posted
So my new computer finally came. I decided to go the easy route and got a Dell. Not that I would have minded building my own, but I didn't feel like dealing with the hassle this time around. Anyway, my plan is to get everything transferred over, including the hard drive out of the current one, and the wireless adapter.
Now the hard part, and the one I'm sure is going to knock me offline for some time, since I won't get it right, is the setup of all those other devices and my ISP software. I just know that I'm gonna screw something up or I won't have an install disk for something or other. So before I take this little plunge, does anyone have any advice? Anything specific I'll need that you think I probably haven't thought of?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dell's a good buy these days; out of all the non-gamer-oriented OEMs, that's the one I'm most impressed with. Their clamshell case design is particularly good.
Out of curiosity, why are you planning to use your ISP's software? XP can handle pretty much any net connection natively, and speaking for myself, I like not having unnecessary third-party software clogging up my system.
As Bekenn said, if you are getting an XP operating system on this new PC -- it will probably find/install any peripherals you have. It pretty much recognizes everything automatically, and recognizes most all drivers that it needs.
But if you run into any problems, just hollar.
And beware the Windows XP new service pack -- lots of programs won't run with it. So don't download it yet.
posted
Thanks all. I didn't really think about not using my ISP's software, though I guess it's possible as the CD wouldn't even run on my current machine. I can't remember exactly what I did, but I think it was essentially setting up my account information over the phone. I dunno. Anyway, I have all the software I need for the hardware I've added, just in case, so tomorrow I'll see if I can't get it set up. I do have XP Pro, so hopefully that helps eliminate some problems.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only problem I can think of is that your ISP may have automatically registered your current machine as your "official machine" and noted its MAC address. It likely doesn't allow any other MAC address to access your ISP's network (we're talking cable modems here. Dialup is a different story). If this is the case, you'll find out because your new machine will refuse to fetch an IP from your cable modem.
I think there are three ways of fixing things 1) If the ethernet card from your old computer is in your new computer, you'll be using the same MAC address (I am pretty sure MAC addresses are based on the ethernet device. Someone agree with me on this?). 2) You can call your ISP and inform them you're switching computers and they should be able to release your MAC address and pick your new computer up as your main computer. 3) You could sneakily rewrite your MAC address on your new machine to match your old machine's MAC address. I know you can do this on a Macintosh or linux OS, and can only assume you can do this on Windows. Sketchiness ensues if both machines are connected to the network at the same time.
I believe routers work by mimicking your primary computer's MAC address and acting one step upstream of your computer. The router takes the packets, and sends them to the proper computers downstream of it. The cable modem just thinks it's sending things down to the primary computer.
If you're using dial up, then you should have zero problems, though you probably will need the proprietary software on the CD. I am fairly certain that cable modem software is unnecessary.
I don't know if the MAC address information applies to DSL.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely get SP2 asap. If it breaks anything, you didn't want it anyway. Replace the bare-bones firewall with Tiny/Kerio, though.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
First the DVD burner would randomly flub 75% of discs. Then it wouldn't read DVDs. My husband fixed that, but now it won't write them at all. The authoring program doesn't recognize the burner.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler: I actually wasn't aware that cable services recorded your MAC address; I'll go out on a limb here and say that that's probably not normal, but I don't have much experiences with cable services, so I guess I don't know.
You're right, by the way, that it's the network device and not the computer itself that retains a given MAC address.
Happy Camper: You only have to worry about any of this if you're using a cable service; DSL services typically don't work that way. If you're using DSL, you can simply go to XP's Network Connections thingy (I get there by right-clicking Network Places and hitting Properties) and use the New Connection Wizard to setup your DSL connection. It's pretty simple.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And beware the Windows XP new service pack -- lots of programs won't run with it. So don't download it yet.
Name one. I already know the list being claimed on some sites, but it was taken from this KB article that shows how they actually do work when adjustments are made.
Download and install the service pack when it is released to the public. Do not believe the doomsayers.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't buy a laptop. And as for my internet connection, it's DSL. I have a wireless router, and the wireless adapter I'm using for the new computer is the same as the old one, so that should take care of some of the headache (Same MAC Address, I think). So as long as I can get the thing to connect to the DSL modem in the first place I think the router has all the necessary login information. Thanks again everyone. I'll probably be doing this thing after work today. Should be fun.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nifty keen. You shouldn't have any problems, then.
Bekken: I don't know 100%, but it seems that it works that way. I have Cox Cable here in New England, and if anyone tries to plug into the cable modem directly other than my tower, they're refused an IP. Same thing happens at my friend's house who's also using Cox cable. My friend's house now has a router, so they have no problems. I don't have a router, and solve this problem by having my computer act as a router for my wireless connection to my laptop.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*scratches head* Whats the point of wireless (other than fewer wires) if you don't have a laptop? Do you move your computer frequently?
I mean I don't know what the best technology is out there right now but isn't it almost always faster to go with a wired system as far as download times and stuff?
posted
Wireless is faster than any home internet connection you're going to run into, so it only slows down LAN file transfers and connections and such if at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I didn't know wireless had improved that much. They tried to implement it at the college I went to, but the technology wasn't there yet and doing a wireless download was like asking for someone to tear your toenails from their sockets. It still seemed slow to me at the KamaCon hotel, when I was surfing on someone's notebook. But I guess it could have been the hotel network's problem, not the fault of the wireless itself.
posted
even though im on a desktop computer, I have to use wireless. Our broadband connection comes in through the kitchen where one of our computers is hooked up to it. I added a wireless router, so that I could hook in to the same internet connection without having to run a cat-V up to my room. It works... for the most part. The thing Im dreading, is that I am getting ready to reformat my computer, getting rid of everything, and I have no idea how i initially set it up Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in much the same situation as cyruseh. The telephone drop is in the kitchen (amongst other places), and the only way to run a line would be to cross one opening or another. Plus it's just cleaner. I'm on 802.11b (not the much faster g), but it's still substantially faster than I have a need for. The only time 802.11g would be necessary is if you have several computers on the network all transferring lots of information between them. In my case the limiting speed is the DSL service, and I generally will get about the 768 Kbps. Cable got me around 2.4 but the wiring in my apartment complex was so old it wasn't reliable.
Oh, and thanks cyruseh, I'm pretty excited. This thing is overdue. Good to see you around again, eh?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you're joking, right Richard? I certainly hope so!
Otherwise, you obviously haven't read THIS or This
You must not have read them, to be honest. They both describe how to get the programs they list to work. Manual adjustments are made, usually to the firewall.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the MAC address thing and cable. I am not actually sure where it is that the address is made note of, at the modem itself, or further upstream, but it is easy to get around from the experiences I have had with my cable. Unpluging the modem - ie power off - for about a minute seems to clear what ever cache the MAC address is stored in, at least with Comcast. Though why they would want to pay attention to the MAC address is beyond me.
Posts: 81 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa -- well, maybe on a personal PC level it isn't a problem and adjustments can be made. But for the corporate level it is huge pain to have to "adapt" to their service pack, and the full impact is not yet known, especially like us when we are dealing with many different buildings over a large geographically area. So sometimes it is better to sit back and let everyone else see what it breaks first, and let them get it right, before rolling it out corporate wide
quote: The telephone drop is in the kitchen (amongst other places), and the only way to run a line would be to cross one opening or another. Plus it's just cleaner.
... Remembers the days when we had computer cables draped all over the apartment and more recently all over the house before we moved the computers out of the family room and into their own room (and had a cable line installed in that room just for them)
Yeah good point. I just didn't know that wireless had gotten that good.
quote:Justa -- well, maybe on a personal PC level it isn't a problem and adjustments can be made. But for the corporate level it is huge pain to have to "adapt" to their service pack, and the full impact is not yet known, especially like us when we are dealing with many different buildings over a large geographically area. So sometimes it is better to sit back and let everyone else see what it breaks first, and let them get it right, before rolling it out corporate wide
That isn't the same as saying things break. What wide deployers need to know before deploying is how to adjust the settings properly. That is not saying that SP2 breaks things, it's saying that SP2 means changing the way the approaches on the user level must be. IT departments need to figure out the optimal way to accomodate their users and the programs with this change. It's not the service pack's fault. Your MSNBC link doesn't change that.
If your work is worried about pushing it out too early, then point them here. Microsoft has provided a way to give a window (no pun intended) of time before having it auto install. Companies always take more time than home users to install updates, and not just service packs. That's why companies are often hit harder when exploits and viruses come out... they often don't have the patch that has been out for two or three weeks already.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess basically you have just not said anything that makes me feel like I really NEED service pack 2 yet at this point. No compelling arguments with how it helps or makes things better.
posted
"No compelling arguments with how it helps or makes things better."
If you're a corporation that already has an effective firewall, maintains good laptop user security, and is using group policy extensively, it's not that urgent of an update. On the other hand, it DOES add some nifty group policy controls.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lerris: Thanks, that might come in handy at some point. You're right, it's probably the cable modem that insists on picking one MAC address and sending everything there.
My biggest cable-modem pet peeve right now is upload/download monthly caps and second pet peeve is the upload cap. I have no problems with my download speed (I can get up to 300-350k/s), but upload is capped at 30k/s which can be annoying. Blah blah they don't want people hogging their bandwidth, but what's the point of getting a cable modem if I'm only allowed to use my max upload for less than 10% of the month?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess basically you have just not said anything that makes me feel like I really NEED service pack 2 yet at this point. No compelling arguments with how it helps or makes things better.
So I don't see harm in holding off awhile.
Except I wasn't talking about you personally downloading it and installing it. I was arguing against your advice to someone else to not do so based on incorrect and misleading information.
As far as giving you a list of changes, the list is far too long to get into here. I have nearly 300 pages of documentation on changes in different documents on SP2. If you are claiming that not enough compelling information is out there, you are ignorant to the wealth of information Microsoft has supplied to the public. Here is a good place for you to start.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are more resources, in case you are actually interested in learning what is there instead of assuming a firewall and antivirus checking is all SP2 offers.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa -- I work in tech support. I have already read all this stuff from Microsoft, as well as many other sites, and heard first-hand accounts from people who have applied and tested the service pack.
I stand by my decision that there is nothing in SP2 that demands it be installed immediately, and that in many cases it is better to wait awhile to see if Microsoft improves it.
No, I work as an IT professional, and it annoys the living hell out of me to see misinformation about something that is such a big deal. Since I do not work for one single company, and instead am contracted to a wide range of companies both large and small, I see a good cross-section of different fields of business. More than half of my time spent with regard to work is testing and research, so I have the responsibility to read over reams of documentation for the software the company I work for has to support. When we are not supporting directly, we are the contact for the clients to get support from the vendors their equipment and software comes from.
On the side, I work on the computers of friends and family. This is where the annoyance becomes personal. Misinformation is the number one leading cause of problems and openings leading to virus infections with all of the personal systems I have checked out and worked on.
So, I don't work for Microsoft, but on many occasions, I have had the opportunity to work with them, which has given me the opportunity to find out that there are whole libraries worth of information and documentation purposely made available by them on their products. Moreso than I have seen for just about any other software in existence (with Linux being debateable).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Justa -- I work in tech support. I have already read all this stuff from Microsoft, as well as many other sites, and heard first-hand accounts from people who have applied and tested the service pack.
So you've already read the hundreds of pages detailing changes within the kernel, the registry, with administrative options, and network settings? I have a difficult time believing you, because if you had, you wouldn't have claimed there is not enough about "how it helps or makes things better."
What it makes is a little more work for us IT guys who are going to deploy it. In at least a few clients, this means waiting to deploy it for about a month. Like Tom said, it an adequate firewall is in place and has good internal security, it is not critical to have it ASAP. In the couple clients who have laptops that travel in and out of the building, the added security and group policy settings being made available are going to make a world of difference, and are going to be the first to get the service pack. In others, where HIPAA compliance has kept security already as the priority for us, the service pack is going to help, but not change much. There are different levels for different places.
For home users, farmgirl, which is where your recommendation to someone else to not install it came in, the service pack is going to open up the ability for their personal setup to have the same level of security checking that corporate IT often has (or should have), and new code changes to the kernel and settings on a system level help to ensure that things like spyware and viruses have less of a chance of automatic execution (check out the following about data execution prevention), and allow me to be one of the people who can say they have tested it and it works. It doesn't replace antivirus and other security measures, but it helps.
My whole gripe with what you said, farmgirl, is that you are advising others based on your personal opinion rather than what the loads of technical documentation out there says that contradicts your advice.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check the links. They contradict your claims that aren't personal in nature. If you don't want to personally install it, there is no reason you should. You have that choice. Telling others to not install it based on misleading information is another story. That has been my point all along.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, to bring us back to the point . I'm about to go offline now, and hopefully I'll be back soon. If I'm not seen posting till Monday, it's because I didn't get it working in time and I had to leave for Chicago first, so no worries. I'll get it eventually. But to be honest I do expect a lot of this from myself over the next few hours.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl: you'll note I said "for an end-user." I've been watching this thing very closely and have yet to hear a report of SP2 hosing someone's machine. OTOH, a professional running an IT department (1) needs to do much more extensive testing on their specific images and platforms (2) is more likely to have excellent security measures in place already.
I do know a lot about low-level OS coding, so if you want an explanation of the changes they made to the very guts of the event handler, or the MMU-based prohibitions on certain kinds of self-modifying code, or the way parts of the raw sockets API have been crippled just say so.
On the broader issue, let's put it this way: MS (nominally) loses millions of dollars to people using cracked corporate keys. And yet, they decided it was more important to the computer marketplace to get a quick, significant penetration of SP2 than to add new key mappings to the installer as they did with SP1. (Not speculation; Gary Schare's memo was made public some time ago.)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, on this you sound like a teacher I had, who said that everyone should have a right to an INFORMED opinion, not just a right to their opinion.
Of course, INFORMED to him meant they agreed with him....after all, once he "informed" them, how could they possibly disagree?
I am not questioning your expertise, just saying that a lot of people don't think it is necessary to install SP2 right now, not just Farmgirl.
And she works with this stuff every day, and some of her personal experience tells her to wait....
God knows Microsoft has a habit of releasing buggy software....and just because they come out with a patch right away doesn't excuse the flaws in the original software. If their need isn't curtial, which IN THIS INSTANCE it didn't seem to be, why not wait ans see if the new products work as they are suppose to?
posted
If it makes any difference, I still use Win2k SP4. Then again, I'm absurdly attached to this install's myriad customizations, which started as a beta in 1999...I undoubtedly spent more hacking the XP terminal services DLLs to work than it would've taken to upgrade...now that I have displays requiring ClearType I do plan to make the switch, honest...
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, everybody, I hope someone can still help me out. I got my computer up and running fine, even though I had to gut my old one to get the hard drive out (the drive cage was really wedged in there). I did, unfortunately run into a slight problem.
(Keep in mind I may not be using quite the right terms here, but I'm confident I know enough that you should be able to tell what I'm saying) I got the old drive nicely placed in the new machine (Dells are great for installing new hardware into the case by the way), but there weren't any free IDE cables or power supplies that I could use (4 holes, 5 cables I think). So after some shuffling about I hooked the CD drive and the old hard drive up in tandem (unconnecting the DVD drive in the process, and stealing it's power supply), and got most of my data transferred to the new drive. I'd still like to use the old hard drive though. Can anyone tell me how to go about making that drive external, as I think that's the only way I'll be able to get a power supply and data transfer cable to it. I guess it has something to do with making it a USB connection, but I know very little about that. Thanks everyone.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can buy an external drive adapter kit from any CompUSA for that purpose. Alternately, you could buy a DVD burner, dump your other optical drive, and free up an internal IDE connection for your old drive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait... you're saying that your new Dell already has four IDE drives? Before adding the old drive, I mean?
Looks like the Dell came with at least one hard drive, one DVD drive, and one CD drive (burner?). Assuming it didn't come with two hard drives, you should be able to mount the old drive internally, and I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be enough power cables.
Do you have a digital camera, by any chance? Would you mind snapping some pics of the inside of the case, focusing on the power supply, cables, and the drive bays?
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
with pooka![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Except I wasn't talking about you personally downloading it and installing it. I was arguing against your advice to someone else to not do so based on incorrect and misleading information.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
from myself over the next few hours.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
