Tech: Open thread

2010-08-25 10:24:07

#4551

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Winston_Churchill wrote:
I dont know what that means

localhost:22 ? Because FF says thats blocked.

Also, anyone ever tried this? http://www.bitvise.com/tunnelier
Its supposed to be just like putty but with an auto-reconnect feature which is pretty useful.

127.0.0.1:22

Should direct the traffic from your SSH connection through your browser, putting you straight into the server you are connected to.

I used to do it all the time. It's been a while, so there might be some additional config to do that I've forgotten, but I don't see what you'd need to do, unless it's a firewall issue.

2010-08-25 15:26:26

#4552

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6752|Toronto | Canada

Bertster7 wrote:
Winston_Churchill wrote:
I dont know what that means

localhost:22 ? Because FF says thats blocked.

Also, anyone ever tried this? http://www.bitvise.com/tunnelier
Its supposed to be just like putty but with an auto-reconnect feature which is pretty useful.
127.0.0.1:22

Should direct the traffic from your SSH connection through your browser, putting you straight into the server you are connected to.

I used to do it all the time. It's been a while, so there might be some additional config to do that I've forgotten, but I don't see what you'd need to do, unless it's a firewall issue.

Just gives me a blank page.

"This webpage is not available.

The webpage at http://127.0.0.1:22/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

2010-08-25 16:30:34

#4553

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Winston_Churchill wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Winston_Churchill wrote:
I dont know what that means

localhost:22 ? Because FF says thats blocked.

Also, anyone ever tried this? http://www.bitvise.com/tunnelier
Its supposed to be just like putty but with an auto-reconnect feature which is pretty useful.
127.0.0.1:22

Should direct the traffic from your SSH connection through your browser, putting you straight into the server you are connected to.

I used to do it all the time. It's been a while, so there might be some additional config to do that I've forgotten, but I don't see what you'd need to do, unless it's a firewall issue.
Just gives me a blank page.

"This webpage is not available.

The webpage at http://127.0.0.1:22/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

Oops - no sorry, the port you use there will be whatever port your tunnel is on.

22 is the port the ssh connection will be on, you need to specify another port for your tunnel and that's the port to connect to in your browser.

2010-08-25 16:44:14

#4554

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6752|Toronto | Canada

I had kinda guessed that, but it still gives me the same error

2010-08-26 03:17:24

#4555

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6162|'straya

GTX 460 1GB worth the upgrade from a HD4870 1GB... or should I just wait a while for newer cards/lower prices??

2010-08-26 04:55:37

#4556

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

going to upgrade my old vista install to win7 now... and hopefully keep all my files

wish me luck!

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 04:59:12

#4557

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Winston_Churchill wrote:
I had kinda guessed that, but it still gives me the same error

Checked firewall?

2010-08-26 08:14:13

#4558

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6752|Toronto | Canada

No firewall. Even if I did have one it shouldnt do anything since I can connect through the tunnel if I change the FF settings manually, right?

2010-08-26 09:44:40

#4559

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

fucking windows7 is STILL updating FIVE hours later...

OSX does this shit in like 15 minutes, on a laptop with 1/2 the specs...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 09:57:27

#4560

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6641|UK

Something must've gone wrong ... updating doesn't take any more than 10 minutes for me, usually. Even with a low spec PC it shouldn't take all that long at all. Downloading the updates is the bit that actually takes time for me, I suppose. If anything.

2010-08-26 09:59:07

#4561

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

liquidat0r wrote:
Something must've gone wrong ... updating doesn't take any more than 10 minutes for me, usually. Even with a low spec PC it shouldn't take all that long at all. Downloading the updates is the bit that actually takes time for me, I suppose. If anything.

read my post three posts up, MORAN.

updating as in, updating from windows vista -> windows 7.

the similar OSX operation takes like 15 minutes, including the restart.

the windows install takes about 3 restarts and 5 hours worth of 'identifying and preparing' files to be copied/preserved.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 10:00:39

#4562

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6641|UK

Oh, I see. Didn't realise you had posted before, didn't read any of the rest of the recent posts.

When we upgraded my brother's laptop from vista to 7 it took about 30mins.

2010-08-26 10:02:35

#4563

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6663

Uzique wrote:
liquidat0r wrote:
Something must've gone wrong ... updating doesn't take any more than 10 minutes for me, usually. Even with a low spec PC it shouldn't take all that long at all. Downloading the updates is the bit that actually takes time for me, I suppose. If anything.
read my post three posts up, MORAN.

updating as in, updating from windows vista -> windows 7.

the similar OSX operation takes like 15 minutes, including the restart.

the windows install takes about 3 restarts and 5 hours worth of 'identifying and preparing' files to be copied/preserved.

Something's wrong with it then, it's quick to install. XP used to take maybe 40 mins to install and 7 is a lot quicker than that, I'd guess maybe 20-25 minutes?

2010-08-26 11:01:18

#4564

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Uzique wrote:
liquidat0r wrote:
Something must've gone wrong ... updating doesn't take any more than 10 minutes for me, usually. Even with a low spec PC it shouldn't take all that long at all. Downloading the updates is the bit that actually takes time for me, I suppose. If anything.
read my post three posts up, MORAN.

updating as in, updating from windows vista -> windows 7.

the similar OSX operation takes like 15 minutes, including the restart.

the windows install takes about 3 restarts and 5 hours worth of 'identifying and preparing' files to be copied/preserved.

No it doesn't.

It takes around 40 minutes + restart (for 10.6 - 10.5 is a bit longer). Of course hard drive speed and image delivery method do play a part, but from a DVD it's about 40 minutes.

But yeah, Windows installs take lots longer - but that's because they do much more stuff.

ghettoperson wrote:
Something's wrong with it then, it's quick to install. XP used to take maybe 40 mins to install and 7 is a lot quicker than that, I'd guess maybe 20-25 minutes?

For a clean install, you are absolutely right. When upgrading, it takes much longer. OSX does a very good job of archiving the previous installs and being quick about it.

If it were not for the great archive and install process it would be almost as long for OSX. If you were to run migration assistant and then do an install (which is along the same lines as what the Windows installer does) it would take a long time too.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-26 11:05:51)

2010-08-26 11:09:51

#4565

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

my only point was that OSX upgrades the OS much much faster.

windows throws a shit-fit and takes aaages. there's really no reason. it does all this special 'identifying files to be saved during upgrade' stuff. OSX upgrades the OS and keeps all the files, no big deal. i just didn't understand why it was taking so much longer. ive upgraded both systems recently (to snow leopard on mac) with 250gb of media on both partition-drives... OSX blitzed in it speed.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 11:13:06

#4566

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6755|FUCK UBISOFT

hmm. I've got poseidon's computer all sorted out, it boots, all the lights come on, all the fans turn, etc. However, I'm not getting anything on my monitor. I've tried swapping monitors and DVI cables, but nothing has helped as of yet.

Specs:
C2D e8400
8800GTX
4gb DDR2 ram
80gb Hard Drive
Some wireless card
Some soundblaster card
750 Watt PSU (I think)

2010-08-26 11:13:21

#4567

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Uzique wrote:
my only point was that OSX upgrades the OS much much faster.

windows throws a shit-fit and takes aaages. there's really no reason. it does all this special 'identifying files to be saved during upgrade' stuff. OSX upgrades the OS and keeps all the files, no big deal. i just didn't understand why it was taking so much longer. ive upgraded both systems recently (to snow leopard on mac) with 250gb of media on both partition-drives... OSX blitzed in it speed.

It's because it doesn't have to do much with it.

From a security perspective the Windows way of doing it is about a bazillion times better (but from a usability standpoint, it's shite).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-26 11:13:46)

2010-08-26 11:19:01

#4568

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

what exactly takes 4 extra hours to add 'security' things to a 250Gb music collection?

and what 'security' vulnerability is there for all that data in the first place?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 11:28:51

#4569

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Uzique wrote:
what exactly takes 4 extra hours to add 'security' things to a 250Gb music collection?

and what 'security' vulnerability is there for all that data in the first place?

It's to do with the way the files are stored. On a Mac they just leave them all where they are. You can't do that with a Windows install. It's like having to migrate all the files to a new hard drive, except you're having to do it on the same drive, which makes it even slower.

2010-08-26 11:32:23

#4570

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6755|FUCK UBISOFT

Miggle wrote:
hmm. I've got poseidon's computer all sorted out, it boots, all the lights come on, all the fans turn, etc. However, I'm not getting anything on my monitor. I've tried swapping monitors and DVI cables, but nothing has helped as of yet.

Specs:
C2D e8400
8800GTX
4gb DDR2 ram
80gb Hard Drive
Some wireless card
Some soundblaster card
750 Watt PSU (I think)

I've even swapped the video card out, and it still isn't working.

2010-08-26 11:34:18

#4571

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

perhaps it took 5 hours because it was putting that fucking annoying USER ACCOUNT CONTROL fucking WANK on EVERY SINGLE MP3 FILE so that every time i want to open one song it says NEE-NAW NEE-NAW NEE-NAW ALERT ALERT ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO OPEN THIS POTENTIALLY SYSTEM-CHANGING FILE ALERT ALERT

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 11:34:38

#4572

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6595|SE London

Is anyone here an expert on troubleshooting Cisco VPN Client connectivity issues?

I've been banging my head against a wall all day in discussions with an IT manager in Poland who doesn't understand what a log file is. When I started having to send him screenshots with big arrows pointing to enable logging buttons, I thought it was time to call it a day. Now I need to write him some super comprehensive documentation so he goes away and I never have to have any more contact with him.

2010-08-26 11:35:47

#4573

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6634|Mhz

Uzique wrote:
perhaps it took 5 hours because it was putting that fucking annoying USER ACCOUNT CONTROL fucking WANK on EVERY SINGLE MP3 FILE so that every time i want to open one song it says NEE-NAW NEE-NAW NEE-NAW ALERT ALERT ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO OPEN THIS POTENTIALLY SYSTEM-CHANGING FILE ALERT ALERT

Thought about turning it off maybe?

2010-08-26 11:36:53

#4574

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6484

yeah i did immediately.

i see no change in performance or functionality over vista so far... anyone have any links or explanations as to why i just wasted a day doing that upgrade? if i wanted a pretty taskbar i'd switch to my macbook, which they seemed to have copied pretty damn well.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-26 11:43:49

#4575

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6663

Struck me as being a little snappier, but that's probably the placebo effect.

BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Uzique wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Uzique wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer