If not, he could install Win98 in a guest VM with no network card, and never need to worry about it again. Nice, that scenario would allow network access to the running VM (so users could get to the VM) but the VM host OS itself has no network connectivity at all. That would be the ideal solution provided no files or data would have to leave the machine. As a side note and probably waaaay beyond the scope here but you could have a network card attached and use netbeui and no TCP/IP on that machine and transfer files to another Windows VM running Netbeui with TCP/IP and on the network for the file transer needs. A second virtual switch inside the VM server could allow those two computers to talk to each other but machine one has no TCP/IP at all. Does a VM server host virtual switch allow netbeui? I'd assume so as they do refer to it as a "switch" but I've never tried it.
No, A VM has its own network connectivity just as a real machine. The VM host CAN supply the virtual network switch to supply that network connectivity to the VMs but that is it, as far as the VM is concerned, the OSI model still applies and the host simply provides the physical layer. You could run a software firewall on one VM and use that VM to route and provide network access to the other VMs on the same host if you wanted a one box solution. VMWare encourages and collects "user built" VM images and has links to prebuilt VMs that are for that exact purpose.
So the short answer is... Moving to a VM structure is not inherently safer or provide any additional protection then using a physical machine. You can put your OS running as VM and a software firewall running on a VM on the same VM server just as you could have two separate physical machines providing the same functionality.
This confusion was part of my point in my parent post. The author does not describe or attempt to even mention any specific instances or reference any actual interference at all. Only that there is interference and then goes on to describe different technologies that may or may not actually be causing interference then mentions web broadcasts and questions packaging of service with new cars which is not related at all. I think if the XM and Sirius local repeaters actually disrupting NPR service was noted, it would be mentioned, not just that some repeaters are exceeding a power limit. Lets be realistic. The repeaters are transmitting 24x7 at some power level. If the frequency is not the same or some strange order harmonic of NPR, the power level is not relevant at all. If so, people within a few blocks of the repeater would not be able to hear NPR even at the legal power level. I have read nothing to indicate that is the issue. As for the local FM transmitters inside the consumer receivers, that is an issue not specific to XM or Sirius, although XM and Sirius actually sell their own branded receivers, they should be responsible for any specs that exceed legal limits, just as any third party should be responsible for their products as well. These very well could disrupt any station if power was too high.
Maybe NAB does have valid issues but this authors account of the problems paints a picture that the NAB is grasping at straws and trying to fight upcoming competition using the inherent complexity and relationship between the the law, the FCC, and some lobbying.
I see nothing in the article that actually supports any claims of actual signal interference. Maybe that was not the real intent of the article but based on the author claiming interference and disruptions, something technical should have been mentioned. The only interference I see XM and Sirius causing is with the business model of the companies that NAB represents. NAB's goal seems to be to restrict the satellite broadcasters anyway they can to gain their own edge or to prevent further acceptance of satellite providers. The complaining about Howard Sterm also being simulcast via web pretty much shows that motivation.
My experience in relation to the topic.. I have a SIRIUS Sportster(TM) Replay (SP-TK2) radio and use its built in FM modulator. IMHO, it is pretty powerful and more so then my friends that has a different model. I can pick up its FM signal for at least 100ft and probably 200ft away in some environments. If I set the modulator to a local "in use" frequency, the two duke it out but normally the official radio station wins. In another car 10 ft away does not seem to get any interference from the Sirius radio (I tried this in my own driveway). Now the point is, who the hell is going to actually have the Sirius tuned to a populated frequency? That does not make sense. There is not some conspiracy going where all satellite users are trying to disrupt the local NPR frequency. Being from the DC area, there is not much choice of free stations to choose from though and I've heard other users iPods over my Sirius before at red lights. At least the Sirius radio I have allows you to choose ANY frequency in the FM band and not just a few selections down at the lower end like some of the portable modulators.
Flying cars and "fly by wire" transportation ARE possible right now and not restrained by physics or mechanics. They are not around because they are not economical. For technology to get to the masses, it has to be something of desire or benefit and be available at a resonable cost.
Who hijacked the truck, who stood to profit (or how) and who made the fake cards we don't know, but when the customer received a bunch of them, they looked smelled and felt like real cards, they just didn't work. The OS didn't even recognize them and couldn't even load the drivers. Posting Anonymously for good reason.
That crime as described does not make sense. People that hijack a truck and take the contents will get in just as much trouble as people who hijack a truck and swap out the contents. Why even bother to swap out the contents with broken stuff? Would it not be easier and make more sense to just take what is in the truck and leave nothing behind? I know criminals are not that smart all of the time but they are much less likely to make the crime much harder on themselves then it has too be. Maybe it was an "inside" job by original seller and junk cards were in the truck the whole time and the hijack story was the excuse.
They may be hurt by the lack of selling the PS3 console but how have they made money this long? They sell other products and a Sony ruling does not automatically apply to everything else they sell and there are more places then Europe to sell imports. It seems to me Lik-Sang closed shop way too fast and abruptly. I'll throw a consipracy angle out here and suggest maybe someone of bought out Lik-Sang or made a nice agreement for them to shut down ASAP. Sounds too fishy for me.
Back to the Ford reference, they thought the same thing until the early 1920's when GM started making different model cars that also came in different colors. Suddenly GM was hot and Ford was on the way out and hurting bad. All of the Ford factories were specifically tooled and configured for one model car in one color and nothing else. GM built their assembly lines so they could be adjusted for different models. Ford resisted change at first but they lost market share fairly quickly which changed their minds (but never outsold GM again). Apple has the laws they can leverage to prevent what happened to Ford. The existing laws are guiding the consumer choice for Apple. The current market for portable music is no different for the non Apple players either as the same laws limit consumer choice for them as well. Pick your poison, Fairplay or PlaysforSure. Far from a real choice huh?
I have not watered my lawn in years. I do have to water my garden though. My question is where does the excess water go if no one is using it first? I get my water from a well about 150 ft deep. If I did water my lawn daily, would it really make a difference in that well? Would my well run dry? Would a stream 20 or 200 miles away stop flowing? My big picture uneducated assumption is, for most areas of the US, water not "used" would end up back in the ocean anyway.
The vast majority of new computers sold in the market today come pre-installed with a version of Windows. It doesn't matter if you already own a windows licence, or intend to run Linux, you have to buy a new one, like it or not.
And Macs which you compared Windows too is any different? I'm sure you can buy a Mac without an OS somewhere but the same holds true about your transfer of license crap.
It sounds like you are trying to say people that buy Windows just want a computer and don't care, people that buy a Mac are doing for some other reason. That comment lacks any depth or insight at all and you are trying to take that completely bogus statement a step further to imply that Mac users are somehow an elite group. I work in IT at a large company. I field one or two questions a month from users asking if a Mac they are looking will interface and work with our "systems" at work. I leave them with a neutral impression and let them determine the advantages of using a Mac. After further questioning, they have NO idea why they really want a Mac other then a friend has one or they look good. Those are perfectly valid reasons to purchase a Mac but not the reason you are claiming about some higher form of knowledge or computer experience that these people need and has absolutely nothing to do with being the creative type you mention. In fact, the most often asked question is will I be able to run Office and use take my work home on the Mac. Well unfortunately, in our environment, we use MS Office and various applications with MANY customizations so the answer is more often then not NO. We actually discourage any work from hitting not work laptops and computers because we do have an extensive Citrix environment through and they can work remotely with the Citrix client on a Mac.
The car you purchase does not make you a different person because it is special, expensive, or fast, just as your choice in computer does not automatically make you creative. Both of these "groups" or classes of people you are are referring to need only one thing to get involved and that is to buy the product. If I go out today and by a Mac, does that automatically make me the creative type? Absolutely not and you can not automatically assume someone that has on is not creative because there is no relationship between the two.
They may have 95% market share but its also true that 95% of the time Windows is sold, there's no choice involved. You get it preinstalled on your new computer. Whereas Apple's minute market share is completely derived from people exercising choice. You have to actually choose to buy a mac.
WTF are you talking about?
Every single home user that bought a PC with Windows made a choice to not buy a Mac with OSX and the same the other direction. Both platforms are readily available for anyone in the world to choose at will. The choice is and was always there for the consumer to choose between the two. Lets break it down even further by separating the hardware from the software. I guarantee I can find MANY more places and choices for finding a new PC without Windows then a new Mac without OSX which is the exact opposite of your claim. Your post makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea what your point is. Did you actually sit back and read what you wrote? Before the pro Apple crowd mods my post down as flame bait, think about what the parent stated.
Either way the studios need money coming in. Selling entertainment is no different then selling a physical widget. You make money from it and you can keep selling it. If the studios can produce a show and make enough money by selling it without advertisements, they will continue to do so.
There are many hurdles to ignoring traditional television though. Getting the initial audience is probably the biggest one. As it stands now, shows become "popular" by being in your face during or close to "prime time" spots. Once shows become popular and desired, the studios can expand the offering to direct paid downloads (with and without advertising), syndication, DVD of seasons, etc.. Becoming popular without the initial television spot and attempting to maintain a profit with only the secondary routes mentioned would be a significant risk. Maybe times will change or there will be a balance between the two. Another point is the television advertising business model as well. Before the internet and banner ads, the advertising business had no real way to measure the impressions and effectiveness of blanket advertising. There are many assumptions and ad prices and time slots are based on nothing concrete. With direct downloads and feedback from internet based downloads, advertisers can get a better understanding of the effectiveness of their ads. This may cause a problem as some companies find out their ads may be useless and pull out much quicker then they would normally have using assumptions of effectiveness.
Bottom line, I agree that any show making money by any method will continue to be produced. How they will make that money is the tricky part.
Loyalty has very little impact in the entertainment markets. The loyalty is towards the show and not the products advertised on the show. There is NO direct relationship or loyalty transfer between the two. You may watch Family Guy religiously but that does not mean you are going to buy a Ford Focus or Campbells soup because the advertise on the show. Sorry to break your heart and mindset with that statement but it is true. Loyalty may get the attention of advertisers which will then pay for the shows production for some time period but the advertisers are fully in the mix and make the final decision.
do you think the TV studio would really say pull the plug?
Hell yeah. The advertisers will only pay if they know thier advertisments are being watched. If a studio or ratings mechanism can not prove the statistics of the viewers beyond a reasonable doubt to the advertisers, the money stops. If the money stops coming in, the shows stop going out.
Virtualization is not the answer to everything and no company selling virtualization solutions ever stated it was. An individual assessment need to be made based on server loads, types of load (CPU and disk IO), timing of loads, specialized hardware requirements like dongles or fax boards and similar that do not support virtualization. VMWare has an elaborate set of planning guides and tools for sizing, planning, and moving over from a physical to virtual environment. They also have very detailed guidelines on what should and should not be virtualized.
That links above are just examples. The planning tools are mature enough that if you tried to virtualize something and it failed, you probably missed or underestimated your actual requirements in the initial planning and assessment stages of the process.
So how long do you wait? I've used VMWare ESX server in production for years and more recently the scaled down VMServer and MS virtual server. ESX is quantum leaps above the current MS offerings, they are not even playing on the same field. In fact, even the free VMServer product from VM is far better then the MS virtual server product IMHO. I have no doubt MS will improve the product and add functionality as time goes on but they are currently WAY behind and not making great strides at this time.
You can wait but you will be waiting a looong time, at least years. Keep in mind, VMWare products are improving as well.
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Publisher 2000"> <meta name="Author" content="Design of this webpage and sWish Movie and Extensive customization of this code by Lynda R. Farley AAA World Wide Web Design ">
OMG, it gets better, that same web design "company" makes more pages just like it and appears to charge for it! http://www.hosanna1.com/AAAWWW/
Well, you are really reading a response from one person. In theory that person was hired by that company and is representing the company and is speaking and providing the company line. In reality, that one person is still an individual person. The people behind that person may not practice the same attitude. I never assume one person can represent an entire group, even if they are paid to do that.
Odd because I've never found a good deal in a pawn shop. The ones in my area have car stereo and electronics equipment for sale more then I can get it new and is there really a demand for Duck Hunt/Mario Bros for the NES for $20? Used CDs on occasion but they are typically in random order and you have to flip through the hundreds of copies of Diana Smith and her church choirs greatest hits to find them. I wonder who actually buys stuff from them?
The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get.
Mr Day is Greg Day of McAfee. His intentions are for spreading FUD. There IS bogus spyware software and virus removal tools out there. Odd thing though is some are free and some you actually have to pay for. Having a cost does not make it legitimate at all and Mr Day is stating a criteria that unless you pay for it, chances are it may be a scam. Of course this also implies if you did pay for it, it is not a scam and that is far from the truth. Instead of breaking the FUD campaign into free and paid for, it should be split into "well known and trusted" and "not well known and trusted". Mr Day does not want it to be decided on well a known and trusted basis because to reach that status takes time and effort by a company, he wants everyone to just assume his companies software is the best solution and of course that HAS to come at a price. Sorry vendors and computer users but these are not binary decisions and it takes some research either way. Free or not free.
Simple command line robust copy utility. I'm sure you can find the exe file around somewhere. If not, you can download it as part of the Windows 2003 resource kit tools and use the robocop.exe file on any Windows system (it is a standalone exe file, does not require any specific DLL or install files).
Slashdot Mirror
If not, he could install Win98 in a guest VM with no network card, and never need to worry about it again.
Nice, that scenario would allow network access to the running VM (so users could get to the VM) but the VM host OS itself has no network connectivity at all. That would be the ideal solution provided no files or data would have to leave the machine. As a side note and probably waaaay beyond the scope here but you could have a network card attached and use netbeui and no TCP/IP on that machine and transfer files to another Windows VM running Netbeui with TCP/IP and on the network for the file transer needs. A second virtual switch inside the VM server could allow those two computers to talk to each other but machine one has no TCP/IP at all. Does a VM server host virtual switch allow netbeui? I'd assume so as they do refer to it as a "switch" but I've never tried it.
No, A VM has its own network connectivity just as a real machine. The VM host CAN supply the virtual network switch to supply that network connectivity to the VMs but that is it, as far as the VM is concerned, the OSI model still applies and the host simply provides the physical layer. You could run a software firewall on one VM and use that VM to route and provide network access to the other VMs on the same host if you wanted a one box solution. VMWare encourages and collects "user built" VM images and has links to prebuilt VMs that are for that exact purpose.
So the short answer is... Moving to a VM structure is not inherently safer or provide any additional protection then using a physical machine. You can put your OS running as VM and a software firewall running on a VM on the same VM server just as you could have two separate physical machines providing the same functionality.
This confusion was part of my point in my parent post. The author does not describe or attempt to even mention any specific instances or reference any actual interference at all. Only that there is interference and then goes on to describe different technologies that may or may not actually be causing interference then mentions web broadcasts and questions packaging of service with new cars which is not related at all. I think if the XM and Sirius local repeaters actually disrupting NPR service was noted, it would be mentioned, not just that some repeaters are exceeding a power limit. Lets be realistic. The repeaters are transmitting 24x7 at some power level. If the frequency is not the same or some strange order harmonic of NPR, the power level is not relevant at all. If so, people within a few blocks of the repeater would not be able to hear NPR even at the legal power level. I have read nothing to indicate that is the issue.
As for the local FM transmitters inside the consumer receivers, that is an issue not specific to XM or Sirius, although XM and Sirius actually sell their own branded receivers, they should be responsible for any specs that exceed legal limits, just as any third party should be responsible for their products as well. These very well could disrupt any station if power was too high.
Maybe NAB does have valid issues but this authors account of the problems paints a picture that the NAB is grasping at straws and trying to fight upcoming competition using the inherent complexity and relationship between the the law, the FCC, and some lobbying.
I see nothing in the article that actually supports any claims of actual signal interference. Maybe that was not the real intent of the article but based on the author claiming interference and disruptions, something technical should have been mentioned. The only interference I see XM and Sirius causing is with the business model of the companies that NAB represents. NAB's goal seems to be to restrict the satellite broadcasters anyway they can to gain their own edge or to prevent further acceptance of satellite providers. The complaining about Howard Sterm also being simulcast via web pretty much shows that motivation.
My experience in relation to the topic..
I have a SIRIUS Sportster(TM) Replay (SP-TK2) radio and use its built in FM modulator. IMHO, it is pretty powerful and more so then my friends that has a different model. I can pick up its FM signal for at least 100ft and probably 200ft away in some environments. If I set the modulator to a local "in use" frequency, the two duke it out but normally the official radio station wins. In another car 10 ft away does not seem to get any interference from the Sirius radio (I tried this in my own driveway). Now the point is, who the hell is going to actually have the Sirius tuned to a populated frequency? That does not make sense. There is not some conspiracy going where all satellite users are trying to disrupt the local NPR frequency. Being from the DC area, there is not much choice of free stations to choose from though and I've heard other users iPods over my Sirius before at red lights. At least the Sirius radio I have allows you to choose ANY frequency in the FM band and not just a few selections down at the lower end like some of the portable modulators.
Flying cars and "fly by wire" transportation ARE possible right now and not restrained by physics or mechanics. They are not around because they are not economical.
For technology to get to the masses, it has to be something of desire or benefit and be available at a resonable cost.
Who hijacked the truck, who stood to profit (or how) and who made the fake cards we don't know, but when the customer received a bunch of them, they looked smelled and felt like real cards, they just didn't work. The OS didn't even recognize them and couldn't even load the drivers. Posting Anonymously for good reason.
That crime as described does not make sense. People that hijack a truck and take the contents will get in just as much trouble as people who hijack a truck and swap out the contents. Why even bother to swap out the contents with broken stuff? Would it not be easier and make more sense to just take what is in the truck and leave nothing behind? I know criminals are not that smart all of the time but they are much less likely to make the crime much harder on themselves then it has too be. Maybe it was an "inside" job by original seller and junk cards were in the truck the whole time and the hijack story was the excuse.
They may be hurt by the lack of selling the PS3 console but how have they made money this long? They sell other products and a Sony ruling does not automatically apply to everything else they sell and there are more places then Europe to sell imports. It seems to me Lik-Sang closed shop way too fast and abruptly. I'll throw a consipracy angle out here and suggest maybe someone of bought out Lik-Sang or made a nice agreement for them to shut down ASAP. Sounds too fishy for me.
So what is your interpretation of fair use?
What about making a copy to a "Music" cdr?
Here is an interesting read. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/564
It is not just the readers of slashdot that are confused about fair use.
Back to the Ford reference, they thought the same thing until the early 1920's when GM started making different model cars that also came in different colors. Suddenly GM was hot and Ford was on the way out and hurting bad. All of the Ford factories were specifically tooled and configured for one model car in one color and nothing else. GM built their assembly lines so they could be adjusted for different models. Ford resisted change at first but they lost market share fairly quickly which changed their minds (but never outsold GM again). Apple has the laws they can leverage to prevent what happened to Ford. The existing laws are guiding the consumer choice for Apple. The current market for portable music is no different for the non Apple players either as the same laws limit consumer choice for them as well. Pick your poison, Fairplay or PlaysforSure. Far from a real choice huh?
I have not watered my lawn in years. I do have to water my garden though.
My question is where does the excess water go if no one is using it first? I get my water from a well about 150 ft deep. If I did water my lawn daily, would it really make a difference in that well? Would my well run dry? Would a stream 20 or 200 miles away stop flowing? My big picture uneducated assumption is, for most areas of the US, water not "used" would end up back in the ocean anyway.
The vast majority of new computers sold in the market today come pre-installed with a version of Windows. It doesn't matter if you already own a windows licence, or intend to run Linux, you have to buy a new one, like it or not.
And Macs which you compared Windows too is any different? I'm sure you can buy a Mac without an OS somewhere but the same holds true about your transfer of license crap.
It sounds like you are trying to say people that buy Windows just want a computer and don't care, people that buy a Mac are doing for some other reason. That comment lacks any depth or insight at all and you are trying to take that completely bogus statement a step further to imply that Mac users are somehow an elite group. I work in IT at a large company. I field one or two questions a month from users asking if a Mac they are looking will interface and work with our "systems" at work. I leave them with a neutral impression and let them determine the advantages of using a Mac. After further questioning, they have NO idea why they really want a Mac other then a friend has one or they look good. Those are perfectly valid reasons to purchase a Mac but not the reason you are claiming about some higher form of knowledge or computer experience that these people need and has absolutely nothing to do with being the creative type you mention. In fact, the most often asked question is will I be able to run Office and use take my work home on the Mac. Well unfortunately, in our environment, we use MS Office and various applications with MANY customizations so the answer is more often then not NO. We actually discourage any work from hitting not work laptops and computers because we do have an extensive Citrix environment through and they can work remotely with the Citrix client on a Mac.
The car you purchase does not make you a different person because it is special, expensive, or fast, just as your choice in computer does not automatically make you creative. Both of these "groups" or classes of people you are are referring to need only one thing to get involved and that is to buy the product. If I go out today and by a Mac, does that automatically make me the creative type? Absolutely not and you can not automatically assume someone that has on is not creative because there is no relationship between the two.
They may have 95% market share but its also true that 95% of the time Windows is sold, there's no choice involved. You get it preinstalled on your new computer. Whereas Apple's minute market share is completely derived from people exercising choice. You have to actually choose to buy a mac.
WTF are you talking about?
Every single home user that bought a PC with Windows made a choice to not buy a Mac with OSX and the same the other direction. Both platforms are readily available for anyone in the world to choose at will. The choice is and was always there for the consumer to choose between the two. Lets break it down even further by separating the hardware from the software. I guarantee I can find MANY more places and choices for finding a new PC without Windows then a new Mac without OSX which is the exact opposite of your claim.
Your post makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea what your point is. Did you actually sit back and read what you wrote?
Before the pro Apple crowd mods my post down as flame bait, think about what the parent stated.
Either way the studios need money coming in. Selling entertainment is no different then selling a physical widget. You make money from it and you can keep selling it. If the studios can produce a show and make enough money by selling it without advertisements, they will continue to do so.
There are many hurdles to ignoring traditional television though. Getting the initial audience is probably the biggest one. As it stands now, shows become "popular" by being in your face during or close to "prime time" spots. Once shows become popular and desired, the studios can expand the offering to direct paid downloads (with and without advertising), syndication, DVD of seasons, etc.. Becoming popular without the initial television spot and attempting to maintain a profit with only the secondary routes mentioned would be a significant risk. Maybe times will change or there will be a balance between the two.
Another point is the television advertising business model as well. Before the internet and banner ads, the advertising business had no real way to measure the impressions and effectiveness of blanket advertising. There are many assumptions and ad prices and time slots are based on nothing concrete. With direct downloads and feedback from internet based downloads, advertisers can get a better understanding of the effectiveness of their ads. This may cause a problem as some companies find out their ads may be useless and pull out much quicker then they would normally have using assumptions of effectiveness.
Bottom line, I agree that any show making money by any method will continue to be produced. How they will make that money is the tricky part.
Loyalty has very little impact in the entertainment markets. The loyalty is towards the show and not the products advertised on the show. There is NO direct relationship or loyalty transfer between the two. You may watch Family Guy religiously but that does not mean you are going to buy a Ford Focus or Campbells soup because the advertise on the show. Sorry to break your heart and mindset with that statement but it is true. Loyalty may get the attention of advertisers which will then pay for the shows production for some time period but the advertisers are fully in the mix and make the final decision.
do you think the TV studio would really say pull the plug?
Hell yeah.
The advertisers will only pay if they know thier advertisments are being watched. If a studio or ratings mechanism can not prove the statistics of the viewers beyond a reasonable doubt to the advertisers, the money stops. If the money stops coming in, the shows stop going out.
Maybe this does not apply to you but...
h tml/ VMware_Infrastructure_3_planning.pdf
Virtualization is not the answer to everything and no company selling virtualization solutions ever stated it was. An individual assessment need to be made based on server loads, types of load (CPU and disk IO), timing of loads, specialized hardware requirements like dongles or fax boards and similar that do not support virtualization. VMWare has an elaborate set of planning guides and tools for sizing, planning, and moving over from a physical to virtual environment. They also have very detailed guidelines on what should and should not be virtualized.
http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/vac_services.
http://h71019.www7.hp.com/ActiveAnswers/downloads
That links above are just examples. The planning tools are mature enough that if you tried to virtualize something and it failed, you probably missed or underestimated your actual requirements in the initial planning and assessment stages of the process.
So how long do you wait? I've used VMWare ESX server in production for years and more recently the scaled down VMServer and MS virtual server. ESX is quantum leaps above the current MS offerings, they are not even playing on the same field. In fact, even the free VMServer product from VM is far better then the MS virtual server product IMHO.
I have no doubt MS will improve the product and add functionality as time goes on but they are currently WAY behind and not making great strides at this time.
You can wait but you will be waiting a looong time, at least years. Keep in mind, VMWare products are improving as well.
Either those charts you linked too are really old or the 7600GT was so slow it was off of the bottom of the list!
This link has much newer charts and comparisons.
No, thought not.
That is quite an arrogant statement.
Why would you assume that no one but yourself understands the theory of fuel map changes?
Wow, you aren't kidding.OMG, it gets better, that same web design "company" makes more pages just like it and appears to charge for it!
http://www.hosanna1.com/AAAWWW/
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Well, you are really reading a response from one person. In theory that person was hired by that company and is representing the company and is speaking and providing the company line. In reality, that one person is still an individual person. The people behind that person may not practice the same attitude. I never assume one person can represent an entire group, even if they are paid to do that.
Odd because I've never found a good deal in a pawn shop. The ones in my area have car stereo and electronics equipment for sale more then I can get it new and is there really a demand for Duck Hunt/Mario Bros for the NES for $20? Used CDs on occasion but they are typically in random order and you have to flip through the hundreds of copies of Diana Smith and her church choirs greatest hits to find them. I wonder who actually buys stuff from them?
The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get.
Mr Day is Greg Day of McAfee.
His intentions are for spreading FUD. There IS bogus spyware software and virus removal tools out there. Odd thing though is some are free and some you actually have to pay for. Having a cost does not make it legitimate at all and Mr Day is stating a criteria that unless you pay for it, chances are it may be a scam. Of course this also implies if you did pay for it, it is not a scam and that is far from the truth. Instead of breaking the FUD campaign into free and paid for, it should be split into "well known and trusted" and "not well known and trusted". Mr Day does not want it to be decided on well a known and trusted basis because to reach that status takes time and effort by a company, he wants everyone to just assume his companies software is the best solution and of course that HAS to come at a price.
Sorry vendors and computer users but these are not binary decisions and it takes some research either way. Free or not free.
Apple was beta testing a mandatory statup tune but dropped it. Some MS folks must have witnessed it and thought it was a good idea.
ROBOCOPY
Simple command line robust copy utility. I'm sure you can find the exe file around somewhere. If not, you can download it as part of the Windows 2003 resource kit tools and use the robocop.exe file on any Windows system (it is a standalone exe file, does not require any specific DLL or install files).
Here is short description of its usage.