troubleshooting

[desh]

My new WinXP Pro computer seems to lose its internet connection entirely if the connection is completely idle for too long. There was a helpful option in the hardware manager to tell the network adapter to go to sleep if it's idle for too long; I disabled that, but it didn't help. The only workaround I have is rebooting; logging out of Windows and back in doesn't help. (At least, I don't think it does, if I remember from last time; I can't test it this time, since logging back in seems to be hanging the computer. Whoever said XP Pro got the bugginess out was lying.)

Now it could be a problem with my crappy crappy router. (Don't buy D-Link!) In fact, that seems likely, because I can successfully ping my other local computer. But does anyone know of anything else it might be? Known issues with ZoneAlarm, XP Pro SP1, or ethernet adapters onboard NVIDIA mobos?

Edit: Apparently it's DNS that stops working! I can get to Google by its IP address, but not by "google.com". I'm totally confused now. Ideas?

Edit 2, ~6:15pm EDT: What timing. Now my cable modem is entirely non-functional, and Comcast has a message on their tech support line that there are widespread problems. Yippee. This dialup is painful.

Comments

[myq.livejournal.com]

obligatory OSX comment.

[desh]

Or any computer that comes with all the hard work already done for you. This is a learning experience!

(Though if it's a problem with my router, then there's no reason to think an OSX computer would fare any better.)

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

Of course, with a Mac you would easily be able to rule out your computer as the point-of-failure - because Apple has full monopolistic control over the hardware and drivers, ensuring that more often than not the Mac is working fine. Additionally, the system interface is a hell of a lot more logical and easy to use than that of Windows (at least in my experience with them both). Of course, it doesn't come cheap...

--Jeff

[chincotaco.livejournal.com]

Macs used to be ridiculously expensive, but not anymore. Not on the low-end systems, and certainly not on the high-end ones. Just a quick comparison:

Apple eMac (entry-level computer):

• 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 (w/standard G4 Altivec)


• Mac OS X 10.3


• 1-year limited warranty


• 256MB RAM


• 40GB hard drive


• Keyboard and optical mouse


• Combo drive

$799

Dell Dimension 3000:

• 3GHz P4 w/hyperthreading (to match the Altivec)


• Windows XP Pro (needed Pro to match standard OS X features: multiple languages, encrypting file system, access control, multiple processor support, etc)


• 1-year limited warranty


• 256MB RAM


• 40GB hard drive


• Keyboard & optical mouse


• Combo drive

$757

That's a $42 Apple premium. Not exactly a huge difference, and the difference decreases as you move to higher-end machines as well... Plus, you don't ever need to deal with Windows!

[flyinbutrs.livejournal.com]

G4 is 1.25 ghz is slower than a 3ghz p4. Hands down. Also, emac's are heinously ugly, and if you want to wait for the right deal, you can get that dell for about 600 bucks with a free LCD panel.

I'm not going to argue that OS X is anything but awesome, but please... PC's are still way cheaper, not at all harder to use, much more expandable, and have far more available software.

Also, neither of those computers is going to perform well with only 256 megs of RAM.

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

Well, you're right about the RAM being paltry, PC hardware being cheaper in general, and the dearth of software available for Mac... but "not at all harder to use"? What planet are YOU from? The whole selling point of OS X is that even the dumbest user can use the thing - just plug it in and turn it on. Windows' claims of Plug-and-Play still have yet to be fully realized, and might never fully be so because of the problem of 3rd party hardware and non-standard drivers (which is what makes the hardware cheaper anyway). My point is only that while PCs are cheaper and faster (faster per dollar, at the very least), first time users would be much better off spending the extra hundred dollars and getting an entry level Mac that won't confuse the hell out of them. PCs really do need to be administrated by moderate to advanced users only.

--Jeff

[desh]

Agreed, with the caveat that absolute beginners can't admin either one. My aunt called me a few weeks ago, asking me to help her pick out and buy a computer, since her old one is REALLY old. Since she doesn't know much or do any power computing, I told her to just go to the Mac store and ask them what to get. They ended up selling her a Mini Mac and a 3rd-party flat panel monitor. They were incredibly helpful, of course, and it was the best machine for her, of course, but she still needed them to come and set it up and teach her how to use it.

So it's a relatively small segment of people who can set up and run a Mac themselves, but not a Windows computer. Of course, it's not just that segment that should be buying Macs. I'm certainly not as anti-Mac as I was a few years ago, but I'm still not as pro-Mac as I was in 1994.

[flyinbutrs.livejournal.com]

I'm from earth, where entry level people don't care about plug and play, or anything that's going on behind the scenes. What they care about is "can I find my files easily, can I check my e-mail, can I browse the web, and can I write papers". For those features, out of the box, a windows PC is every bit as usable and stable as a mac. The mac is certainly shinier, and a prettier computer to look at, but functionally, it's the same for entry level people.

In my opinion, Mac's advantage has totally flip flopped from where it started. It's doesn't have a clear stability or useability advantage for the basic computer user, but for the power user, OS X blows XP out of the water, for no other reason than being based on *nix. Having a nice, slick GUI thrown on top of a bash shell is enough to make me want to lay out the cash to buy one. Almost.