BIOS upgrade, not really necessary to install XP SP2?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:00:39 -0400, "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote:

>How do I find out which CPU I have- it's an 8200 from July of '02. Runs
>great.
>
>--
>*************
>Joe Zorzin
>
<SNIP!>

If you are running Windows XP, the easy way to find the CPU speed is via the
System icon in the Control Panel. The main tab displays the processor speed and
the amount of memory installed. Well, the processor speed may be a close
approximation, something like 1.99GHz is really 2GHz.

You can also find out the CPU speed from the motherboard BIOS CMOS setup,
usually by hitting the Del key just after powering on the computer.

Given the vintage of computer, the CPU speed is probably somewhere between
1.5GHz and 2GHz... Ben Myers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Actually, once the BIOS upgrade stuff has been downloaded, the BIOS can be
upgraded whether or not any anti-virus, firewall, or other security software is
running. Why? Nowadays, there are generally two types of BIOS upgrades made
available.

One type of BIOS upgrade requires preparation of a bootable floppy with the BIOS
upgrade software on it. Booting from floppy in DOS mode does the trick, and
clearly none of the security software can even be running. This is the way that
BIOS upgrades have been done going back to the days of the first flash BIOS
chips on 486s.

The other BIOS upgrade runs under Windows and does not involve itself with any
security software. With this one, it is better to boot the system in safe mode
to run the BIOS upgrade. Safe mode inhibits execution of background programs
(e.g. A-V monitoring) which have a small chance of interfereing with a
successful BIOS upgrade.

Given my usual wariness about Windows stability and long time near 100% success
running DOS-mode BIOS upgrades, guess which one I prefer? Of course, if one has
a floppy-less system like an entry-level Dimension 2400, I guess there is not a
lot of choice about how to do a BIOS upgrade.

As to the necessity of a BIOS upgrade prior to installing SP2, who knows? Just
because something is in print (or floating in the usenet ether), does this make
it an absolute truth?... Ben Myers

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:06:39 -0400, "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote:

>what about anti virus software? That stuff always seems to trip up major
>software installations.
>
>--
>*************
>Joe Zorzin
>
>
>"History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:Lnp%c.81960$cT6.66421@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>> > When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall, disable
>> my
>> > McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else?
>>
>> I never turn off the Windows Firewall, or its predecessor, Internet
>> Connection Firewall. In fact, I didn't disable anything before upgrading
>> the BIOS on my Dell 2400. The instructions I printed out from Dell didn't
>> mention anything about that.
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows Firewall
and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp

<<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch
the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security system,
according to Microsoft.

"An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting
the PC once it's been infected.

If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of anti-virus
software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter technologies
to examine outbound traffic.

"The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton says.
He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve every
application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.

"If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
time," he says.>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Not sure what your point is. There's nothing in that snip that is a
revelation.
--
Ted Zieglar


"History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:nQE%c.83759$cT6.51783@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows
Firewall
> and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp
>
> <<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch
> the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
> limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security
system,
> according to Microsoft.
>
> "An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
> Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
> compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
> designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting
> the PC once it's been infected.
>
> If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of anti-virus
> software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
> firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
> packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter
technologies
> to examine outbound traffic.
>
> "The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton says.
> He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve every
> application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.
>
> "If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
> time," he says.>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote:
>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp

So what's the problem? M$s firewall isn't the be-all and the end-all
for computer security, they don't do outbound blocking due to user
confusion, and they reccomend a virus scanner. And?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> Not sure what your point is. There's nothing in that snip that is a
> revelation.
> --

Many people here are arguing whether the XP Firewall is sufficient.
I thought it might be interesting to hear a representative from Microsoft
weigh-in on the subject.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

There's not much to argue about. Windows Firewall, and Internet Connection
Firewall before it, were not intended to compete with third party firewalls.
Windows Firewall provides basic protection for users who would otherwise
have no firewall protection at all.
--
Ted Zieglar


"History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:g8F%c.83761$cT6.74871@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > Not sure what your point is. There's nothing in that snip that is a
> > revelation.
> > --
>
> Many people here are arguing whether the XP Firewall is sufficient.
> I thought it might be interesting to hear a representative from Microsoft
> weigh-in on the subject.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

" the role firewalls should play in a company's security system, according to
Microsoft", is fairly limited. Limited to exactly what the SP2 firewall
provides. In other words, just as self-serving as the babble from the mouths of
all politicians in this election season.

The assumption here is that the rest of SP2 plus Outlook/Outlook Express plus
Internet Explorer plus some anti-virus software is sufficient to keep varmints
out of a computer, hence there is no need to monitor OUTGOING attempts to access
the internet as is done by more comprehensive hardware and software firewall
products.

Think of the Windows SP2 firewall as a firewall with training wheels, better
than nothing, but not adequate for the internet world in which we live. Trust
me on this one, even tho I've been branded as clueless.

.... Ben Myers

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:39:15 GMT, "History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com>
wrote:

> Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows Firewall
>and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp
>
><<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch
>the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
>limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security system,
>according to Microsoft.
>
>"An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
>Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
>compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
>designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting
>the PC once it's been infected.
>
>If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of anti-virus
>software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
>firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
>packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter technologies
>to examine outbound traffic.
>
>"The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton says.
>He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve every
>application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.
>
>"If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
>time," he says.>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:39:15 GMT, in
<nQE%c.83759$cT6.51783@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, "History Fan"
<IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote:

> Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows Firewall
>and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp
>
><<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch
>the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
>limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security system,
>according to Microsoft.
>
>"An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
>Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
>compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
>designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting
>the PC once it's been infected.
>
>If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of anti-virus
>software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
>firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
>packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter technologies
>to examine outbound traffic.
>
>"The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton says.
>He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve every
>application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.
>
>"If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
>time," he says.>>

This is the sort of arrogance on the part of Microsoft that leads
them to write insecure software. They always know best and
everyone else is wrong. The customer will answer YES anyhow so
they make sure he has no other choice. Oy veh!

As far as I'm concerned, the Windows Firewall exists solely so
some poor schmuck with a new computer and a broadband connection
is reasonably safe while downloading a decent firewall.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"As far as I'm concerned, the Windows Firewall exists solely so some poor
schmuck with a new computer and a broadband connection is reasonably safe
while downloading a decent firewall."

That's exactly why it exists - what's your problem? And if that "poor
schmuck" doesn't know what a firewall is, let alone where to download one,
at least they've got something in between them and the big bad Internet.
Sure, Microsoft can be arrogant - but this ain't an example.
--
Ted Zieglar

"Jim Higgins" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:37muj0dp4jkl5ibo8vtokf0hpdk4sc20me@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:39:15 GMT, in
> <nQE%c.83759$cT6.51783@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, "History Fan"
> <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows
Firewall
> >and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
> >http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp
> >
> ><<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed
switch
> >the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
> >limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security
system,
> >according to Microsoft.
> >
> >"An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
> >Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
> >compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
> >designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than
protecting
> >the PC once it's been infected.
> >
> >If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of
anti-virus
> >software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
> >firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
> >packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter
technologies
> >to examine outbound traffic.
> >
> >"The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton
says.
> >He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve
every
> >application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.
> >
> >"If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
> >time," he says.>>
>
> This is the sort of arrogance on the part of Microsoft that leads
> them to write insecure software. They always know best and
> everyone else is wrong. The customer will answer YES anyhow so
> they make sure he has no other choice. Oy veh!
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the Windows Firewall exists solely so
> some poor schmuck with a new computer and a broadband connection
> is reasonably safe while downloading a decent firewall.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>hence there is no need to monitor OUTGOING attempts to access
>the internet as is done by more comprehensive hardware and software firewall
>products.

You guys are all missing the final point referenced in the M$ article.
Presenting _MOST_ users with a "Is <this incomprehensible thing> OK to
do?" query every 5 minutes is going to result in them saying "Yes"
all the time, which is worse than not looking at outbound traffic.

Most users can't tell the difference between the OS version and the
Office version they are running, most users can't tell the difference
between IE and OE, and having the easy 90% firewall is exactly what
they need.

Sure, we're all clever here, and know how to answer the "btwins.exe
wants internet access, OK?" question, but most users don't, and won't
thank you for asking.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"History Fan" <IHateSPAM@IREALLYHateSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:nQE%c.83759$cT6.51783@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Here is a comment from a Microsoft technician about Windows
Firewall
> and the role it should play in security. Clipped from this URL:
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117380,00.asp
>
> <<Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch
> the (Windows) firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a
> limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security
system,
> according to Microsoft.
>
> "An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David
> Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a
> compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is
> designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting
> the PC once it's been infected.
>
> If malicious code makes it past the firewall, it is the role of anti-virus
> software to protect the machine, Overton adds. Likewise, it is not the
> firewall's place to stop malicious code from sending outbound
> packets--Microsoft contends that companies should use perimeter
technologies
> to examine outbound traffic.

All exactly right so far.

> "The firewall is a management process, not a silver bullet," Overton says.
> He says Microsoft's user testing showed that asking users to approve every
> application trying to communicate with the Internet tends to backfire.
>
> "If you flood the user with messages like that, they say 'yes' all the
> time," he says.>>

Exactly right.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
news:10jtsisbcap7red@corp.supernews.com...
> I believe Dell has some note on their site suggesting flashing the BIOS,
but
> it doesn't say it's necessary- perhaps they feel this is one way to get
some
> people to do it. I would think that updates to the BIOS have more to do
with
> rare and seldom seen bugs, nothing that should impede an OS upgrade,
unless
> those bugs were very serious and in that case they should be describe as
> recalls.

No, always flash the latest BIOS. The first thing that'll come up if one
ever has a problem or contacts TS will be do you have the latest...and that
includes the mobo's BIOS. Avoid flashing in the middle of a problem and
stay ahead of the curve and always flash the latest BIOS just like always
update to the latest device drivers etc....just like MS is strongly pushing
folks to turn on Automatic Updates. The industry has changed; the latest
is the BEST and SAFEST. Ignore the old foggers' outdated advice.

> Joe Zorzin
>
>
> "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> news:1pSdnZXOEsHPeKHcRVn-og@scnresearch.com...
> > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> writes:
> > >Sometime soon I suppose I'll install SP2. I saw some discussion here
that
> > >Dell suggests updating your BIOS first, but I'm not inclined to do
that-
> > >unless Dell says that the service pack update will definitely not work
> > >without it.
> >
> > There was an announcement from Dell that said somehow a rumor got
started
> > that updating the bios was needed in Dell machines before installing
SP2.
> > The announcement said they didn't know how this rumor got started but it
> > was not necessary.
> >
> > You should search for that an confirm it, rather than accepting just any
> > old wild raving off the net, just to make sure I haven't made a mistake.
> >
> > >I have a 2 year old 8200 which so far works just fine.
> >
> > >When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall, disable
> my
> > >McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else? As far as
> > >peripherals, I have an ancient but dependable HP 4p laser printer, an
HP
> > >DeskJet 970Cse printer and an HP scanjet 4570C scanner- and no exotic
> > >software, mostly I use Office and little else.
> >
> > >Oh, I haven't yet installed any anti spyware software, but I'll do that
> > >first too.
> > >--
> > >*************
> > >Joe Zorzin
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
news:10jtt39du4atbf6@corp.supernews.com...
> How do I find out which CPU I have- it's an 8200 from July of '02. Runs
> great.

That's not a Prescott.

Run this:
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/sb/CS-007623.htm
and it'll tell you what CPU.

> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:FS7%c.319892$OB3.156558@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> > news:1pSdnZXOEsHPeKHcRVn-og@scnresearch.com...
> > > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> writes:
> > > >Sometime soon I suppose I'll install SP2. I saw some discussion here
> that
> > > >Dell suggests updating your BIOS first, but I'm not inclined to do
> that-
> > > >unless Dell says that the service pack update will definitely not
work
> > > >without it.
> > >
> > > There was an announcement from Dell that said somehow a rumor got
> started
> > > that updating the bios was needed in Dell machines before installing
> SP2.
> >
> > It's likely true but ONLY if one has a Prescott, Celeron D or Extreme
> > Edition CPU.
> > Update the BIOS anyway.
> >
> > > The announcement said they didn't know how this rumor got started but
it
> > > was not necessary.
> > >
> > > You should search for that an confirm it, rather than accepting just
any
> > > old wild raving off the net, just to make sure I haven't made a
mistake.
> > >
> > > >I have a 2 year old 8200 which so far works just fine.
> > >
> > > >When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall,
disable
> > my
> > > >McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else? As far as
> > > >peripherals, I have an ancient but dependable HP 4p laser printer, an
> HP
> > > >DeskJet 970Cse printer and an HP scanjet 4570C scanner- and no exotic
> > > >software, mostly I use Office and little else.
> > >
> > > >Oh, I haven't yet installed any anti spyware software, but I'll do
that
> > > >first too.
> > > >--
> > > >*************
> > > >Joe Zorzin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:lJJ%c.330626$OB3.210905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
> news:10jtt39du4atbf6@corp.supernews.com...
> > How do I find out which CPU I have- it's an 8200 from July of '02. Runs
> > great.
>
> That's not a Prescott.



OK




>
> Run this:
> http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/sb/CS-007623.htm
> and it'll tell you what CPU.



hmmm.... I'll do that- It's described as a processor frequency utility. I
know that the chip is 2.3 gigawhatever. And, that utility will give the name
of the CPU? Cool- I'll do it now.

I see below that, apparently, Dell says the Prescott is one of the critical
ones needing the BIOS flashing.


>
> > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:FS7%c.319892$OB3.156558@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1pSdnZXOEsHPeKHcRVn-og@scnresearch.com...
> > > > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> writes:
> > > > >Sometime soon I suppose I'll install SP2. I saw some discussion
here
> > that
> > > > >Dell suggests updating your BIOS first, but I'm not inclined to do
> > that-
> > > > >unless Dell says that the service pack update will definitely not
> work
> > > > >without it.
> > > >
> > > > There was an announcement from Dell that said somehow a rumor got
> > started
> > > > that updating the bios was needed in Dell machines before installing
> > SP2.
> > >
> > > It's likely true but ONLY if one has a Prescott, Celeron D or Extreme
> > > Edition CPU.
> > > Update the BIOS anyway.
> > >
> > > > The announcement said they didn't know how this rumor got started
but
> it
> > > > was not necessary.
> > > >
> > > > You should search for that an confirm it, rather than accepting just
> any
> > > > old wild raving off the net, just to make sure I haven't made a
> mistake.
> > > >
> > > > >I have a 2 year old 8200 which so far works just fine.
> > > >
> > > > >When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall,
> disable
> > > my
> > > > >McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else? As far
as
> > > > >peripherals, I have an ancient but dependable HP 4p laser printer,
an
> > HP
> > > > >DeskJet 970Cse printer and an HP scanjet 4570C scanner- and no
exotic
> > > > >software, mostly I use Office and little else.
> > > >
> > > > >Oh, I haven't yet installed any anti spyware software, but I'll do
> that
> > > > >first too.
> > > > >--
> > > > >*************
> > > > >Joe Zorzin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

OK, I downloaded and ran that program from Intel which says my CPU is 2.26
Ghz and with a 533 Mhz bus.

Ergo, it's a Prescot, as I don't see any name listed? Ergo I must flash the
BIOS. (according to some people here- I do like the diversity of opinions)
Before I do anything, I'll call Dell in the middle of the night.

--
*************
Joe Zorzin


"Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
news:10juufctmdspc0@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:lJJ%c.330626$OB3.210905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
> > news:10jtt39du4atbf6@corp.supernews.com...
> > > How do I find out which CPU I have- it's an 8200 from July of '02.
Runs
> > > great.
> >
> > That's not a Prescott.
>
>
>
> OK
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Run this:
> >
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/sb/CS-007623.htm
> > and it'll tell you what CPU.
>
>
>
> hmmm.... I'll do that- It's described as a processor frequency utility. I
> know that the chip is 2.3 gigawhatever. And, that utility will give the
name
> of the CPU? Cool- I'll do it now.
>
> I see below that, apparently, Dell says the Prescott is one of the
critical
> ones needing the BIOS flashing.
>
>
> >
> > > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:FS7%c.319892$OB3.156558@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1pSdnZXOEsHPeKHcRVn-og@scnresearch.com...
> > > > > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> writes:
> > > > > >Sometime soon I suppose I'll install SP2. I saw some discussion
> here
> > > that
> > > > > >Dell suggests updating your BIOS first, but I'm not inclined to
do
> > > that-
> > > > > >unless Dell says that the service pack update will definitely not
> > work
> > > > > >without it.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was an announcement from Dell that said somehow a rumor got
> > > started
> > > > > that updating the bios was needed in Dell machines before
installing
> > > SP2.
> > > >
> > > > It's likely true but ONLY if one has a Prescott, Celeron D or
Extreme
> > > > Edition CPU.
> > > > Update the BIOS anyway.
> > > >
> > > > > The announcement said they didn't know how this rumor got started
> but
> > it
> > > > > was not necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should search for that an confirm it, rather than accepting
just
> > any
> > > > > old wild raving off the net, just to make sure I haven't made a
> > mistake.
> > > > >
> > > > > >I have a 2 year old 8200 which so far works just fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall,
> > disable
> > > > my
> > > > > >McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else? As
far
> as
> > > > > >peripherals, I have an ancient but dependable HP 4p laser
printer,
> an
> > > HP
> > > > > >DeskJet 970Cse printer and an HP scanjet 4570C scanner- and no
> exotic
> > > > > >software, mostly I use Office and little else.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Oh, I haven't yet installed any anti spyware software, but I'll
do
> > that
> > > > > >first too.
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >*************
> > > > > >Joe Zorzin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKJ%c.2129$DF3.985@roc.nntpserver.com...
> "As far as I'm concerned, the Windows Firewall exists solely so some poor
> schmuck with a new computer and a broadband connection is reasonably safe
> while downloading a decent firewall."

Clueless.

> That's exactly why it exists - what's your problem? And if that "poor
> schmuck" doesn't know what a firewall is, let alone where to download one,
> at least they've got something in between them and the big bad Internet.
> Sure, Microsoft can be arrogant - but this ain't an example.

A great example of careful design and a good choice by MS. Use SP2's
firewall + good virus checker and a good adware checker and one is good to
go. Nothing else is needed except to keep Automatic Updates ON!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
news:10juvl1f4o8kffd@corp.supernews.com...
> OK, I downloaded and ran that program from Intel which says my CPU is 2.26
> Ghz and with a 533 Mhz bus.
>
> Ergo, it's a Prescot,

NOT a Prescott.

>as I don't see any name listed? Ergo I must flash the
> BIOS.

Not needed for SP2 specifically BUT DO IT ANYWAY<g>.

> (according to some people here- I do like the diversity of opinions)
> Before I do anything, I'll call Dell in the middle of the night.
>
> --
> *************
> Joe Zorzin
>
>
> "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
> news:10juufctmdspc0@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:lJJ%c.330626$OB3.210905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> wrote in message
> > > news:10jtt39du4atbf6@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > How do I find out which CPU I have- it's an 8200 from July of '02.
> Runs
> > > > great.
> > >
> > > That's not a Prescott.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Run this:
> > >
> http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/sb/CS-007623.htm
> > > and it'll tell you what CPU.
> >
> >
> >
> > hmmm.... I'll do that- It's described as a processor frequency utility.
I
> > know that the chip is 2.3 gigawhatever. And, that utility will give the
> name
> > of the CPU? Cool- I'll do it now.
> >
> > I see below that, apparently, Dell says the Prescott is one of the
> critical
> > ones needing the BIOS flashing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:FS7%c.319892$OB3.156558@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1pSdnZXOEsHPeKHcRVn-og@scnresearch.com...
> > > > > > "Joe Zorzin" <abc@xyz> writes:
> > > > > > >Sometime soon I suppose I'll install SP2. I saw some discussion
> > here
> > > > that
> > > > > > >Dell suggests updating your BIOS first, but I'm not inclined to
> do
> > > > that-
> > > > > > >unless Dell says that the service pack update will definitely
not
> > > work
> > > > > > >without it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was an announcement from Dell that said somehow a rumor
got
> > > > started
> > > > > > that updating the bios was needed in Dell machines before
> installing
> > > > SP2.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's likely true but ONLY if one has a Prescott, Celeron D or
> Extreme
> > > > > Edition CPU.
> > > > > Update the BIOS anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The announcement said they didn't know how this rumor got
started
> > but
> > > it
> > > > > > was not necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should search for that an confirm it, rather than accepting
> just
> > > any
> > > > > > old wild raving off the net, just to make sure I haven't made a
> > > mistake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I have a 2 year old 8200 which so far works just fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >When I do it, I presume I should turn off the Windows firewall,
> > > disable
> > > > > my
> > > > > > >McAfee AV. Maybe also do a scandisk, defrag- anything else? As
> far
> > as
> > > > > > >peripherals, I have an ancient but dependable HP 4p laser
> printer,
> > an
> > > > HP
> > > > > > >DeskJet 970Cse printer and an HP scanjet 4570C scanner- and no
> > exotic
> > > > > > >software, mostly I use Office and little else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Oh, I haven't yet installed any anti spyware software, but I'll
> do
> > > that
> > > > > > >first too.
> > > > > > >--
> > > > > > >*************
> > > > > > >Joe Zorzin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> OK, I downloaded and ran that program from Intel which says my CPU is 2.26
> Ghz and with a 533 Mhz bus.

I`m a little confused by all this myself - brand new Dell 2400 2.6Ghz
celery, 400Mhz bus 128k secondary cache, cpu type 0 family F model 2
stepping 9 revision 17

Sounds like this machine might be a little more "crippled" than I thought
(bus / cache) compared to the "slower" one listed above, unless of
course, i`m missing something spectacularly obvious (excepting the Ghz
rating)...

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba9b15b98f637db98a811@news.individual.net...
> > OK, I downloaded and ran that program from Intel which says my CPU is
2.26
> > Ghz and with a 533 Mhz bus.
>
> I`m a little confused by all this myself - brand new Dell 2400 2.6Ghz
> celery, 400Mhz bus 128k secondary cache, cpu type 0 family F model 2
> stepping 9 revision 17
>
> Sounds like this machine might be a little more "crippled" than I thought
> (bus / cache) compared to the "slower" one listed above, unless of
> course, i`m missing something spectacularly obvious (excepting the Ghz
> rating)...

That might be a Celeron D and might be subject to the SP2 issue. Flash the
latest mobo BIOS and then do SP2.

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:uoN%c.331727$OB3.286316@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ba9b15b98f637db98a811@news.individual.net...
>> > OK, I downloaded and ran that program from Intel which says my CPU is
>> > 2.26 Ghz and with a 533 Mhz bus.
>>
>> I`m a little confused by all this myself - brand new Dell 2400 2.6Ghz
>> celery, 400Mhz bus 128k secondary cache, cpu type 0 family F model 2
>> stepping 9 revision 17

> That might be a Celeron D and might be subject to the SP2 issue. Flash the
> latest mobo BIOS and then do SP2.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Celeron D has
256KB L2 and a 533 MHz FSB. A google for: Celeron D cpu-z
reveals some pages with screen caps of cpu-z tests that report
family F, model 3 for said processor. Elsewhere I read that family
F, model 3 identifies 90nm process CPU's, which also jives. IOW,
I don't think that is a Celeron D.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

No, no, no. It's not a dialog box popping up every five minutes asking the user
whether to allow an outgoing program. An intelligent firewall keeps track of
which programs have outgoing access, and also the user's preference for those
programs.

For example, the first time a dialog box pops up telling you that IE 6.0 wanted
to access the internet, you would respond to allow it to always have outgoing
access. Any time afterward you used IE 6.0, no dialog box would pop up.
However, let's say you upgraded to IE 6.1. Aha, IE 6.1 is DIFFERENT than IE
6.0, so you would be asked to give it permission to access the internet.

Now, let's consider the case of dial-a-porn.exe (apologies to all porn lovers to
be PC) trying to access the web, because somehow it got into your system, maybe
via an OCX control. Boom, up pops the dialog box telling you that
dial-a-porn.exe wants to go to the web, and you say no and never allow it to
access the web. Now dial-a-porn.exe is blocked, and more importantly, you know
that your system has been compromised, so you can take corrective action..

This is more or less the way that Zone Alarm (my preference) and Norton's
firewall work. In other words, not terribly intrusive at all for the added
security and information they provide.

Give at least some users credit for having the intelligence and the desire to
know that their system is behaving incorrectly. Most of the clients I deal with
fall into that category, not the head-in-the-sand category. Inquisitive kids do
the most damage to a home or school computer, because they have not learned
enough to understand what is going on and are easily lured by free offers and
other sugar-coated enticements... Ben Myers

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:34:18 -0400, William P.N. Smith wrote:

>ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>hence there is no need to monitor OUTGOING attempts to access
>>the internet as is done by more comprehensive hardware and software firewall
>>products.
>
>You guys are all missing the final point referenced in the M$ article.
>Presenting _MOST_ users with a "Is <this incomprehensible thing> OK to
>do?" query every 5 minutes is going to result in them saying "Yes"
>all the time, which is worse than not looking at outbound traffic.
>
>Most users can't tell the difference between the OS version and the
>Office version they are running, most users can't tell the difference
>between IE and OE, and having the easy 90% firewall is exactly what
>they need.
>
>Sure, we're all clever here, and know how to answer the "btwins.exe
>wants internet access, OK?" question, but most users don't, and won't
>thank you for asking.
>

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message news:413fafba.47828964@news.charter.net...
> No, no, no. It's not a dialog box popping up every five minutes asking the user
> whether to allow an outgoing program. []

It is when you are writing networking apps. Well, OK, I usually
don't build/run every 5 minutes, but you know what I mean. I
don't know if any of the enhanced firewalls provide a simple
means of temporarily disabling outgoing checks, and then resuming
without having to reapprove previously trusted apps. Have you
encountered such a feature?

> Give at least some users credit for having the intelligence and the desire to
> know that their system is behaving incorrectly. Most of the clients I deal with
> fall into that category, not the head-in-the-sand category.

Do most of your clients fall into the "typical home user" category?
Do you think they would pass tests such as:

InternetExplorer.exe is trying to access the Internet... allow?
WindowsUpdate.exe is trying to access the Internet... allow?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>For example, the first time a dialog box pops up telling you that IE 6.0 wanted
>to access the internet, you would respond to allow it to always have outgoing
>access.

Two problems here. First, it doesn't ask if IE 6.0 (or Internet
Explorer, or anything else recognizable by name to the average user)
wants access, it asks if IEXPLORE.EXE can have access (if it's not
asking about something really incomprehensible, like wisptis.exe).

Secondly, by telling the firewall that Internet Explorer can do
anything it wants on the internet, you are leaving yourself open for
the next bit of malware that overflows a buffer or hands the OS
something that looks and feels like a music file to the browser, but
which the OS knows is a .SCR (and knows just how to handle).

Most users (not you and me, and everyone here, but common ordinary
people) can't properly parse the question "Is it OK to do this?" for
all values of "this" that a firewall is going to ask them. It's only
going to annoy them to the point where they _always_ say yes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
news:se5vj0tqmtpvkf7psnad8k8l9jqclrup1p@4ax.com...
> ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
> >hence there is no need to monitor OUTGOING attempts to access
> >the internet as is done by more comprehensive hardware and software
firewall
> >products.
>
> You guys are all missing the final point referenced in the M$ article.
> Presenting _MOST_ users with a "Is <this incomprehensible thing> OK to
> do?" query every 5 minutes is going to result in them saying "Yes"
> all the time, which is worse than not looking at outbound traffic.

YES and much more.

> Most users can't tell the difference between the OS version and the
> Office version they are running, most users can't tell the difference
> between IE and OE, and having the easy 90% firewall is exactly what
> they need.

And with a good virus checker and spyware checkers and Automatic Updates
enabled the SP2 firewall is much closer to a 100% firewall.

> Sure, we're all clever here, and know how to answer the "btwins.exe
> wants internet access, OK?" question, but most users don't, and won't
> thank you for asking.

YES!