Jump to content

xavier

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by xavier

  1. Ok, couple of things here: SM xenex Windows XP, Windows XP SP1 and Windows XP SP1a do not feature the same firewall as Microsoft are going to introduce with Windows XP SP2. Prior to SP2 the best Windows has to offer is the ICF - or Internet Connection Firewall, which is disabled as default and provides a minimum of protection compared to any of the mainstream offerings. Service Pack 2 features an all-new Windows firewall, with much more in the way of features and control. As standard all outbound access is blocked and it's only when you use each application or port, that Windows will intervene and prompt the user as to whether they want to allow that program access to the outside world. Conscious that even their own browser can be made to do less than pleasant things when exploited this blocking includes Internet Explorer. Behavior is much more like ZoneAlarm and as a result ZoneLabs amongst others are trying to gear up for some kind of Antitrust action against Microsoft, believing noone will need to buy their application once SP2 makes it to market. Funny how people criticise M$ for security, and when they finally DO sort it out, someone is laying in wait to sue them. The biggest problem is that it's enabled as standard, so no game or app will be able to reach the outside world without the user first granting permission. For most things that will be peachy, as it only requires a couple of clicks to allow communication, but for certain games, especially those which are prone to locking up or crashing when the user alt-tabs to desktop or the OS generates a popup, then that security prompt will leave the user unable to play online until the developers concerned fix their code. Kryptos I'd urge you to think twice before you try and act like the voice of authority on all things related to RFC standards or networking. Your jab at M$ over IPV6 support is completely inaccurate as IPV6 for XP/Windows 2000 has been available for almost 18 months now as a separate download - a part of their 'advanced networking pack'. Your comments on firewall behavior also falls well clear of the mark, if properly maintained then the only way a hacker can make it past your firewall is by a known exploit or flaw. The MTA team shouldn't need to add anything to handle the SP2 firewalll either, as it makes its network connections whilst still within the windows environment, and any user using SP2 will be prompted as to whether they wish to permit MTA to access an external address with a popup.
  2. we're given information, ahead of announcement, so that our magazine will include the latest information on the latest products and in this case we'll be on shelves within days of NVIDIAs announcement (whenever that may be )
  3. Faith No More. a mac? it's a PC for retarded people and people over 35 Green Jelly. To Watercool or Not to Watercool? I've got a new coolermaster case and waterchill kit, but should I do it, and why?
  4. dumb: somehow I doubt he does dumber: so aside from vice city - which game are you waiting for with the greatest anticipation this year?
  5. info? heh, no can do - we're under NDA with NVIDIA on any new stuff (whatever that might be ) which means I get drop-kicked into oblivion if I say anything - watch this space though, I might even give you guys your own heads-up when new stuff arrives, whatever it may be. Mind you - the NVIDIA NDAs aren't as scary as the one FutureMark had us sign for 3DMark'03 - $500,000 liability. eek!
  6. actually the claims that they'd defaulted to FX16 are incorrect. since 42.69 NVIDIA included a fix for 3DMark'03 that corrected a coding issue in 3DMark'03 which rendered the sky incorrectly. FutureMark, having only ever tested and developed their benchmark on a single DX9 board (R300) had used a piece of shader code which didn't work correctly with either NVIDIAs hardware or for that matter the Microsoft DX9 reference renderer. By the time FutureMark got the final '03 build out, they'd picked up on the bug.. but NVIDIA we're still having to use the 'h4x0r3d' driver, waiting for the 43.45 driver to make WHQL... The latest driver doesn't include the fix. Regardless of what you say.
  7. I'm a hardware journalist - they're the quickest kit available on the market so they're what my rigs need to be running. As to NV35 I can't talk about that yet heh
  8. Nonsense, a Ti 4200 is the same chip as the Ti 4600/4800 if it helps the Ti 4600 or 4800 it will help the Ti 4200 to. You are correct in saying that these drivers are especially for the Geforce FX detenator 41.09 is the last Geforce 4 optimalisation. Now watch our expensive cards die.... the latest drivers include optimisations for *Any* shader capable NVIDIA GPUs - which means GeForce 3 Ti200 right up to the FX5200/5600/5800's. the GeForce4MX doesn't have any shaders on-chip, granted, but it's capable of emulating a vertex shader in software (i.e. on CPU) - for which the latest drivers also contains optimisations.
  9. 16 bit floating point? I take it you mean 16-bits per channel? as opposed to claiming that the NV3X family actually only does 16-bits FP instead of a full 128? The hazards of talking on topics you're not entirely aware of I guess - the GeForce FX is actually more accurate than the Radeon 9500/9600/9700/9800 - ATI only does 96-bits, rounded to 128-bits at the end while NVIDIA offer a true 128-bit and intermediary 64-bit (if developers choose to use it) which has certain performance benefits (and is still an improvement over the IQ of DX8 shaders)
  10. I've got two games rigs which I also use for work (hardware journalism): Pentium 4 3066Mhz (Northwood 'b') 1Gb Corsair DDR400 ASUS P4G8X (Granite Bay) NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Pentium 4 3000Mhz (Northwood 'c') 1Gb Corsair DDR400 Intel i875PBZ Motherboard (Canterwood) ATI Radeon 9800 Sound Blaster Audigy at 1280x1024 on either things are still occasionally choppy with all the car mods and engine tweaks I've installed, but it looks the biz
×
×
  • Create New...