Ebay (Slight Page Problem)

I have a windows 98 machine connected to the internet via a Netgear
DG834G V2 wireless router but this pc is wired to the router.

The machine downstairs is a 3.0gig pentium 4 machine with windows xp
home service pack 2 and is connected wirelessly.

The problem that i have is when i try to access the ebay.co.uk
homepage certain things from the page seem to be missing. For example
on the homepage there is a box that says 'ebay recommends' but there
is no images in that box to click on it's just an empty white box but
the rest of the page seems fine. I have tried with both browsers on
this machine, Internet explorer 6 and Netscape 7 but the same thing
happens on both browsers.

Does anyone know why this is happening on this machine? On the windows
98 machine that i have upstairs the ebay site is fine and the homepage
is loaded up correctly.

Thanks in advance

du.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:18:55 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Does anyone know why this is happening on this machine? On the windows
>98 machine that i have upstairs the ebay site is fine and the homepage
>is loaded up correctly.

try setting the MTU of the Netgear to 1500 (WAN settings ?) it may be
at something like 1458 and gives these symptoms with Ebay.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:47:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:18:55 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know why this is happening on this machine? On the windows
>>98 machine that i have upstairs the ebay site is fine and the homepage
>>is loaded up correctly.
>
>try setting the MTU of the Netgear to 1500 (WAN settings ?) it may be
>at something like 1458 and gives these symptoms with Ebay.
>
>Phil
>--
>Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
>http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali
>
>AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.


Thanks, i changed the MTU size on the router like you suggested but it
was still the same so i changed it back. If it was to do with the MTU
size do you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the
other?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:47:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:18:55 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know why this is happening on this machine? On the windows
>>98 machine that i have upstairs the ebay site is fine and the homepage
>>is loaded up correctly.
>
>try setting the MTU of the Netgear to 1500 (WAN settings ?) it may be
>at something like 1458 and gives these symptoms with Ebay.
>
>Phil
>--
>Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
>http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali
>
>AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.


Thanks, i changed the MTU size on the router to 1500 like you
suggested but it was still the same so i changed it back to the 1458
setting that it was on before. If it was to do with the MTU size do
you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:46:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> If it was to do with the MTU size do
>you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?

fragmenting packets, if one PC was set to 1458 like the router and the
other was default 1500 there would be a difference.

You did reboot it after changing it ?

Alternative strategy is setting offending PC to 1458 to match it

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:01:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:46:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> If it was to do with the MTU size do
>>you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?
>
>fragmenting packets, if one PC was set to 1458 like the router and the
>other was default 1500 there would be a difference.
>
>You did reboot it after changing it ?
>
>Alternative strategy is setting offending PC to 1458 to match it
>
>Phil
>--
>Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
>http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali
>
>AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.


Thanks for your help. I have now sorted it out, it turns out that it
was Norton internet secruity on the xp machine i have now uninstalled
it as my subscription has now ended.

du

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:01:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:46:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >> If it was to do with the MTU size do
> >>you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?
> >
> >fragmenting packets, if one PC was set to 1458 like the router and the
> >other was default 1500 there would be a difference.
> >
> >You did reboot it after changing it ?
> >
> >Alternative strategy is setting offending PC to 1458 to match it
> >
>
> Thanks for your help. I have now sorted it out, it turns out that it
> was Norton internet secruity on the xp machine i have now uninstalled
> it as my subscription has now ended.
>
I really do wonder why people run all these 'security' products on
their PCs. The number of problems that can be caused by them is
enormous and (it seems to me anyway) that the problems they prevent
are less than the problems they cause. Not to mention the difficulty
of getting things to work nowadays having to turn off all the security
bits that prevent you from doing what you want even when they're
working correctly.

FWIW we've run a small home network of MS based machines (DOS ->
Win3.1 -> Win95 -> Win2k) for the past ten years or so and have no
'extra' firewalls or virus scanners or anything like that. During
those ten years we've only had one (trivial) virus type problem which
I cleared with a specific cleaner for that virus.

Admittedly nowadays we're behind a NAT based firewall router but even
when we weren't simple sensible use of the Internet was all that was
needed.

The folks at Metronet agree with me basically, see:-
http://support.metronet.co.uk/security.html

--
Chris Green

On 25 Aug 2005 12:26:28 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:01:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:46:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> >> If it was to do with the MTU size do
>> >>you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?
>> >
>> >fragmenting packets, if one PC was set to 1458 like the router and the
>> >other was default 1500 there would be a difference.
>> >
>> >You did reboot it after changing it ?
>> >
>> >Alternative strategy is setting offending PC to 1458 to match it
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for your help. I have now sorted it out, it turns out that it
>> was Norton internet secruity on the xp machine i have now uninstalled
>> it as my subscription has now ended.
>>
>I really do wonder why people run all these 'security' products on
>their PCs. The number of problems that can be caused by them is
>enormous and (it seems to me anyway) that the problems they prevent
>are less than the problems they cause. Not to mention the difficulty
>of getting things to work nowadays having to turn off all the security
>bits that prevent you from doing what you want even when they're
>working correctly.
>
>FWIW we've run a small home network of MS based machines (DOS ->
>Win3.1 -> Win95 -> Win2k) for the past ten years or so and have no
>'extra' firewalls or virus scanners or anything like that. During
>those ten years we've only had one (trivial) virus type problem which
>I cleared with a specific cleaner for that virus.
>
>Admittedly nowadays we're behind a NAT based firewall router but even
>when we weren't simple sensible use of the Internet was all that was
>needed.
>
>The folks at Metronet agree with me basically, see:-
> http://support.metronet.co.uk/security.html
>
>--
>Chris Green
>


I agree completely, the machine i built is a family computer and
several users use it and not everyone is as familiar with the internet
so that was why i installed norton on it. I have to say i don't like
the way the software tends to take over the computer and personally i
think it hampers the enjoyment of using the computer with things like
pop up blockers stopping you from downloading a file which the user
actually requested.

du

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:26:56 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On 25 Aug 2005 12:26:28 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:01:02 +0100, Phil Thompson
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:46:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> >> If it was to do with the MTU size do
>>> >>you know why it would affect one of the computers and not the other?
>>> >
>>> >fragmenting packets, if one PC was set to 1458 like the router and the
>>> >other was default 1500 there would be a difference.
>>> >
>>> >You did reboot it after changing it ?
>>> >
>>> >Alternative strategy is setting offending PC to 1458 to match it
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help. I have now sorted it out, it turns out that it
>>> was Norton internet secruity on the xp machine i have now uninstalled
>>> it as my subscription has now ended.
>>>
>>I really do wonder why people run all these 'security' products on
>>their PCs. The number of problems that can be caused by them is
>>enormous and (it seems to me anyway) that the problems they prevent
>>are less than the problems they cause. Not to mention the difficulty
>>of getting things to work nowadays having to turn off all the security
>>bits that prevent you from doing what you want even when they're
>>working correctly.
>>
>>FWIW we've run a small home network of MS based machines (DOS ->
>>Win3.1 -> Win95 -> Win2k) for the past ten years or so and have no
>>'extra' firewalls or virus scanners or anything like that. During
>>those ten years we've only had one (trivial) virus type problem which
>>I cleared with a specific cleaner for that virus.
>>
>>Admittedly nowadays we're behind a NAT based firewall router but even
>>when we weren't simple sensible use of the Internet was all that was
>>needed.
>>
>>The folks at Metronet agree with me basically, see:-
>> http://support.metronet.co.uk/security.html
>>
>>--
>>Chris Green
>>
>
>
>I agree completely, the machine i built is a family computer and
>several users use it and not everyone is as familiar with the internet
>so that was why i installed norton on it. I have to say i don't like
>the way the software tends to take over the computer and personally i
>think it hampers the enjoyment of using the computer with things like
>pop up blockers stopping you from downloading a file which the user
>actually requested.
>
>du

Well as an IT professional I can only say that most of my work is from
users with unprotected machines. Most of my users follow my advice and
install a firewall and antivirus and never have further problems. You
must be lucky but not forever. As the software is cheaper that the
charges for cleaning the machine most customers are happy to spend £30
to protect themselves. Yes I agree that this type of software slows
the PC and can be tiresome the benefits are clear to anyone who has
suffered a hit. It is just like wearing a seat belt, one day you may
need it, then you are very grateful.