Post Reply 
How are you starting Proxo under Windows XP?
Aug. 06, 2004, 03:26 PM
Post: #1
 
In the past I've run proxo on a W2K laptop with a single user. I just bought a
new computer that is running XP Pro and will be shared by me and my girlfriend.
I notice that XP has this concept of "switching" users which W2K doesn't have.
What is the best way to run Proxo under XP so that multiple users can use it, and
only one copy of Proxo is running? I used to just put Proxo into my startup directory so it runs when I log in, but if I do this for both user accounts, i think
this could result in multiple copies of Proxo running at the same time. I suppose
it should be run as a service, but is that possible?
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 06, 2004, 03:40 PM
Post: #2
 
I reverted back to Win2K a while ago, but in XP i tested FireDaemon as a "service shell" for Proxomitron, and it worked nicely!
The free variant of the XP version only allows for hosting a single program tho. No Expression

sidki
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 06, 2004, 04:23 PM
Post: #3
 
I just made a shortcut to Proxomitron, dragged it over to my start menu, program files, start-up folder.

My computer has only 1 user, which is me Eyes Closed Smile

But another way is to add it to the Userinit.bat file.

I have modified Phant0m's Look'n'Stop start-up installer for Proxomitron Hail
Visit this user's website
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 07, 2004, 01:08 AM
Post: #4
 
pooms;

The simplest method is to assign the Proxo shortcut to the "All Users" start-up folder. But MS would rather see you use a groups/permissions scenario, for better security. I'm confident that you know how to set this up, but if anyone else has any questions about how to do this, fire away. Big Teeth


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 07, 2004, 04:29 PM
Post: #5
 
You guys might find Netrun interesting. I use it to startup my needed progs (including Proxo) when going online..
cheers.. Wink

How long is a minute?
Depends on which side of the bathroom door you are...
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 09, 2004, 11:10 PM
Post: #6
 
sidki3003 Wrote:I reverted back to Win2K a while ago, but in XP i tested FireDaemon as a "service shell" for Proxomitron, and it worked nicely!
The free variant of the XP version only allows for hosting a single program tho. No Expression

sidki
Thanks Sidki, that might be what I end up using.

Oddysey: If I put it into the All Users startup folder, then each user would be starting their own copy of Proxo when they log on. Because you aren't forced to log out in XP before another user is logged on, then you'd have more than once copy of Proxo running. That will be a problem, because both of them would be trying to listen to port 8080 and accessing the same configuration files at the same time.
Maybe I could install Proxo into multiple directories and have each user run a copy
out of their own Proxo installation directory, listening on different ports, but
I'd rather use the same proxo configuration for all users (I'm the proxo tweaker, my girlfriend wouldn't want to learn how to configure it).

Of course XP SP2 is going to have a firewall and pop-up blocker, so maybe I
won't need Proxo on that machine [rolleyes]
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 10, 2004, 01:34 AM
Post: #7
 
pooms;
Quote:Oddysey: If I put it into the All Users startup folder, then each user would be starting their own copy of Proxo when they log on. Because you aren't forced to log out in XP before another user is logged on, then you'd have more than once copy of Proxo running. That will be a problem, because both of them would be trying to listen to port 8080 and accessing the same configuration files at the same time.
According to my sources, each logged on user, active or in the background, gets their own copy of the environment, including all of the ports and addresses. In theory, no user's proggies can interfere with another user's proggies or data. The active user's environment is effectively the master environment, and any background user's environment is mapped to some random area of memory/ports for the duration of inactivity. This allows background d/l's, print jobs, etc. to execute, even when the active user has been switched over to someone else.

Makes sense to me. After all, NT-class OS's have always been multi-tasking, multi-user OS's anyway. If you think about it, all that Fast User Switching really does is allow the local console to imitate several remote workstations. For years, users who logged in remotely have been able to access various parts of the OS environment (usually without fail). Ditto for any local users where Fast User Switching is enabled. But you could revert to single-user local mode by simply disabling Fast User Switching, thus forcing the system to load proggies for only one user at a time. The trade-off is slower logging times, both off and on, but the value of one versus the other is up to you.

As I see it, your options are:
A> let proxo load once (preferably in a group with permissions set just for Proxo), and all users have to use the same config set;
B> let each user run Proxo with their own config sets;
C> disable Fast User Switching; or
D> use 3rd party software.

[PUNT] The ball's back in your court. :o

Quote:Of course XP SP2 is going to have a firewall and pop-up blocker, so maybe I won't need Proxo on that machine [rolleyes]
Don't hold your breath there, bunky! In order to be half as good as Proxo, MS would have had to finagle the code from Scott (or as we now know, his estate). Even then, they'd find some way to muck it up, and come out with a crippled version equivalent to Naoko 2.0! Getting rid of Proxo is like going down to First Avenue, and handing your wallet to the first wino you see. Before you can hop a bus back home, your ID will be so "pwned".... You get my drift. Wink Stay the course, my man, you'll sleep better for it, I'm sure. Smile!


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 10, 2004, 05:21 PM
Post: #8
 
hmmm, i think i'm going to turn off that fast user switching until I understand it better. I haven't found anything yet that clearly describes what happens with ports.
I suppose I could test it to find out what actually happens.

BTW, I was being sarcastic about XP SP2 Smile! that's what the smiley with the rolling eyes was supposed to convey. If (when) I install SP2, I'll probably turn off the windows firewall and pop-up stopper.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Aug. 10, 2004, 06:01 PM
Post: #9
 
pooms;

Sorry if I came across as ascerbic, I really didn't catch the sarcasm, but at least I did think you were being funny - does that count? Wink I was just carrying on the joke a bit further, with a factoid or two, that's all.

As for Fast User Switching (FUS)..... The following description is something I read in a book, and at that, I've seen it only once. I haven't seen anything about it on-line, sorry to say.

In essense, the theory goes like this:

In a multi-user system, all logged-on users are treated equally, as if they we the sole operators of the machine. As a user requests resources from the machine, the OS doles them out. Obviously, when more than one user requests the same resource, such requests will have to be dealt with in a non-intrusive (and non-destructive) manner. The usual scheme is to map resources to different areas of memory and port ranges, and report to the user that his/her request has been fulfilled as expected. The OS takes care of all the gory details in the background.

Flash forward to Windows XP. The FUS scheme merely modifies the shell interface, extending the capabilities of the local console. This allows said console to view each user's session as if it were a remote machine. Start several such sessions, and you are telling the OS nothing new - "Multiple users? No problem." The added-on interface to view these sessions at the local console is supposed to do nothing to the underlying structure of re-mapping the resources, etc.

Now that all makes sense to me, but as you know, I gave up on phone-home-ware a long time ago. I'm not the one to be bragging about how such-and-such a feature is cool, or that it works as advertised, etc. I'm only repeating what I've heard, and not what I know from first hand experience. The other usual caveats apply, too. :P

Short and sweet of it, disable the FUS for just the two of you. Unless the ensuing delays due to fully logging off and back on are intolerable, then this is the way I'd go. The KISS principle, in glorious action! [lol]



Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: