date:20100503

Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?

2010-05-03 Thread Christopher Fisk


On Sat, 1 May 2010, maccrawj wrote:

Differing amounts of memory hole from differing configurations would be my 
guess before blaming a bug.


This.

4GB of memory is the max you can have between anything.

Got an oldass video card that uses only 32MB of memory?  You'll have more 
usable main memory than if you have 2x768MB NVidia's (In which case you'd 
be down by 1.5GB or have only 2.5G show up.


This isn't rocket science.

Anything that uses addressable memory needs to fit within the 32bit range. 
Modem with 32k?  Fit into the 32 bit range.  PCI SATA adaptor with a 
cache?  Needs to fit in the 32bit range.  New Fangled Video card with 1GB 
of memory?  Needs to fit in the 32bit range.


All of those things take away from the 4GB hard cap on 32bit systems.

This can be programically sidestepped with kernel programming, very 
similarly to how dos used to work with highmem. 
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/119287


Windows PAE has a lot of artificial limitations in place, put there by 
Microsoft.


Windows XP is software limited to 4GB of memory
Windows Vista is software limited to 4GB of memory
Windows 7 is also software limited to 4GB of memory

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28v=VS.85%29.aspx


It has been shown that Vista at least uses the same codebase as Server 
2008 and can have some DLL's switched to enable higher memory limits, so 
it is definitely a programming decision, and one that is likely explained 
by the following:


Drivers need to understand PAE in order to function without issue.  MS 
knew that hardware programmers can barely get a regular driver working, so 
adding more trouble to a 32bit system when they have a 64bit solution 
available is not worth it.


I agree with that.  If you have a 64bit processor you should have a 64bit 
OS.




Christopher Fisk
--
SwifT many; we have bugreports asking us to fix the docs on the cds
SwifT i fixed/invalid them because they're fixed online, and they reopen 
stating it's still wrong on their cd

SwifT *sigh*

Re: [H] Bing Maps..

2010-05-03 Thread Christopher Fisk


On Sat, 1 May 2010, CW wrote:

I've kind of come to the same conclusion.  The Adobe Flash plugin for 
Firefox was the bane of my existance.. with it in, memory leak in 
Firefox was insane, I'd get up to 500Mb in the task manager (and over) 
for a firefox instance in a few hours.   Pulled it out, and Firefox went 
back to reasonable.


If you're not running noscript in firefox at least run flashblock.  Makes 
it so flash apps don't start automatically, you have to hit a play button.


You can whitelist sites like youtube if you want.

The silverlight plugin thing doesn't seem to have an issue that I can 
find that way.  And, to be honest, it actually just works the way I 
expect it to.  I don't really ask a lot of a thing like silverlight 
except: don't screw up.  Watched the NCAA's on ESPN (silverlight) and I 
use Netflix in mediacenter.. both like a charm.  And since they are 
coming out with 720p/5.1 audio Silverlight from Netflix this summer...


I have silverlight installed but have not run into anything I knew was 
silverlight.



Somewhere along the line, Adobe just completely screwed their product, 
they either didn't grow it, didn't do something.. because right now, the 
flash plugin just sucks.  Meanwhile, Silverlight freaking can use video 
cards for hardware acceleration (DXVA) so CPU usage is less, memory 
usage is less..  Hell, MS even went out and helps with a Linux/Unix 
version (Moonlight) that they work with.. Adobe? Yeah, not so much. ( 
http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/prerelease.aspx )


Adobe is HORRID.  A customer of mine had purchased 2 copies of a $600 
ebook (medical drug interactions yearly book) when they read that adobe 
had a library software that allowed then to check the ebook in and out of 
the library.  Turns out that this was on a maximum of 6 PC's.  They have 
25+ PC's in their office and need to be able to look at that ebook 
randomly on any of those 25 PC's.  They were ok with the 2 copy limit 
because they have ad 2 copies in their physical library forever.


The ebook was the same price as the physical book, but they wanted to be 
able to save the time going down to the library to get the book so went 
the ebook method.


Final solution after talking to adobe support (Which the first 5 things 
they had us try had NOTHING to do with the problem at hand) was to strip 
the DRM using the instructions from 
http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-epub.html



You need to have a valid license (It uses your license to decrypt the PDF) 
but after that you end up with an unprotected PDF.


Sometimes MS is an easy target to bash.. a bit too easy.  So, when they 
actually get something right, it either gets overlooked, or it has to be 
enough of a dead-on that adoption happens (win7).


Win7 to me is no more than Vista SP3.  They got rid of the shit that was 
annoying as hell and had the advantage of drivers being compatible between 
vista and windows 7 so didn't have the launch pains that Vista had.


Vista properly configured and patched to SP2 is not a terrible OS 
(anymore).  Kind of like how at SP2 XP came into it's own.


Vista required too much memory, had too few drivers (NVidia screwed the 
pooch HARD with their vista drivers at launch), and MS bowed to the 
manufacturers and lowered the requirements unrealistically.


I've ripped Flash off of several PCs and just went Silverlight.  So 
far, I haven't found a site I care about I don't see in either H264 or 
Silverlight.



This may be a solution I go with, I'm looking for a replacement for Flash 
and Reader for my medical customers due to the sheer number of exploits we 
have to keep ahead of.



Christopher Fisk
--
BOFH Excuse #298:
Not enough interrupts

Re: [H] Seperate networks.

2010-05-03 Thread Christopher Fisk

On Sun, 2 May 2010, Bobby Heid wrote:

Hey,

Every now and then I need to bring people's PCs to my house. I use sneaker
net to copy over any files and all that I might need to fix their machine.
After I am pretty sure I have it all cleaned up, I then will connect it to
my LAN to make sure all the Windows updates are applied and anything else
that needs updating.

What I'd like to do is to have two networks that can both access the same
internet connection but cannot see each other (unless I wanted them to).

ZyXEL ZyWALL 2 Plus has this capability:

Secure Zones Technology
With the enhanced *DMZ zone, SOHO can easily deploy their access server or
WIFI appliance separate from the trusted local network (LAN). The *DMZ
zone has its own DHCP service and all zones are securely separated by
firewall rules.

http://us.zyxel.com/Products/details.aspx?PC1IndexFlag=20040908175941CategoryGroupNo=FF94F854-B6F1-47B7-BFB7-4660CF8649C8
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833181021

Essentially, it's a soho router that supports a DMZ, any router/firewall
that has DMZ capability will do what you want.

It can be very nice on the DMZ side, you can configure it so it can only
access the sites you want it to access and everything else is blocked.

For example, setup your DMZ to allow access only to Trend Micro's house
call and the microsoft update site.

What type of setup would I need to have to do this? Any links that will
demonstrate it?

The above router with the DMZ is your best bet. No need for double NAT
any more and you can really limit each private subnet as much as you like
and do direct non-nat routing between the 2.

Also remote access in with the VPN software when you're on the road.

Christopher Fisk
--
I WILL NOT INSTIGATE REVOLUTION
I WILL NOT INSTIGATE REVOLUTION
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7G06

Re: [H] Seperate networks.

2010-05-03 Thread Robert Martin Jr.

Use use a little smoothwall box to do that. I have a 192.168.1.X, 10.0.0.X  
192.168.2.X. The first is my internal LAN. I have a clarkconnect box that does 
about the same thing but it's not located by my work area.

lopaka





From: Bobby Heid bh...@sc.rr.com
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 10:48:51 AM
Subject: [H] Seperate networks.

Hey,



Every now and then I need to bring people's PCs to my house.  I use sneaker
net to copy over any files and all that I might need to fix their machine.
After I am pretty sure I have it all cleaned up, I then will connect it to
my LAN to make sure all the Windows updates are applied and anything else
that needs updating.



What I'd like to do is to have two networks that can both access the same
internet connection but cannot see each other (unless I wanted them to).  



What type of setup would I need to have to do this?  Any links that will
demonstrate it?



I currently have a standard Linksys WRT54GS router connected to a Motorola
cable modem.



Thanks,

Bobby

Re: [H] Separate networks.

2010-05-03 Thread Robert Martin Jr.

There's a hack available for a few linksys routers that lets you assign a 
different IP range to the 4th ethernet port and keep it separated from the 
others. All the suggestions I'm seeing require additional hardware and constant 
electricity draw, where I feel the minimum hardware neccessary the better.

I would recommend either a central clarkconnect or smoothwall box, or a  
linksys router that supports the 4th network port hack and also virtual 
wireless access points (which can also be kept separate from home network).

lopaka





From: Winterlight winterli...@winterlight.org
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 11:16:41 AM
Subject: Re: [H] Separate networks.

You need two more routers. Give the first one a IP addresses of 
192.168.3.1 and plug your modem into it. This is the WAN

Plug the other two routers into the WAN. One end into one of the WAN 
ports and one end into the wan port of the individual routers.

Give your new routers a different IP address, LAN one = 192.168.1.1 
and LAN2 = 192.168.2.1

once you set it up all the routers will have access to the internet 
but LAN one will not be able to even see LAN two because the 
individual firewalls will block them.

I have this setup using three Linksys routers. I set it up to isolate 
my LAN from my WAP. It was easy to setup, but for me it was a bear to 
actually get the routers to work the way they were suppose to. I kept 
having to call Linksys and they would do things like clone the mac 
address or some other trick, and eventually it all worked. However, 
once it was up and running it has run flawlessly for four or five years.

Good luck,
w

At 10:48 AM 5/2/2010, you wrote:
Hey,



Every now and then I need to bring people's PCs to my house.  I use sneaker
net to copy over any files and all that I might need to fix their machine.
After I am pretty sure I have it all cleaned up, I then will connect it to
my LAN to make sure all the Windows updates are applied and anything else
that needs updating.



What I'd like to do is to have two networks that can both access the same
internet connection but cannot see each other (unless I wanted them to).



What type of setup would I need to have to do this?  Any links that will
demonstrate it?



I currently have a standard Linksys WRT54GS router connected to a Motorola
cable modem.



Thanks,

Bobby

29 matches

Mail list logo