Spider game weirdness

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by pete, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. pete

    pete Guest

    Referring to the Microsoft "Spider" solitaire game. PC is P-III 1000,
    128meg. Intel 810E mobo, Win98, service packed and DirectXed up to date. Not
    the latest and greatest, but not totally old shit either. When starting the
    game, and dealing cards from the stack, they crawl up the screen, taking
    about 10 -15 seconds to deal the 10 cards. Also, when a suit is completed,
    it takes about the same time for them cards to move down to the bottom of
    the screen. Apart from that, the game works as expected. UNLESS I start up
    Outlook Express 6 and go online. The the cards deal (and completed suit move
    down) really fast, less than 2 seconds. The network connection is via a 3Com
    etherlink 10/100 card to a Mitel SME server, and to the net via modem from
    there.
    This is the only thing that is affected in this way, any other card games
    run fine on or off line. Any ideas?
     
    pete, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pete

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "pete" <> wrote in
    news:Rf4Jb.15349$:

    > Referring to the Microsoft "Spider" solitaire game. PC is P-III 1000,
    > 128meg. Intel 810E mobo, Win98, service packed and DirectXed up to
    > date. Not the latest and greatest, but not totally old shit either.
    > When starting the game, and dealing cards from the stack, they crawl
    > up the screen, taking about 10 -15 seconds to deal the 10 cards. Also,
    > when a suit is completed, it takes about the same time for them cards
    > to move down to the bottom of the screen. Apart from that, the game
    > works as expected. UNLESS I start up Outlook Express 6 and go online.
    > The the cards deal (and completed suit move down) really fast, less
    > than 2 seconds. The network connection is via a 3Com etherlink 10/100
    > card to a Mitel SME server, and to the net via modem from there.
    > This is the only thing that is affected in this way, any other card
    > games run fine on or off line. Any ideas?
    >
    >
    >

    Sounds like a virus or trojaned version of solitaire. Run a full scan,
    do you have a firewall? Is Spider trying to access the internet?
    You said it is faster when you have OE open and are connected to the
    internet, which leads me to think it may be related. Sometimes graphics
    drivers are also an issue, are they up to date too?

    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jan 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pete

    pete Guest

    "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9465BDFB49971daveytaynospamplshot@202.20.93.13...
    > "pete" <> wrote in
    > news:Rf4Jb.15349$:
    >
    > > Referring to the Microsoft "Spider" solitaire game. PC is P-III 1000,
    > > 128meg. Intel 810E mobo, Win98, service packed and DirectXed up to
    > > date. Not the latest and greatest, but not totally old shit either.
    > > When starting the game, and dealing cards from the stack, they crawl
    > > up the screen, taking about 10 -15 seconds to deal the 10 cards. Also,
    > > when a suit is completed, it takes about the same time for them cards
    > > to move down to the bottom of the screen. Apart from that, the game
    > > works as expected. UNLESS I start up Outlook Express 6 and go online.
    > > The the cards deal (and completed suit move down) really fast, less
    > > than 2 seconds. The network connection is via a 3Com etherlink 10/100
    > > card to a Mitel SME server, and to the net via modem from there.
    > > This is the only thing that is affected in this way, any other card
    > > games run fine on or off line. Any ideas?
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Sounds like a virus or trojaned version of solitaire. Run a full scan,
    > do you have a firewall? Is Spider trying to access the internet?
    > You said it is faster when you have OE open and are connected to the
    > internet, which leads me to think it may be related. Sometimes graphics
    > drivers are also an issue, are they up to date too?
    >
    > Ciao, Dave


    While they don't claim it to be a firewall as such, SME (aka E-smith) say
    that that will do most of what a dedicated firewall does. Virus scanner is
    nortons, updated weekly. No 'net access is noted while Spider is running.
    Graphics drivers I believe are cuurent, given that the 810E chipset is
    relatively ancient and Intel prolly gave up on it yonks ago. Thanks for your
    comments, though.
     
    pete, Jan 3, 2004
    #3
  4. pete

    ~misfit~ Guest

    pete wrote:

    > Graphics drivers I believe are
    > cuurent, given that the 810E chipset is relatively ancient and Intel
    > prolly gave up on it yonks ago. Thanks for your comments, though.


    Man the 810 chipset sucks! I have a Celly 900 here and, when running it in a
    BX chipset mobo, it benchmarks 45% faster than it does in the 810. Thats
    45%!! For a later chipset. (All other hardware identical).
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 3, 2004
    #4
  5. pete

    pete Guest

    On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Path: news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail
    > From: ~misfit~ <~misfit~@his_desk.com>
    > Newsgroups: nz.comp
    > References: <Rf4Jb.15349$> <Xns9465BDFB49971daveytaynospamplshot@202.20.93.13> <Q6xJb.15561$>
    > Subject: Re: Spider game weirdness
    > Lines: 13
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    > Message-ID: <bLHJb.812$>
    > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300
    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.50.69
    > X-Complaints-To:
    > X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1073170503 219.88.50.69 (Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:55:03 NZDT)
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:55:03 NZDT
    > Organization: Xtra
    > Xref: news02.tsnz.net nz.comp:172933
    >
    > pete wrote:
    >
    >> Graphics drivers I believe are
    >> cuurent, given that the 810E chipset is relatively ancient and Intel
    >> prolly gave up on it yonks ago. Thanks for your comments, though.

    >
    > Man the 810 chipset sucks! I have a Celly 900 here and, when running it in a
    > BX chipset mobo, it benchmarks 45% faster than it does in the 810. Thats
    > 45%!! For a later chipset. (All other hardware identical).


    I had read that the BX was one of the better things Intel did. I have one
    with a P-III 500 (Slot 1) but the 810E is the only thing I have that will
    take the P-III 1g. I've never benchmarked anything and the PCs are pretty
    low priority items in the household so difficult to get an upgrade past the
    financial controller just because its faster (even 45%)
     
    pete, Jan 4, 2004
    #5
  6. pete

    Dave Taylor Guest

    pete <> wrote in
    news:1bf8d3gfdgkwm.8entj0w6h57h$:

    > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> Path:
    >> news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-m
    >> ail From: ~misfit~ <~misfit~@his_desk.com>
    >> Newsgroups: nz.comp
    >> References: <Rf4Jb.15349$>
    >> <Xns9465BDFB49971daveytaynospamplshot@202.20.93.13>
    >> <Q6xJb.15561$> Subject: Re: Spider game
    >> weirdness Lines: 13
    >> X-Priority: 3
    >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
    >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    >> Message-ID: <bLHJb.812$>
    >> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300
    >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.50.69
    >> X-Complaints-To:
    >> X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1073170503 219.88.50.69 (Sun, 04 Jan 2004
    >> 11:55:03 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:55:03 NZDT
    >> Organization: Xtra
    >> Xref: news02.tsnz.net nz.comp:172933
    >>
    >> pete wrote:
    >>
    >>> Graphics drivers I believe are
    >>> cuurent, given that the 810E chipset is relatively ancient and Intel
    >>> prolly gave up on it yonks ago. Thanks for your comments, though.

    >>
    >> Man the 810 chipset sucks! I have a Celly 900 here and, when running
    >> it in a BX chipset mobo, it benchmarks 45% faster than it does in the
    >> 810. Thats 45%!! For a later chipset. (All other hardware identical).

    >
    > I had read that the BX was one of the better things Intel did. I have
    > one with a P-III 500 (Slot 1) but the 810E is the only thing I have
    > that will take the P-III 1g. I've never benchmarked anything and the
    > PCs are pretty low priority items in the household so difficult to get
    > an upgrade past the financial controller just because its faster (even
    > 45%)


    lookee here, intel admits it has a problem with Spider and blames microsoft
    http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/intel810/sb/cs-003917-prd798.htm

    ciao, dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jan 4, 2004
    #6
  7. pete

    pete Guest

    "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9466C2A1A1F27daveytaynospamplshot@202.20.93.13...
    > pete <> wrote in
    > news:1bf8d3gfdgkwm.8entj0w6h57h$:
    >
    > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > >
    > >> Path:
    > >> news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-m
    > >> ail From: ~misfit~ <~misfit~@his_desk.com>
    > >> Newsgroups: nz.comp
    > >> References: <Rf4Jb.15349$>
    > >> <Xns9465BDFB49971daveytaynospamplshot@202.20.93.13>
    > >> <Q6xJb.15561$> Subject: Re: Spider game
    > >> weirdness Lines: 13
    > >> X-Priority: 3
    > >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
    > >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    > >> Message-ID: <bLHJb.812$>
    > >> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:57:37 +1300
    > >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.50.69
    > >> X-Complaints-To:
    > >> X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1073170503 219.88.50.69 (Sun, 04 Jan 2004
    > >> 11:55:03 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:55:03 NZDT
    > >> Organization: Xtra
    > >> Xref: news02.tsnz.net nz.comp:172933
    > >>
    > >> pete wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Graphics drivers I believe are
    > >>> cuurent, given that the 810E chipset is relatively ancient and Intel
    > >>> prolly gave up on it yonks ago. Thanks for your comments, though.
    > >>
    > >> Man the 810 chipset sucks! I have a Celly 900 here and, when running
    > >> it in a BX chipset mobo, it benchmarks 45% faster than it does in the
    > >> 810. Thats 45%!! For a later chipset. (All other hardware identical).

    > >
    > > I had read that the BX was one of the better things Intel did. I have
    > > one with a P-III 500 (Slot 1) but the 810E is the only thing I have
    > > that will take the P-III 1g. I've never benchmarked anything and the
    > > PCs are pretty low priority items in the household so difficult to get
    > > an upgrade past the financial controller just because its faster (even
    > > 45%)

    >
    > lookee here, intel admits it has a problem with Spider and blames

    microsoft
    > http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/intel810/sb/cs-003917-prd798.htm
    >
    > ciao, dave

    Thanks for that Dave. Nice to know its not a virus, trojan, worm or alien.
    Just
    a standard Microsoft f*ckup. I can live with that.
     
    pete, Jan 4, 2004
    #7
  8. On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:45:14 +1300, pete wrote:

    > While they don't claim it to be a firewall as such, SME (aka E-smith) say
    > that that will do most of what a dedicated firewall does.


    Software firewalls are as effective as a condom on a dildo.

    If you want protection, use a hardware NAT box of some description.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jan 4, 2004
    #8
  9. pete

    pete Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:44:33 +0100, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

    > On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:45:14 +1300, pete wrote:
    >
    >> While they don't claim it to be a firewall as such, SME (aka E-smith) say
    >> that that will do most of what a dedicated firewall does.

    >
    > Software firewalls are as effective as a condom on a dildo.
    >
    > If you want protection, use a hardware NAT box of some description.

    I think it is doing NAT to a degree. Connection to the 'net via dial-up, so
    that side is getting whatever IP # Paradise give it. Connection to the LAN
    is via network card, and everything on this side is getting IP# assigned
    by SME within a certain range (192.168.etc.) SME is running on a dedicated
    PC, and in all the time its been going, no bad stuff has got through (not
    that Nortons, which is updated weekly, has ever told me about, anyway)
     
    pete, Jan 5, 2004
    #9
  10. On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:59:35 +1300, pete wrote:

    >> Software firewalls are as effective as a condom on a dildo.
    >>
    >> If you want protection, use a hardware NAT box of some description.


    > I think it is doing NAT to a degree. Connection to the 'net via dial-up, so
    > that side is getting whatever IP # Paradise give it.


    But still a winbox with its ass exposed to the passing script kiddies.

    > Connection to the LAN
    > is via network card, and everything on this side is getting IP# assigned
    > by SME within a certain range (192.168.etc.)


    Check out www.smoothwall.org, it will run fine on a surplus i386 (fast
    enough for dialup) and isn't vulnerable to the usual run of Windohs
    attacks.

    There are a _large_ number of exploits and worms floating out there which
    will infect everything INSIDE the LAN once the dialup box is compromised.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jan 5, 2004
    #10
  11. pete

    harry Guest

    Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:59:35 +1300, pete wrote:
    >
    >>> Software firewalls are as effective as a condom on a dildo.
    >>>
    >>> If you want protection, use a hardware NAT box of some description.

    >
    >> I think it is doing NAT to a degree. Connection to the 'net via
    >> dial-up, so that side is getting whatever IP # Paradise give it.

    >
    > But still a winbox with its ass exposed to the passing script kiddies.


    winbox ?
    SME (e-smith) is built from Redhat and has an iptables firewall
    It is NAT, it allows options of DHCP client or static on the external
    interface and DHCP server or static on the internal interface, with the
    usual options of routing pinholes.


    >
    >> Connection to the LAN
    >> is via network card, and everything on this side is getting IP#
    >> assigned by SME within a certain range (192.168.etc.)

    >
    > Check out www.smoothwall.org, it will run fine on a surplus i386 (fast
    > enough for dialup) and isn't vulnerable to the usual run of Windohs
    > attacks.


    Heads up that old boxes may have old UARTs that are too slow for 56k modems
    Been there done that.
    For a home dialup user SME offers a lot more than Smoothwall.
    It would be better if it was Debian, but you can't have everything.
    Anyone know an e-smith type distro for debian ?
     
    harry, Jan 5, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sam@;asl.com

    Spider plugin for Firefox...?

    sam@;asl.com, Oct 10, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    11,679
    .brian.
    Oct 10, 2004
  2. philo

    funnelweb spider victim

    philo, Apr 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    501
    SgtMinor
    Apr 6, 2004
  3. Gray Ghost

    Web Crawler / Spider Commercial Software Info Request

    Gray Ghost, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    700
  4. john

    ping spider/dll file

    john, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
  5. Charles

    XP Pro Hanging up while playing Spider Sol.

    Charles, Mar 17, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    511
    Charles
    Mar 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page