Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Perris Calderon, Nov 17, 2004.
this article looks pretty darned good
Nice find perris! I can direct some of our customers there. I'm sure you can imagine how many pc's we get back in here loaded with crap.
Nice find, thanks!
nice site, a lot of good articles there and the securing xp article is very thorough!
Excellent find, perris.
With all the threads that keep cropping up related to security and privacy issues, I was planning to write out a detailed post about how you can keep your Windows box secure at some point. It's really not that hard, and Windows can be as secure and stable as any other OS, despite all the bad press that it gets. In any case, that article is much more detailed than anything I would have had the time to write. Worthy of some rep points, no doubt.
not too many stickys in security, so I'm gonna stick this for a while...anyone is welcome to take it down when they like or if we come up with something better.
Nice guide, I wouldnt use it because im more eXPerienced but some of my clients might want to take look.
nice, i like the idea of using ipx instead of tcpip on lan.. great find
Personally the IPX stuff was the only thing I disagreed with in the whole article.
yep how so? im gonna image all my box's and try it out over the weekend.. although im sure im already secure enuff behing spi firewall, nat
whats the bad points about ipx local network? any difference in speeds?
because IPX is an outdated protocol and will probably be phased out sometimes soon. You need to have TCP enabled for internet access, no reason to add the overhead of another protocol.
the ipx is just for the local network, it doesn't matter if it's phased out globally.
how does the overhead manifest?
You have to add services to deal with IPX, TCP/IP is default in XP. AFAIK IPX isn't available in the 64-bit XP edition, which makes me think it will be gone by Longhorn.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, IPX is more unreliable because no ACK's are sent; meaning that the sender never acknowledges that the packet it received by the recipient, as is done with TCP. Also, IPX is chatty, sending tons of packets into your network, which can slow your network down because of packet collisions. I have no statistical evidence of this, but I'm sure there is some.
ah..makes sense,,,needs to be experimented with to find out if the overhead is too high a price
as far as it becoming obsolete, that doesn't matter, since the network that would be using it would phase it out when it became neccessary
thanx for the info
Thanks for all the nice comments on the article and thanks to Perris for posting it.
I'll keep an eye out here for comments, suggestions, etc.
I think it's reputation for being chatty is overblown. Yes it will add some traffic to your network but are you really using so much bandwidth that you can't afford a few packets now and again?
IPX/SPX is not available on XP 64-bit (I don't think we've heard the last of this), nor is appletalk, netbios, netbeui...
switched my network over to it today, havnt had any problems, speeds pretty much the same, processor use i cant notice any difference, seems to be working just the same
your memory useage is probably a little higher though...maybe 3 mb's I think
thanx for reporting back
Great to see you tweakhound!!!
please feel free to put your home page in your signature, and stick around a while