the same user. If you rename or delete bob on either system, then access to that system by bob user will fail because he no longer exists. There is no workgroup\username method of security. OK, I get this, but this does not appear to be an issue. I only have two users, me and the default administrator (login/pw) account. And all machines use the same 'credentials', well except for there obvious different machine names, MAC addys, IPs, etc. I park that stuff in the TCP/IP realm. Now in a domain a centralized database of users is created and, rights permitting, have access to any machine in the domain. So share machine1\share would have domain\bob listed for access instead of machine1\bob, etc... Rename bob to jim on the domain controller and the shares would automatically understand that bob is jim and that any new user named bob is not the old bob, etc... Yes, this I get. And, I am starting to see the simple efficiency of this. snip No, the workgroup is not a security entity, there is no workgroup\username account. Got it now. This is where my blind spot is/was. I assumed that all machines should be in either 'workgroup' or 'mshome' to play nice. My bad. And, more book time. :( Everyone on a standalone machine means all users from that machine's user database which is not shared with workgroup member machines. This is the key! Now I do see what my LAN's trouble with XP is. Now I will hit the books again. In a domain Everyone CAN mean all domain users or it could mean all users of a member machine depending on how it's declared (i.e. domain\everyone vs machine1\everyone). Yes, I see this now. Could it really be more complicated? LOL snip Access Control Lists, the list of who what they can do to a resource. XP is similar to 2K but if SFS is enabled and/or the xp machine's firewall is setup to block File Print Sharing. Well, ATM, the XP machine's firewall is disabled and SFS in disabled also (not for this but for other reasons-nod32). OK, Access Control List-ACL. Got it. snip If you create the same name user on all computers with same password, then all should be well. I though so too. That is why I did just this, but XP seems to be really bitchy about it. And, why I started this thread. You have given me a peek at some of the internal stuff I never though of. Mostly, because I did not think it was as complicated as it seems to be. OK, I am still somewhat confused, but I will continue to 'work' with XP on my LAN! Just like if you used the same username/pw combo to access a bunch of websites. BUT change the username and/or password one any machine you would run into problems
