One of the first things you might want to do is upgrade to 6.2.16 as it fixes a couple of things related to Vista.

Otherwise if you have 5.10.45 it has proven fairly stable. If you do not still have it, you my might look here Download BOINC client software

If you ask a moderator to move this thread to Number crunching you'll get a better response from active posters...

and you'll get the help to diagnose your errors....

oops .. yea I wasnt thinking there. Thanks

Regards

Pappa

One of the first things you might want to do is upgrade to 6.2.16 as it fixes a couple of things related to Vista.

Otherwise if you have 5.10.45 it has proven fairly stable. If you do not still have it, you my might look here Download BOINC client software

If you ask a moderator to move this thread to Number crunching you'll get a better response from active posters...

and you'll get the help to diagnose your errors....

oops .. yea I wasnt thinking there. Thanks

Regards

Pappa

If you ask a moderator to move this thread to Number crunching you'll get a better response from active posters...

and you'll get the help to diagnose your errors....

I just updated myself,....on both xp & VIsta (2 machines)

XP running fine expected.


Boinc 6.2.14 on Vista is running ok... but continues to be blocked and etc.;.. but runs fine when done manually.

It seemd just fine previously Vista wise...
Now however, after the install, It contributed to some lockups that forced be to cntrl-alt-del kill it... and remove it from startup.

Previously some thoughts were to run it as a service?

I wonder what the problems are now?

I assume I a missing something?

Which install option did you use? Did you allow it to migrate the data to a separate folder outside program files directory?

If its slugish on your setup, then you probably dont have it configed or optimized or cleaned up.

With 512MB of memory, just running a couple of programmes results in memory being paged to the swap file if you run a 3rd, making the others slow to respond when they run again. With 1GB it takes quite a few programmes (or a pig of one) for that to occur.

Logfile of HijackThis v1.99.1
Scan saved at 05:17:01, on 8/06/2006
Platform: Windows XP SP2 (WinNT 5.01.2600)
MSIE: Internet Explorer v6.00 SP2 (6.00.2900.2180)

Running processes:
E:\\WINDOWS\\System32\\smss.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\winlogon.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\services.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\lsass.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\svchost.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\System32\\svchost.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\spoolsv.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\nvsvc32.exe
E:\\Program Files\\OPTI-SAFE\\UPSMON_Service.Exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\Explorer.EXE
E:\\Program Files\\OPTI-SAFE\\UPSMON.exe
E:\\Program Files\\Microsoft IntelliPoint\\point32.exe
E:\\FreeWX\\FreeWX.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\System32\\svchost.exe
E:\\Program Files\\OPTI-SAFE\\UPSInt.exe
E:\\NIST Time\\nistime-32bit.exe
E:\\Program Files\\BOINC\\boincmgr.exe
E:\\Program Files\\BOINC\\boinc.exe
E:\\WINDOWS\\system32\\svchost.exe
E:\\Program Files\\SiSoftware\\SiSoftware Sandra Lite 2007\\RpcSandraSrv.exe
E:\\Program Files\\BOINC\\projects\\setiathome.berkeley.edu\\setiathome_5.15_windows_intelx86.exe
E:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\iexplore.exe
E:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\iexplore.exe
E:\\DOCUME~1\\Grant\\LOCALS~1\\Temp\\Temporary Directory 1 for hijackthis.zip\\HijackThis.exe

R0 - HKCU\\Software\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\Main,Start Page = http://members.ozemail.com.au/~gjpearce/mypage/
O2 - BHO: AcroIEHlprObj Class - {06849E9F-C8D7-4D59-B87D-784B7D6BE0B3} - E:\\Program Files\\Adobe\\Acrobat 5.0\\Reader\\ActiveX\\AcroIEHelper.ocx
O4 - HKLM\\..\\Run: [UPSMON] E:\\Program Files\\OPTI-SAFE\\UPSMON.exe
O4 - HKLM\\..\\Run: [IntelliPoint] "E:\\Program Files\\Microsoft IntelliPoint\\point32.exe"
O4 - Startup: FreeWX 2.04.lnk = E:\\FreeWX\\FreeWX.exe
O9 - Extra button: (no name) - {08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608501} - E:\\Program Files\\Java\\jre1.5.0_04\\bin\\npjpi150_04.dll
O9 - Extra 'Tools' menuitem: Sun Java Console - {08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608501} - E:\\Program Files\\Java\\jre1.5.0_04\\bin\\npjpi150_04.dll
O12 - Plugin for .spop: E:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\Plugins\\NPDocBox.dll
O17 - HKLM\\System\\CCS\\Services\\Tcpip\\..\\{4D097467-B8DF-4E2F-A60F-97E087974A1E}: NameServer = 203.0.178.191
O17 - HKLM\\System\\CS1\\Services\\Tcpip\\..\\{4D097467-B8DF-4E2F-A60F-97E087974A1E}: NameServer = 203.0.178.191
O17 - HKLM\\System\\CS2\\Services\\Tcpip\\..\\{4D097467-B8DF-4E2F-A60F-97E087974A1E}: NameServer = 203.0.178.191
O23 - Service: Sandra Data Service (SandraDataSrv) - SiSoftware - E:\\Program Files\\SiSoftware\\SiSoftware Sandra Lite 2007\\Win32\\RpcDataSrv.exe
O23 - Service: Sandra Service (SandraTheSrv) - SiSoftware - E:\\Program Files\\SiSoftware\\SiSoftware Sandra Lite 2007\\RpcSandraSrv.exe
O23 - Service: UPSMONService - Unknown owner - E:\\Program Files\\OPTI-SAFE\\UPSMON_Service.Exe
I reckon my system is pretty tidy & reasonably optimised.

Yes, which is WHY backing up PERSONALLY created data in documents, code you write, correspondence, contact lists, saved games, etc./et all (you-name-it) is SO very important!

It's the stuff that potentially, you can NEVER recreate the exact same 110% again imo & cannot just "reinstall" it like you can some program (well, if you have good backup? Then YES, you can!).

I usually do backup as well, and it doesn't hurt to have some of your important stuff on CD.

OR, a decent REAL-MODE OS based type of recovery tool would be in order, imo @ least... that way, NO need for doing things as YOU cite, & no need to worry about your GHOST'd type images being infested/infected, either...

That sounds good. And the OS maker should provide such a tool as standard. Just as they should provide most if not all the security software, only fully integrated within the system. Okay, it's more simpler said than done.

&, like I said before him here, from outta the UNIX world in fact.

Then the credit is yours for mentioning it. But I have known about rootkits for a long time.

Barring "user ignorance" (like opening email attachments from others you don't know for example), it shouldn't be.

That's probably one of the best things one can do to protect themselves. Email is the easiest way that the really bad stuff (worms/trojans) get on a computer/network. For single users, a firewall that blocks exploitable service ports along with an anitvirus program is enough. But even doing or having all of the above won't give you complete security because malicious files and scripts can still get on a computer through a browser while surfing the internet.

E.G.-> By FORCING users to operate in "less than Administrative privelege mode", technically (if you don't suck in & use a bogus program or fall victim to some app that is remotely exploitable), you SHOULD be fine & even if you did open some 'bogus/hostile-intent' type of attachment via email, or some program you d/l'd is 'loaded', you shouldn't be able to install it period if operating as less than administrator iirc.

Mmm, well, while limited user mode, or shadowing the system IS safer of course, and the administrator of a network wouldn't want too many people on that network with high privelges, I'd prefer just running at administrator level if I'm using a single computer with no network. It's just one more hassle. I used to do that in the past though.

By the same token? Don't knock it... there are a great deal of improvements forthcoming in it, even over Windows Server 2003 @ "low levels".

Hmm, I'll give vista about 90 days after its release to see if it's gonna do what microsoft says it's supposed to do for security.

None of them catch them all, none (especially signature only based detection type tools like many antivirus or IDS use)... too much to look for, even for "heuristic analysis" (behaviours based best-guess type analysis & determination of action)...

Although some antivirus programs do an excellent job of finding things when set at highest heuristic levels. But most of them are missing the spyware component.

Hey, I've always said that the "Security War" can never be really "won" & I truly believe that.

I agree.

Heh, my name too... hello "namesake"!

:)

APK

Hmm, the same name eh? That's cool. :)

For me anybody who thinks its sluggish probably doesnt do a lot with pc's except games.

I don't do games.
Email, the Net, occasionally rip & burn CDs/DVDs.
512MB is sluggish. 1GB gives much better responsivness.

Ultimately we agree that more is better.
Its basically what is the slugish point for you versus what it is for me.

I get the same responsiveness (xp pro wise) on my 650mhz at home that i get on a 512meg xp pro 2gmhz at work (IBM) and my home system is loaded down compared to the one at work.
And only in the context of having much more apps open and running might I agree that >512m is sluggish. But at home I still run a lot of stuff on that low system.

Considering the volume of what I do, I would still daresay that its not sluggish.

If its slugish on your setup, then you probably dont have it configed or optimized or cleaned up.

I know for example that using outlook in certain ways can litterly slow any setup to a crawl.



I agree more is better...but still not sluggish.

I do a lot of .net and a lot of programming an developement and its not slugish at all..
I even often do several major intensive tasks simultaniously and still no slugishness.. even at 384meg.

I do agree that more ram/hd speed is better, which is still why i am building my next system as time permits. I always recommend maxing out ram when possible.

In my own case, I did finally max out 2 of my computers to their max on ram.

Still, not even close to slugish even on less than 512m
And yes it did improve some when I increased from 384m->512m->768m
Mostly in the area of responsiveness but not enough to even say that it was related to being sluggish.

I also burn a whole lot of cd's and admittedly havent burned dvd's (dont have a dvd burner).

That socalled slugish unit is the server for 5 computers in my house..
And still does pretty good with me using it for business & developement primarily.

And yes I will be moving it out to other uses, when I replace it with better/current builds (hopefully by summer).

This one pc is the only one that is 'loaded down' with a large amt of stuff and definately isnt slugish at all.

Only in the context of comparing it to a comparibly configured faster (& more ram) pc is it even close to sluggish.

Now if we were talking 256meg or lower, I would probably totally agree.
Ive had xp pro on very low systems, and had to virtually kill a lot of options to make it work decently (often those pc's would have been better to be w2k instead, on those, w2k will actually work on very low systems just fine, though slugish).

Fact is, even now its still running faster and none slugish compared to people I know who cant seem to keep their systems clean & optimized.

Having been a:
mainframe programmer for 27 years.
pc programmer for 8 years.
pc technician (current) for 3 years.
pc config tech for 10 years.

I would still say that its only slugish on a sub-512m system if its old enough/slow enough, but being less than 512meg ram is not a slugish factor on the 100+ systems that I put xp pro on that had less than 512meg on.
And nearly all of them had no slugishness in usage or operation.

Ideally I would agree that more ram/hd/speed is always better.
I wouldnt for example want to bother with XP pro on a system that had less than 384meg if I had my choices, but it depends also on the system.

For me anybody who thinks its sluggish probably doesnt do a lot with pc's except games.

I don't do games.
Email, the Net, occasionally rip & burn CDs/DVDs.
512MB is sluggish. 1GB gives much better responsivness.

Point is, XP runs just fine with less than 512meg

Sluggish, but OK.

Here's what you should look for in hardware if you're going to upgrade to Vista:

Windows Vista Capable PC Hardware Guidelines

...as usual; don't beleive the "minimum" requirements. Example: 512 MB RAM isn't even enough for XP! Go for at least 2 GB on Vista.