thanatoid, ye folly-fallen whoreson senseless villain, thou art opposite
to humanity, ye advocated:

> Hi again gang,
> ===>>> I know I can be really boring so feel free to skip ahead
> to ===[[**||**]]===
> For a variety of largely invalid reasons, I am now using my
> bought-used 2GHz Compaq EVO D510 SFF for the internet and I have
> a 512kbps ADSL connection. The 11+ yr. old 166MHz is still
> functional, but I was not about to try to make it run with
> ADSL... I have copied everything to this machine, it's nice not
> to have to burn CD-RW's all the time (that's how I used to
> transfer DL'd internet stuff to this faster machine for "further
> processing").
> I plan to make the 166 an old gaming machine - even though I
> never play games. But I am running out of things to occupy
> myself with... And I DL'd ALL the Atari 2600 games ever made
> that someone posted in a.b.w.i.old a year or two ago, the WHOLE
> set, all versions, just crazy. And the Stella emulator works
> great and 166MHz is a good speed for that stuff. And I have some
> other old DOS/95 games that should work nicely on the 166.
> Anyway... You know me... Once I start blabbing... Sorry.
> "While I was at it" (sounds a little like "famous last
> words...", huh?) I thought I'd add a graphics card and some
> memory... The machine only had 256MB RAM and BION ran both 98SE
> Lite /and/ XP Pro beautifully - using about the same amt. of RAM
> - UNTIL I put in the network drivers and hooked up ADSL. Then it
> started using over 100MB more than before, sometimes bringing me
> down to 20MB or so. I don't know why, or if it matters.
> I deleted XP after 2 weeks of playing with it - there was
> nothing there for me, although I may install it again in the
> future - and thanks again to all who helped me with that
> daunting task - especially the fixing of the MBR afterwards!
> Also thanks to the people who helped me with my "will a crummy
> 175W PSU be enough for an AGP4x card" - the minor research I
> conducted around that time led me to buy 1 1GB stick instead of
> 2 512MB ones since it seems 'A' stick of RAM uses 8-10W of power
> regardless of capacity, so I thought I'd be saving a few watts
> AND getting more RAM. Nothing like a twofer - if the info I read
> is true.
> So I'm running 98SE Lite, like I have been for 4 years or so.
> I changed the max cache size to 512MB as instructed by various
> sites, and no problem. I think the new 1GB of memory is OK
> because I have not gotten a single BSOD or any weird behavior
> since I installed it. I tried running memtest86 and ramprobe -
> but for some reason the computer does not recognize the data on
> the disks when I try to boot from them. The program authors - as
> many of you know - tell you nothing will show in DOS or Windows,
> but they say it DOES work - well, it does not on this machine.
> Memtest86 DID run once on the 166, but only once. The second
> time I tried it, nothing - but I was really messing around at
> the time and a lot of things were getting weird, so I didn't
> have time to worry about it much.
> ===[[**||**]]===
> (I /tried/ to make this short - I swear!)
> There is ONE weird thing that is happening. When I boot up, it
> shows about 800 MB of RAM, and then it progressively decreases,
> usually down to about 300-400MB after a few hours. That's fine
> and that's not the weird part - at least I /hope/ there is
> nothing weird about it. (Win98SE Lite but MaxFileCache=524288
> for those who didn't read the stuff above.)
> I use (and have been for ages) Iarsn's TaskInfo 2000 to tell me
> what's going on and to kill stuff that refuses to die.
> To occasionally check connections, even though my firewall works
> fine and tells me what they are as well, I /used/ to use
> Windows' netstat, then I started using NetStatViewer which came
> with the trial version of some program which I can't remember
> the name of and deleted but kept that particular module and it
> works fine by itself. Then I found something called cports by
> nirsoft ( It works
> very nicely even on 98SE (doesn't show the processes as it does
> on XP, but whatever).
> After a week or so of using it I happened to open TaskInfo as I
> usually do a few times a day, and saw that cports was running
> and using about 95% of processor time.
> {It /may/ be worth mentioning that I use a tiny free utility > called

Rain which - supposedly - gives the processor nothing to > do all the
time (or something like that) to keep it cooler - and > IT usually shows
about 95% processor use but that's the way it > works. It may be
completely unnecessary, but I have been using > it for years and it has
never caused any problems.}
> I also saw that cports could /not/ be killed by "terminate
> process" in TaskInfo.
> It kind of freaked me out and I Googled for it being malware. A
> serious site said it was 100% OK and one of those sites that
> appear to try to scare you into buying their "I'll protect you
> from everything" program said it was malware and listed about 20
> nasty things it could do.
> Just in case, I stopped using it. It was basically a waste of
> time anyway.
> Well, today a similar thing happened, with a program I have been
> using for ages, OffByOne, a tiny browser. I opened TaskInfo and
> saw OffByOne (which I had closed hours ago) was /supposedly/
> still running, /and/ using 95% of processor time! 'Rain' was
> squished down to a lowly .15% or something! AND I could NOT kill
> OffByOne! I unzipped and ran "ProcessViewer" which I happen to
> have - I was going to compare it to TaskInfo2000 but never got
> around to it - and IT could not kill OffByOne /either/! - BUT
> /additionally/ told me the program was "not responding" to the
> kill command.
> The firewall and NetStatViewer showed NO connection by the OB1
> browser. Everything was working fine and had I not opened
> TaskInfo I would have had NO clue this was even going on.
> OB1 only died when I turned the computer off - obviously. I
> /imagine/ it would have been the same with cports. I /KNOW/ OB1
> is not malware and it has NEVER misbehaved - it's ONE exe file!
> Now I am also pretty sure cports is not malware - there is
> simply something weird going on.
> The question is WHAT the heck is going on with these random
> internet (only these 2 so far, but both internet-related)
> programs getting "stuck" and eating all the processor time (that
> only shows up in process viewers - everything runs fine and
> nothing crashes or slows down etc.) and refusing to DIE to boot!
> (No pun intended.)
> Is something going on with the memory or my setup of it? Or is
> something /else/ going on?
> Does anyone have an idea? It would be MOST appreciated. I HATE
> mysteries.
> (BTW, I have NO idea how to Google for this, or I would have - I
> usually do before darkening your screens...)
> Thank

Physician, heal thyself.

> t.
> --
> "May you live in interesting times."
> (curse, origin disputed)

"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007, August 2008.
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Official owner
and trainer of Bucky Breeder, August 2008.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 2439'47.13"S, 1344'20.18"E

Join me for dinner. I'm cooking cloying doberman carcinoma and
tortoiseshell cat rectum sauce with feculent musk ox canker and mongoose
giblet sauce, simmered in a steaming pannikin filled with spicy leftover
veal and cooked tomato in diseased corn broth, a side of beagle prostate
and a glass of hot wood rat serum.