Gigabyte or Abit or Asus

What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders

"Scott" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
Try a repair install and if that does not work, do a fresh install.
Backup your data first.

What you describe sounds like a software problem, not a motherboard
problem.

I would also do a full virus and spyware scan.

- Tim



I'll do just that. Will report back.

Scott

"Nero" wrote in message
...
What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders


I'm running two firewalls for extra protection. It's fine to run two
firewalls, but not two virus scanners and one virus scanner will read the
others virus definitions and possibly delete them.
I like to be careful just incase someone cracks through one of them, at
least I'm protected that little bit more.

Do you not recommend this?

Scott

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:56:24 -0600, "Colonel Blip"
wrote:

Hello, All!

I'm interested in getting a 939 socket m/b and an Athlon64 3000+. I've
always been an Asus m/b person, but thought I would at least test the waters
on views of the Asus vs. other m/b's. Any views on 'best' of these three
manufactures for socket 939?


Why doesn't any here mention the real amd64 king: msi

I don't like the cooler solution of abit nf4 s939 board (these 2 small
40 mm fans) , and I don't like the socketed power printcard on the
gigabytes.

On overclocker forums you don't see many asus users post. Per example
this winchester OC thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=44570

Most use MSI and recently also DFI.

best regards

John

"Scott" wrote in message
...

"Nero" wrote in message
...
What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders


I'm running two firewalls for extra protection. It's fine to run two
firewalls, but not two virus scanners and one virus scanner will read
the others virus definitions and possibly delete them.
I like to be careful just incase someone cracks through one of them, at
least I'm protected that little bit more.

Do you not recommend this?
Personally, when it comes to virii, you need belt, braces, suspenders, and
super-glue!.
There are some viruses, that specifically have been targetted to penetrate
particular virus scanners. Multiple firewalls is less worthwhile, since in
general how effective this is is entirely 'down' to how well the package
is set up. However the XP firewall, is pretty basic, and adding a version
that offers better configuration, is often a good idea.
Virus scanners should be perfectly capable of working without interfering
with one another. This is down to placing the definition files in seperate
directories. It is pointless to run two, if they are based on the same
type of detection algorithm, however systems are available that
deliberately 'cascade' multiple testers using different search
algorithmns. I use an external commercial scanner on the server, and then
a seperate system on the PC for exactly this reason.

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" wrote in
message ...

"Scott" wrote in message
...

"Nero" wrote in message
...
What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders


I'm running two firewalls for extra protection. It's fine to
run two
firewalls, but not two virus scanners and one virus scanner
will read
the others virus definitions and possibly delete them.
I like to be careful just incase someone cracks through one of
them, at
least I'm protected that little bit more.

Do you not recommend this?
Personally, when it comes to virii, you need belt, braces,
suspenders, and
super-glue!.
There are some viruses, that specifically have been targetted to
penetrate
particular virus scanners. Multiple firewalls is less worthwhile,
since in
general how effective this is is entirely 'down' to how well the
package
is set up. However the XP firewall, is pretty basic, and adding a
version
that offers better configuration, is often a good idea.
Virus scanners should be perfectly capable of working without
interfering
with one another. This is down to placing the definition files in
seperate
directories. It is pointless to run two, if they are based on the
same
type of detection algorithm, however systems are available that
deliberately 'cascade' multiple testers using different search
algorithmns. I use an external commercial scanner on the server,
and then
a seperate system on the PC for exactly this reason.


Have you EVER run two virus scanners simultaniously? The speed hit
is unbelievable. And they are not going to protect you against
brand new virii that nobody has definitions for.

Now if there were some kind of arrangement where your
router/gateway could run a virus scanner, and your computer could
run one, that is something completely different.

There's nothing wrong with two firewalls, except that if something
isn't working you have to dick with two of them to fix it.

--
LTP

When the llama speaks you listen. Unfortunately the llama hasn't
spoken yet.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC), "Scott"
had a flock of green cheek
conures squawk out:

"When the system has booted up and has been running smoothly for 5mins to an
hour, the system suddenly freezes. During this time I can press Ctrl-Alt-Del
to bring up the task manager but nothing is using 100% of the processor.
Most programs are using 0-10% but nothing more. I can shut down programs
from the task manager, but I cannot use them. To say this, if I am writing
to cd or dvd, it will continue to do so - But I cannot click on any menus or
'ok' or 'cancel' buttons if any happen to be on screen. This problem can
last from 30 seconds to 5mins and then I have control over my programs again
like nothing had ever happened. My virus scanner is completely up to date
(Norton antivirus) and both firewalls (Norton and Windows SP2) are up to
date and running as they should.
Another problem I have is that sometimes I cannot move files to another
folder using drag and drop yet if I cut and paste this works without a
hitch.
Can you think of any reason why this would happen.
My motherboard drivers and Bios are bang up to date."

Scott


Only run one firewall at a time. If two are running, it can cause
windows to lockup due to one firewall blocking the other.

Stephen



--

Too bad you're intent on getting an Athlon board, otherwise I would suggest
you buy a P4 board made by Supermicro
www.supermicro.com
Whenever you want a superior board - these are the ones to buy.
I will never buy GIGABYTE ever again.
ASUS - in my opinion are quickly losing their reputation for stable and
well-designed boards. I've never seen so many problems with ASUS boards as
I have in the past year. (both AMD and P4 boards).
ABIT are up and down. You never know when you'll get a well designed and
trouble-free board.
MSI quality control is questionable.


Bottom line......
If you've got the cash - go for a Supermicro's board

Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Colonel Blip" colone
wrote in message
...
Hello, All!

I'm interested in getting a 939 socket m/b and an Athlon64 3000+. I've
always been an Asus m/b person, but thought I would at least test the
waters
on views of the Asus vs. other m/b's. Any views on 'best' of these three
manufactures for socket 939?

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Just as a point of reference for you, I've had 3 ASUS boards (all AMD)
and they've been grand. Twice I went for ABIT boards and both times they
were faulty and had to go back in replacement for said ASUS boards.

Hope that helps your decision a little

Sandi

"Luc The Perverse" wrote in message
. ..
"Roger Hamlett" wrote in
message ...

"Scott" wrote in message
...

"Nero" wrote in message
...
What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders


I'm running two firewalls for extra protection. It's fine to
run two
firewalls, but not two virus scanners and one virus scanner
will read
the others virus definitions and possibly delete them.
I like to be careful just incase someone cracks through one of
them, at
least I'm protected that little bit more.

Do you not recommend this?
Personally, when it comes to virii, you need belt, braces,
suspenders, and
super-glue!.
There are some viruses, that specifically have been targetted to
penetrate
particular virus scanners. Multiple firewalls is less worthwhile,
since in
general how effective this is is entirely 'down' to how well the
package
is set up. However the XP firewall, is pretty basic, and adding a
version
that offers better configuration, is often a good idea.
Virus scanners should be perfectly capable of working without
interfering
with one another. This is down to placing the definition files in
seperate
directories. It is pointless to run two, if they are based on the
same
type of detection algorithm, however systems are available that
deliberately 'cascade' multiple testers using different search
algorithmns. I use an external commercial scanner on the server,
and then
a seperate system on the PC for exactly this reason.


Have you EVER run two virus scanners simultaniously? The speed hit
is unbelievable. And they are not going to protect you against
brand new virii that nobody has definitions for.
Actually, some will. These are the so called 'heuristic' scanners, that
can look for resemblances to previous virii, or simply for the same file
arriving at multiple sites on a business network, and flagging it as
suspicious until proven otherwise. These were the bases of the systems
that did stop Melissa the first time round.
The speed hit is down to the power of the machines, and the natures of the
algorithms chosen.

Now if there were some kind of arrangement where your
router/gateway could run a virus scanner, and your computer could
run one, that is something completely different.

There's nothing wrong with two firewalls, except that if something
isn't working you have to dick with two of them to fix it.
Currently, I am running three virus scanners in the router, and two in the
individual machines, and performance is such that an email arrives less
than 1/10th second after it first reaches the router.

Best Wishes

snip

It is common to run not just one, but sometimes 3 different AV scanners on
email servers. The reasoning is simple: when a new virus comes out, an
updated virus def will come from the vendors in some random sequence. If you
have say 3 AV's then you stand to reduce the interval between new virus
def's being available. These AV scanners are special variants (similar to
the desktop engines) as they Plug into the MTA chain somewhere.

I would not run more than one AV at a time on a desktop PC - for performance
and stability reasons. AV vendors seem to have enough issues keeping their
products working without complicating things by having more than 1 AV engine
active.

Having more than 1 firewall is sensible so long as they are configured
sensibly. In a corporate environment, there should be fw's at all perimeter
internet connection points and leased link / interbranch connections,
between all departments, and if you are brave within departments to control
what Valid traffic is.

On a SOHO / Home config, a h/w firewall combined with a s/w firewall on the
PC is sensible as it provides double layer protection. It is not unheard of
for vulnerabilities to be found in h/w firewalls or similar problems in s/w
firewalls, or exploits in the OS or web browser.

If you have say the XP SP2 firewall on combined with a hardware f/w, then
that is a good config. If you do not have a hardware f/w either get one, or
use a more advanced, reputable s/w firewall that can block outgoing traffic
as well as incoming.

I would not bother having 2 s/w firewalls on a PC - there is no quarantee
that they will work together correctly and what is the benefit if the OS
itself gets compromised?

For chips such as the Nvidia with the integrated h/w firewall (which I hear
is a little buggy at the moment), this should be configured in the same
manner as an external h/w firewall if the PC is the sole PC, otherwise more
ports will need opening up if there is a LAN.

It is far better to have 1 f/w that is configured correctly than 'n' that
are configured wrong.
It is far better to have 1 AV that is kept up to date and does what it is
supposed to than 'n' that do not.

Keep it simple, and make sure it is working.

- Tim