Just wondering, but when did you become a well informed expert on HOSTS files? MVPS.org is only trying to get you into using their HOSTS file. Since when is that information accurate?
Note The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated.
The DNS Client service optimizes the performance of DNS name resolution by storing previously resolved names in memory. If the DNS Client service is turned off, the computer can still resolve DNS names by using the network's DNS servers.
When the Windows resolver receives a positive or negative response to a query, it adds that positive or negative response to its cache, and as a result, creates a DNS resource record. The resolver always checks the cache before querying any DNS server. If a DNS resource record is in the cache, the resolver uses the record from the cache instead of querying a server. This behavior expedites queries and decreases network traffic for DNS queries.
You can use the Ipconfig tool to view and to flush the DNS resolver cache. To view the DNS resolver cache, type ipconfig /displaydns at a command prompt. Ipconfig displays the contents of the DNS resolver cache, including the DNS resource records that are preloaded from the Hosts file and any recently queried names that were resolved by the system. After a certain time period, the resolver discards the record from the cache. The time period is specified in the Time to Live (TTL) associated with the DNS resource record. You can also flush the cache manually. After you flush the cache, the computer must query DNS servers again for any DNS resource records previously resolved by the computer. To delete the entries in the DNS resolver cache, type ipconfig /flushdns at a command prompt.
Again, leave the service alone and don't mess with a HOSTS file unless you absolutely have to block a few things.
Just wondering, but when did you become a well informed expert on HOSTS files? MVPS.org is only trying to get you into using their HOSTS file. Since when is that information accurate?
i think for my purposes having FireFox and Adblock Plus with the Filter G is good enough. if i need to visit a questionable website i'll visit McAfee's SiteAdvisor first and type in the URL just to check it out.
Just wondering, but when did you become a well informed expert on HOSTS files? MVPS.org is only trying to get you into using their HOSTS file. Since when is that information accurate?
I actually did quite a bit of research on the topic before I started that topic back in april.
Every major trustworthy site I went to endorsed the idea of using the host to block malicious sites/ads/hijackers ect.
Some good links(the bleeping computer one is the most informative)
Its not like this all isnt easily reversible anyway. I have been using it for a few months now and dont even notice it(except when I go to IE and all the ads are gone ). Use it or not thats ultimately the users choice but the general consensus from a security stand point is that its another easy layer of protection.
i think for my purposes having FireFox and Adblock Plus with the Filter G is good enough. if i need to visit a questionable website i'll visit McAfee's SiteAdvisor first and type in the URL just to check it out.
Site advisor is another great security program that dosen't tax your pcs rescources. The only thing I wish it did was not let the browser load red sites without you clicking a confirm button or something, nothing like knowing when its too late. Its all good though as long as you google the sites before you go to them and see its recomendation before going to the site.
i never downloaded Site Advisor it self..i just visit their home page when needed and enter whatever URL into the search block thingy.
also i heard that if you actualy have it installed it phones home to McAfee with every web site that you visit. to me thats just too much into my business.
I've been blocking sites via the HOSTS file for at least six years now and haven't noticed any ill effects. Also in disabling the WinXP DNS Client Service I have not noticed any ill effects either.
However I suppose since MS has an article about it someone could notice some effect, albeit I haven't - but then again I'm on dial-up which is slow anyways.
The service should turn itself on when needed if set to manual right?
Though I've not found any definitive information on when exactly that service will turn itself on. I'll see about testing this on my VPC to see when and if the service turns on.
I actually did quite a bit of research on the topic before I started that topic back in april.
Every major trustworthy site I went to endorsed the idea of using the host to block malicious sites/ads/hijackers ect.
Some good links(the bleeping computer one is the most informative)
Its not like this all isnt easily reversible anyway. I have been using it for a few months now and dont even notice it(except when I go to IE and all the ads are gone ). Use it or not thats ultimately the users choice but the general consensus from a security stand point is that its another easy layer of protection.
Yet none of those linked sources give you firm, official information. GRC is a joke (he always has been for his mis-information), Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed true as so many users can edit it. It's already been said by Microsoft that it will slow down your computer. If people were smart, they'd read it from the source, Microsoft; and then know what to or not to do. And it's quite clear when Microsoft says overall performance decreases and increases network traffic. That says in plain english that two things to slow down your computer will happen. So, how is that a good thing? It's not.
I've been blocking sites via the HOSTS file for at least six years now and haven't noticed any ill effects. Also in disabling the WinXP DNS Client Service I have not noticed any ill effects either.
However I suppose since MS has an article about it someone could notice some effect, albeit I haven't - but then again I'm on dial-up which is slow anyways.
You may wish to try setting the DNS Client service back to Automatic and see if there are any increases in your speeds.
You may wish to try setting the DNS Client service back to Automatic and see if there are any increases in your speeds.
Here's some stats for you - this is not an argument of who's right or wrong, it's just what I encountered doing things the "Microsoft way":
1. I set the DNS Client to Automatic, followed by a reboot. Then I noticed no websites whatsoever would load no matter what browser I tried (IE, Firefox, Opera).
2. I set it back to Manual, and then tried to reboot however I got a pop-up dialog noting that the Service wasn't responding. I had to end task it in order to reboot.
3. Now with it set to Manual, and after a reboot websites load in all browsers again. This is of no surprise to me since MVPS and hpHOSTS both say to disable DNS Client with a large HOSTS file.
Did you remove or clear out the HOSTS file when you attempted this?
No, and why would I?
I had a large HOSTS file long before I even set DNS Client to manual as suggested by MVPS however it didn't exceed the supposed filesize limit on WinXP. Now it does however exceed the filesize limit because I'm using my HOSTS file, the MVPS HOSTS file, and the hpHOSTS HOSTS file.
Then how can you determine the accuracy of your test when you still had your own settings there?
You said you were trying things the Microsoft way; then you should have purged your HOSTS file. You may even want to try doing a ipconfig /dnsflush to see if there are any changes.
Why would anyone disable the DNS Client? So that every time you visit a site it has to re-request the IP address? That is extra network traffic for no reason.
Setting it to Manual would almost be the same thing as setting it to Automatic, as the instant a program wants to find an IP address, it will turn itself on. I figure most people browse the web, check their email, or connect to instant messaging networks and crap as soon as their system is loaded anyway, so why bother putting DNS Client on-demand?
Setting it to Manual would almost be the same thing as setting it to Automatic, as the instant a program wants to find an IP address, it will turn itself on. I figure most people browse the web, check their email, or connect to instant messaging networks and crap as soon as their system is loaded anyway, so why bother putting DNS Client on-demand?
Thank you, this solves the question.
The whole point of disableing the service was to keep from experiencing slowdown from using a large host file. And if setting it to manual will stop the slow down and let it start up when needed then what I thought all along was right.
But if you set it to manual, it will start the instant a program requests an IP lookup (edit: a lookup that isn't present in HOSTS), so that is nearly the same thing as setting it to Automatic, and will help you with nothing. edit: you'd need to put a line for each site you plan on visiting, with the current IP of the site, to prevent normal browsing from starting the service. As soon as you sign on to MSN, AIM, check your email, or browse a site, DNS client (while set to manual) will start right up (edit: providing that there is no HOSTS line for it). You'd have to put a hell of a lot of IPs in your HOSTS file to prevent casual browsing from starting the client.
In short. This thread ended up being pointless. LMAO
HOST files suggest that you set the service to "manual", not "disabled". While set on manual the service will be started anyway. Therefore, whether the service is set to auto, or manual...the service will be on if you connect to the internet.