Recommended Posts

If you are receiving any 4226 errors in your event log I would definitely patch it.

586194710[/snapback]

These kind of statements drive me nuts. You shouldn't just run out and grab the patch. Handing information like that on a tech board is just giving newbies bad advise.

You should FIRST investigate where the problem is coming from. It could be a program your using but it could also be a virus. If it is a virus you shouldn't patch and go on with your merry life.

If it is a Virus then 4226 errors are the least of your worries. I'm not worried about getting infected are you? I keep my system patched, have updated AV and a firewall. All my clients have the same thing. There is nothing dangerous about this patch, stop trying to imply that there is.

The patch really does nothing to help your p2p downloads. I investigated it myself and honestly, this is a lot of fuss for nothing. You can do everything you wanted just fine. At least this is the case for me.

Yes it will still work but initial server queries can be slower when you initiate a search. It all depends on the P2P client. Most of them have resume features that can be seriously hampered by this if the computers you are connecting to are off line.

Edit... never mind I figured it out.

The patch really does nothing to help your p2p downloads. I investigated it myself and honestly, this is a lot of fuss for nothing. You can do everything you wanted just fine. At least this is the case for me.

586216708[/snapback]

Same here. Patch is pointless.

You should FIRST investigate where the problem is coming from.  It could be a program your using but it could also be a virus.  If it is a virus you shouldn't patch and go on with your merry life.

586223148[/snapback]

Exactly. The system doesn't place a "warning" in the Event Log for nothing. A warning means Windows is telling you there's something you should investigate. Windows is basically saying "this might be nothing but if there is a problem, you should fix it".

Exactly which means use the patch. Seriously, this "warning" means one of your internet applications is being hindered by the limit.

586225063[/snapback]

It does not! Do you understand TCP/IP? Do you realize that the types of connections it limits aren't... Nevermind, it seems there's no chance of proving you wrong.

It does not! Do you understand TCP/IP? Do you realize that the types of connections it limits aren't... Nevermind, it seems there's no chance of proving you wrong.

I just explained this. Say you are trying to resume 100 seperate downloads (usually from multiple sources). If most of them are offline it will take you alot longer to resume or even show they are offline because you have to wait for it to do only 10 (that are not responding) at a time.

Edited by Mastertech

Sounds like a little something called a placebo to me. Also sounds like someone trying to make a name for themselves. :whistle:

Currently unpatched, running bittorrent as I post this, and I'm getting download rates of in excess of 250 KB/s. I have tcp/ip errors in my event log, and I could care less. I'm not too terribly concerned about half-open connections being dropped. Every P2P application I've used works just peachy.

Why exactly is Mastertech so adamant about people patching this non-issue, exactly?

Simple I don't want any limit hindering my internet connection in any way and that includes limiting half-open connections. This has nothing to do with download rates so please stop bringing that up. I also want people aware that this in no way improves YOUR security.

BTW the people installing this patch are not the problem, it is the average user who doesn't even know about Neowin, which are already patched if they have SP2. So it is a non issue. And for anyone concerned about my "advice" which includes nothing short of installing ALL Windows Security updates, running a firewall and an UPDATED Antivirus program they can relax.

Other than P2P download rates, can you give me a scenario where your internet connection is "hindered" by limiting half-open connections? What other type of usage would require that many active connection attempts in that short period of time, that would be adversely affected by being queued?

Why don't you just answer my question? You're incredibly vague with your responses and reasoning behind the neccessity for this "patch", other than "if you have errors in your event viewer then I recommend you patch" or "if you run any sort of fileserving software", with no regards whatsoever to recommending to anyone that they should first attempt to find out what application is causing the error, and determining if the software in question even needs this "patch". I think you drastically overestimate the knowledge level of the individuals that peruse this site and will blindly patch thinking it will speed up their kazaa.

Edited by mugwhump

I didn't bother to read all your replies because they seem to be nothing more than half-assed advice such as;

If you are receiving any 4226 errors in your event log I would definitely patch it.

Which is blatanty stupid without first recommending to the person that they attempt to at least discover what application they are using that is creating these errors. It's like taking your car to a mechanic to get an engine knock diagnosed and having them want to immediately sell you a new engine without opening the hood. I've asked what applications or scenarios would cause this error, and you tell me to backtrack your responses. I see several times you say that this won't effect download speeds in P2P applications, but you're giving the advice to people having errors from running P2P applications. It simply doesn't make sense, and you seem hell-bent on hammering home that this patch is the best thing since sliced bread, when for the vast majority of users out there, it's completely wortheless. Nothing more than a shoddy placebo. You seem to care far more about this issue since you've consistently argued it's validity for going on 16 pages now, and I'm just curious as to WHY you care so much?

I could honestly care less if people patch or not, but I also must admit I don't enjoy people that might not know better being scammed.

The patch can improve search and resume speeds. Not the speed at which it downloads the resumed file but the speed at which it restablishes the connection or tells you the source is not available, if you have over ten sources, which is quite common with P2P. I will have to check exactly which P2P applications but I have seen them put limits to below ten for simultaneous connection attempts. With this patch you can increase that.

Here is how it can actually improve speeds indirectly. Say you have a P2P app attempting to find a file or resume a download, if you can connect to the source before someone else, you download the file and are not qued on their end. The more sources you download from the faster the download. Placebo my ass.

The fact I am making such a big deal out of this is certain people are trying to scare others into not patching based on false security concerns. The patch does nothing to improve YOUR security.

The fact I am making such a big deal out of this is certain people are trying to scare others into not patching based on false security concerns. The patch does nothing to improve YOUR security.

586226145[/snapback]

How about I'm trying to tell people that hex-editing files is a bad idea because you're never really sure what you're changing; and if you make a wrong change, you won't know what could/will happen.

This thread reminds me of a soap opera.

Everyone has different opinions on the TCP/IP patch. If someone wants to use it, then let them. It's up to the user to decide what to do. If the user thinks their connection has improved with the patch, then let them think that. Do I use the patch? No. But, I also don't use P2P programs.

No point in wasting Neowin's hard drive space on a discussion which is obviously going nowhere.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • That reminds me. Now that i have Quest 3 I should go back and try the first one in VR. ... last time i did that I tried it in some janky VR setup which was still really good.
    • It's amazing that anyone still uses this bloated trash.
    • @Sayan...I have defended you at various points as I hope you know. This headline however is utter trash...shame on you sir!
    • An actual cosmic "Eye of Sauron" had been looking straight at us all along by Sayan Sen Image by Kovin P. Vasquez via Pexels | Not representative An international team of researchers has solved a long-standing mystery surrounding a distant blazar known as PKS 1424+240, helping explain why it produces some of the brightest high-energy gamma rays and cosmic neutrinos ever observed despite appearing to have a relatively slow-moving jet. The findings were published on June 6 in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. The study addresses a broader challenge in astrophysics: understanding how extreme cosmic objects accelerate particles to very high energies and produce very high-energy (VHE) photons and neutrinos. PKS 1424+240 is located billions of light-years from Earth. It has attracted attention for years because it is both a powerful source of VHE gamma rays and the brightest known neutrino-emitting blazar in the sky, according to observations by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. It is also associated with one of the strongest peaks in IceCube's nine-year neutrino sky map A blazar is a type of active galactic nucleus powered by a supermassive black hole that pulls in surrounding matter and launches jets of plasma moving close to the speed of light. What makes blazars unique is their orientation. One of their jets points almost directly toward Earth, making them appear exceptionally bright across the electromagnetic spectrum and allowing scientists to study some of the most extreme physical processes in the Universe. The scientists exclaimed it's like the 'Eye of Sauron' in deep space. Usually, the brightest gamma-ray-emitting blazars are expected to have jets that appear to move very quickly. However, radio observations of PKS 1424+240 suggested that its jet was moving much more slowly, creating a contradiction that became part of a long-running problem known as the "Doppler factor crisis." To investigate, researchers analyzed 15 years of observations from the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), a network of 10 radio antennas spread across the continental United States, Hawaii and St. Croix. Using a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), astronomers combine signals from widely separated radio telescopes to create a virtual Earth-sized telescope capable of revealing extremely fine details. The team combined 42 polarization-sensitive radio images collected between 2009 and 2025, creating a much deeper and more detailed view of the jet than had previously been possible. The observations were carried out as part of MOJAVE (Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments), a long-running program that studies the brightness, polarization and magnetic field structures of jets produced by active galaxies. The project aims to better understand how activity near supermassive black holes is linked to high-energy radiation and neutrino emission. “When we reconstructed the image, it looked absolutely stunning,” said Yuri Kovalev, lead author of the study and Principal Investigator of the European Research Council-funded MuSES project at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “We have never seen anything quite like it — a near-perfect toroidal magnetic field with a jet, pointing straight at us.” The image revealed an unusual geometry. The researchers found that Earth lies almost directly in line with the jet, with a viewing angle of less than 0.6 degrees. In simple terms, astronomers are looking almost straight down the jet. This turned out to be the key to the mystery. Because the jet is aimed almost directly at Earth, a relativistic effect called Doppler boosting dramatically increases its apparent brightness. The study found that this effect boosts the emission by a factor of about 30 while also making the jet appear slower than it actually is. “This alignment causes a boost in brightness by a factor of 30 or more,” said Jack Livingston, a co-author at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “At the same time, the jet appears to move slowly due to projection effects — a classic optical illusion.” The nearly head-on view also gave scientists a rare look at the jet's magnetic field. Using polarized radio signals, they detected a clear toroidal, or doughnut-shaped, magnetic field component. The observations suggest the jet carries an electric current and that its magnetic field helps launch, shape and stabilize the flow of plasma. Researchers believe this magnetic structure may also play a key role in accelerating particles to energies high enough to produce both gamma rays and neutrinos. “Solving this puzzle confirms that active galactic nuclei with supermassive black holes are not only powerful accelerators of electrons, but also of protons — the origin of the observed high-energy neutrinos,” Kovalev said. The research was conducted under the MuSES (Multi-messenger Studies of Energetic Sources) project, which investigates how active galactic nuclei accelerate particles and generate different cosmic signals, including light and neutrinos. Scientists say understanding how protons are accelerated and linked to neutrino production remains one of the major unanswered questions in astrophysics. The findings help explain why some blazars can appear to have slow jets while still producing extremely bright high-energy emissions. More broadly, the study strengthens the link between relativistic jets, magnetic fields, gamma rays and high-energy neutrinos. Researchers say the results provide new clues about how some of the Universe's most powerful natural particle accelerators work and offer important insights for multimessenger astronomy, which combines different types of cosmic signals to study extreme events in space. Source: European Research Council, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      510
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      273
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!