Gigabyte or Abit or Asus
Forum Motherboard & Memory : Asus - Gigabyte or Abit or Asus
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Larry Gagnon" <lagagnon@fakeuniserve.com> wrote in message
news
an.2005.03.21.15.33.43.409849@fakeuniserve.com...
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:54:14 +0000, Scott wrote:
>
> Scott: what you describe does NOT sound like a hardware problem at all. I
> would suggest you either have a serious malware problem (spyware, virus
> etc) or your Windows system needs repair. If it were hardware related your
> system would likely never get to booting the OS, freeze completely or
> reboot. I certainly wouldn't blame Gigbyte!
>
> Larry Gagnon, A+ certified tech
Agreed, probable driver or malware problem.
Jon.
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
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
"Scott" <pawsandclawsremovethis@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news
1mqpr$b9v$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "FG" <personne@videotron.cam> wrote in message
> news:vEB%d.8633$aQ.552907@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Are you sure you have used the correct BIOS settings ?
>>
>> Could it be a software problem ? Have you tried repairing
>> Windows, if that is the system you use ?
>>
>
> This only happened when I upgraded my motherboard and processor. At first
> I had WinXP64 on it and thought that might be the problem. So I took that
> off and installed my own Win XP Home (after a reformat) and the problem
> persisted.
> I have uninstalled all the drivers and reinstalled again to be met by the
> same problem. Could it be a power supply problem?
>
> I have the BIOS settings changed and changed back, even using the BIOS's
> Optimized settings.
>
> Scott
>
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news1nheu$vkv$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Try a repair install and if that does not work, do a fresh install. Backup
> your data first.
>
> What you describe sounds like a software problem, not a motherboard
> problem.
>
> I would also do a full virus and spyware scan.
>
> - Tim
>
>
I'll do just that. Will report back.
Scott
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
What the kinhell you runnin two firewalls for?
Why run SP2 firewall AND Norton??
Think you will be better protected?
That's like wearin a belt and suspenders
"Scott" <pawsandclawsremovethis@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news1os2i$abm$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news1nheu$vkv$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> 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
>
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Scott" <pawsandclawsremovethis@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news1p7v8$766$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
> news:4240181a$0$8744$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> 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
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:JCW%d.56$nc3.42@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Scott" <pawsandclawsremovethis@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news1p7v8$766$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
> > news:4240181a$0$8744$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> 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.
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
"Luc The Perverse" <sll_NOSPAM_zm@remove.cc.usu.edu> wrote in message
news:424069bf$0$8960$3a2ecee9@news.csolutions.net...
> "Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:JCW%d.56$nc3.42@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Scott" <pawsandclawsremovethis@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>> news1p7v8$766$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>> >
>> > "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
>> > news:4240181a$0$8744$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> >> 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
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
