OT...calling all geeks

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:26:48 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:

Thanks for the leads. I'll do some more fooling around, and unless I totally
screw the poodle, I'll get back to you.

One of my sons uses XP Home and was complaining about extremely slow
boot ups. I had him run scandisk with the fix option and it cleared up
the problem. I'd suggest you try that before changing the registry -
although changing the registry is often a good road to a complete
reinstall if that's your goal. g
--
Charlie...

Frank Church wrote:
OK, I finally got tired of bsods, lockups, illegal ops etc, etc. so I
upgraded to WinXP Home Edition today. So far, what I've seen I like; the
only fly in the ointment seems to be that windows open slower and it takes
noticeably longer to boot up and shut down. I'm used to windows fairly
snapping open with W98 (when it wasn't locked up, etc) I have 512 megs RAM
and an Athlon 1.2 gig processor. Am I gonna have to go to a faster
processor to kick this thing in the butt or what? One small negative in
this whole thing is my scanner software does not work with WinXP..time for
a new scanner I guess.

Since ROFF is now the default source for Windows help, I suppose it's OK
to ask a question about Linux:

Is there a way to call shutdown(blah, SHUT_WR) on a network SOCK_STREAM
connection's fd without discarding pending output? Or some way to block
until pending output has been acknowledged by the far end? (There's a
TCP/IP acknowledgement packet being sent, I'm fairly certain of this...)
I want the connection at the far end to get EOF from read, but still be
able to send me data back from the other half of the connection.
I've looked at the BSD networking documentation, the source code to
"netcat", all the man pages I could find, asked google, etc. The 2.4.18
net/ipv4/tcp.c source has some interesting comments (line 396) about
poll not having a notion of HUP in just one direction, but I've gathered
that select and poll behave differently on files, pipes, network
sockets, block devices, etc... In any case, this doesn't help me find an
exported user-space API that might help me implement this behavior. (By
the way, is "PULLHUP" on lines 414 and 417 a typo for "POLLHUP", or
not?) There doesn't seem to be any variant of a blocking flush() call on
a socket (that I can find), or a way to tell shutdown() to wait for
pending output the way a normal close() does. (Maybe I can do something
fancy with poll or select?) If there IS no way to do this, why does
shutdown(2) bother taking a second argument? (Maybe I can disable nagle
and then do a write of length zero, to make the other end unblock with a
read of length zero and THINK the stream's done? Probably won't work,
but it's worth a try...) (P.S. yes I can rewrite the protocol being sent
over the wire to signal EOF in-band (yet again) but this keeps coming up
over and over. Processes that work when stdin and stdout are seperate
file handles don't work when the data goes back and forth through a
network socket...)

Thanks in advance. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw Since ROFF is now the default source for Windows help, I suppose
rw it's OK to ask a question about Linux:

rw Is there a way to call shutdown(blah, SHUT_WR) on a network
rw SOCK_STREAM connection's fd without discarding pending output? Or
rw some way to block until pending output has been acknowledged by
rw the far end? (There's a TCP/IP acknowledgement packet being sent,
rw I'm fairly certain of this...)

Rw, the good ole Rob Landley?

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linu...2-22/1291.html

and the answer is:

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linu...2-22/1337.html

Do I get a bisquit?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Drop your brain when replying, or just
use .

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

Do I get a bisquit?

When we meet, Jarmo, I'll give you a fresh biscuit slathered with fresh
churned butter and blackberry jam.

Now all that ROFF needs is a Windows guru, and we'll be set. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Frank Church wrote in
9.11:

OK, I finally got tired of bsods, lockups, illegal ops etc, etc. so I
upgraded to WinXP Home Edition today. So far, what I've seen I like;
the only fly in the ointment seems to be that windows open slower and
it takes noticeably longer to boot up and shut down. I'm used to
windows fairly snapping open with W98 (when it wasn't locked up, etc)
I have 512 megs RAM and an Athlon 1.2 gig processor. Am I gonna have
to go to a faster processor to kick this thing in the butt or what?
One small negative in this whole thing is my scanner software does not
work with WinXP..time for a new scanner I guess.

Frank Church
..'fishin' for help to keep this partly on topic

The only advice I can offer is to not do an "upgrade"from w98, but start
fresh with a clean install. Of course, you then need to reinstall all your
apps, and might have license problems that you need to deal with, but its
the only way to guarantee you're not bringing any old baggage along with
you.

FWIW, my XP Pro installation is tons faster on bootup than any NT-family
product I've ever used.

Scott

Scott,

I'm glad I read the entire thread. Although some of the advice given
was ok for systems that suddenly started running slower than normal,
your suggestion is the ONLY one I ever use. Your line about the 'Old
Baggage', is 100% accurate. The only way to ensure a good install is
via a new install.



On 26 Nov 2003 13:11:20 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Frank Church wrote in
. 49.11:

OK, I finally got tired of bsods, lockups, illegal ops etc, etc. so I
upgraded to WinXP Home Edition today. So far, what I've seen I like;
the only fly in the ointment seems to be that windows open slower and
it takes noticeably longer to boot up and shut down. I'm used to
windows fairly snapping open with W98 (when it wasn't locked up, etc)
I have 512 megs RAM and an Athlon 1.2 gig processor. Am I gonna have
to go to a faster processor to kick this thing in the butt or what?
One small negative in this whole thing is my scanner software does not
work with WinXP..time for a new scanner I guess.

Frank Church
..'fishin' for help to keep this partly on topic

The only advice I can offer is to not do an "upgrade"from w98, but start
fresh with a clean install. Of course, you then need to reinstall all your
apps, and might have license problems that you need to deal with, but its
the only way to guarantee you're not bringing any old baggage along with
you.

FWIW, my XP Pro installation is tons faster on bootup than any NT-family
product I've ever used.

Scott

-=SAGE=-
http://www.njflyfishing.com
0 Limit,Catch -n- Release


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

-=SAGE=- -=SAGE=- wrote in
:

Scott,

I'm glad I read the entire thread. Although some of the advice given
was ok for systems that suddenly started running slower than normal,
your suggestion is the ONLY one I ever use. Your line about the 'Old
Baggage', is 100% accurate. The only way to ensure a good install is
via a new install.

....thanks to all your geeknesses, I appreciate the input. I did a format c:
and cleaned the HD of W98 as I had read somewhere that is is best to
install fresh. As I get a little braver I'll snoop around and have this
puppy running like a greyhound.

Frank Church

The only way to go is a fresh install As Scott said - up-grading brings
along other things.
PLUS IT really keeps most of old win - 98 system.

If done this way system will start up faster than any version of Windows 98.

A nice tip. Once it is running correctly and to you satisfaction,
set a - SET POINT. Making a set point once a week or so is a good idea.
Should you muck it up at a later date you can restore it back to the point
it operated right.
YOU will not loose any of your files doing this either.
Now if you add any new programs to system - AND if you DELETE
something you shouldn't. Then next day or so you try to do something and
the computer doesn't want to respond or you get an ERROR message.
You can use RESTORE to put computer back to when all was correct
will help your nerves....
Flyrods


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Frank Church wrote in
9.11:

OK, I finally got tired of bsods, lockups, illegal ops etc, etc. so I
upgraded to WinXP Home Edition today. So far, what I've seen I like;
the only fly in the ointment seems to be that windows open slower and
it takes noticeably longer to boot up and shut down. I'm used to
windows fairly snapping open with W98 (when it wasn't locked up, etc)
I have 512 megs RAM and an Athlon 1.2 gig processor. Am I gonna have
to go to a faster processor to kick this thing in the butt or what?
One small negative in this whole thing is my scanner software does not
work with WinXP..time for a new scanner I guess.

Frank Church
..'fishin' for help to keep this partly on topic

The only advice I can offer is to not do an "upgrade"from w98, but start
fresh with a clean install. Of course, you then need to reinstall all
your
apps, and might have license problems that you need to deal with, but its
the only way to guarantee you're not bringing any old baggage along with
you.

FWIW, my XP Pro installation is tons faster on bootup than any NT-family
product I've ever used.

Scott

"Bill" wrote in
:

A nice tip. Once it is running correctly and to you satisfaction,
set a - SET POINT. Making a set point once a week or so is a good
idea. Should you muck it up at a later date you can restore it back to
the point it operated right.


Is this native to XP, or a third party product??

Scott

On 26 Nov 2003 14:55:13 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in
t:

A nice tip. Once it is running correctly and to you satisfaction,
set a - SET POINT. Making a set point once a week or so is a good
idea. Should you muck it up at a later date you can restore it back to
the point it operated right.


Is this native to XP, or a third party product??

Look under accessories/system tools at system restore.
--
Charlie...