Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - LibreOffice for Windows

   3.5.0 RC1 (Jan 23, 2012)

   For me, LibreOffice is summed up perfectly by netean when he says 'In some ways it gets better with each release, yet in other ways I find it deeply frustrating.'
   
   Few open source products are so significant and yet so frustratingly annoying as is LibreOffice/OpenOffice, both with regard to its lack of compatibility with MS Office--even old versions, O2K for example--and also in its snail's-pace speed of development, lack of timely new features, improvements etc. I've previously commented about these issues under OpenOffice releases before the LibreOffice fork came into existence but many problems still remain with this 3.5, rc1 version of LO.
   
   Nevertheless, I thought I'd try the seeming attractive feature of PDF editing in this version. For this, I used PDFs of out-of-copyright works from the Internet Archive library as they are not locked/pass-worded, are typical of size and content types that I'd want to edit, are scanned documents and often have two versions--one being only images of text, the other having both text images and accompanying OCR text of these images.
   
   Results LibreOffice 3.5 RC1
   --------------------------------------
   
   1. The first PDF is a scan of a 102 year old, 505-page book of English and American essays. Its content is image-only text except for the first page, which is Google's embedded text about its book-scanning project. LibreOffice successfully loaded this 25MB PDF book but it took just on nine - *9* - minutes to load! I could feel myself ageing and greying whilst waiting. A more precise summary of the loading process follows:
   
   Machine: Quad core/2.83GHz/4GB RAM, O/S: XP, sp3, HDs: RAID 0
   Machine state: initially, only Explorer and Task Manager running, then LibreOffice 3.5rc1
   PDF file size: 25,005,329 bytes
   Content: image scans of text only (except Google's header page)
   Load time: 9 minutes (within a few secs)
   Initial memory used (by O/S etc.): 593MB
   Memory after load: 1.62GB [1]
   CPU usage (all cores): each 25% on average but regularly peaking to 80%
   Kernel times (mostly 1 core): ~21%, peaking ~35%
   Comparison with Foxit: both Foxit & the same test PDF load almost immediately (within a second or so in just a total of 38MB of memory--which is ~1/27th the memory required by LO to load the same file).
   
   [1] Memory and CPU usage were so intense that LO could not be maximized from the Windows Taskbar whilst the load was underway w/o about a minute's delay. The Task Manager showed memory steadily increasing to about 800MB then toward the end of the loading it increased in a staircase/Mayan pyramid fashion to 1.63GB and here it remained until the program was terminated.
   
   2. The second PDF, 6.2MB, is a 116-page book on an aspect of electronics. Its content consists of images of text interspersed with circuit diagrams (line drawings) and b&w photographs but additionally it is combined with OCR plaintext of the book's image text. At about 5.5 minutes into this load LibreOffice crashed with the following message:
   
   'Due to an unexpected error, LibreOffice crashed. All the files you were working on will now be saved. The next time LibreOffice is launched, your files will be recovered automatically.
   
   The following files will be recovered:'
   
   [No files indicated--although the complete PDF actually loaded into memory, LO couldn't recover the document after this crash.]
   
   The results for this load (only differences shown):
   
   PDF file size: 6,245,427 bytes
   Content: scans of text, diagrams and photos together with OCR of image text.
   Load time: ~5.5 minutes until load crashed
   Initial memory used (by O/S etc.): 607MB
   Memory after load: a massive 2.38GB! (which remained constant until LO's crash dialog was terminated)
   CPU usage (all cores): each 25% on average but 2 of those cores were now regularly peaking at 100% (others still 80%)
   Kernel times (mostly 1 core): ~23%, peaking 40%
   Comparison with Foxit: both Foxit & PDF load almost immediately (within a second or so) in just a total of 49MB--which is ~1/36th the memory used by LO to load the same file).
   
   Even without discussing its PDF editing features, this feature of LibreOffice is essentially useless because of (a) its incredibly slow PDF load times [about 500 times slower than Foxit Reader's load time], (b) its enormous use of CPU and memory resources and (c) that it consistently crashes PDF files with complex content. Although I've listed only two LO tests, in fact I tried it with six different PDF files and all tests were consistently bad. You only have to compare LibreOffice with other vastly faster PDF editors and readers to realize that there is something drastically wrong with this version of LO. Moreover, if one takes into consideration there are considerably larger and more complex PDFs than the test examples that I used then this problem with LibreOffice is even greater than my tests have revealed.
   
   Nevertheless, I'm not surprised at these results, as LO (& OOo before it) have had memory and resource issues from the earliest of times. Unfortunately, here, this PDF feature has been tacked on whilst these other underlying and fundamental problems remain within LO, thus they're only to be expected.
   
   As I've said before, it's a shame there isn't a middle ground between free open source and full commercial software--a sort of 'Low Cost IncentiveWare' at a small fraction of the cost of the commercial product. It's clear from years of experience and many instances, that software projects of such large magnitude need more than just volunteer help and donations to flourish properly. Those 'volunteers' need some financial incentive if they're to vastly up their pace and so produce much more bug-free code.
   
   ('Tis a common problem. Another major 'open' software project that's suffering exactly the same fate of limited resources is the GIMP image editor. Whilst it has some very excellent features, it too is years behind in its development. When compared with Photoshop; the GIMP's a pimple against a mountain. Few experienced/professional users would disagree with this assessment.)
   
   Altruism and free software sound like marvelous ideas, however as we've seen over many eons, the plain reality of the world is very different in that most good professional work has to be paid for.
   
   This version 3.5 of LibreOffice only further affirms this axiom.

2. 
   Review - jv16 PowerTools

   2012 Beta 2 (Jan 5, 2012)

   @ carlvui
   
   I've finally given up on jv16, I'm not even going to try this version.
   
   After mucking about and destroying my registry I'd only have have to reload it from a backup. It'd serve no real purpose other than to waste time.
   
   Cheers.

3. 
   Review - Scribus for Windows

   1.4.0 (Jan 5, 2012)

   A wonderful package. Been using it since v1.2 (2008).
   
   Sometimes gems just turn up, this is one of them.

4. 
   Review - KCleaner

   1.1.2.37 (Jan 5, 2012)

   KCleaner is dangerous crapware.

5. 
   Review - Tweaking.com - Windows Repair

   1.5.8 (Jan 5, 2012)

   Nice package. Not sure that I yet trust this level of automation though.
   
   It's dead easy to undo one's carefully configured settings by accidentally ticking the wrong box. Also, it's a pain getting it to stop when it's in a loop looking for CD files which it can't find.
   
   In summary, user needs more control and it's powerfully dangerous in the wrong hands.

6. Comment - Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

   1.5.8 (Feb 4, 2010 - 2:24 PM)

   See my explanation in the general post list, it was supposed to be a reply to you (sorry).

7. Comment - Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

   1.5.8 (Feb 4, 2010 - 2:09 PM)

   Right, most would agree with what you say. The issue is that we've let this IE/Windows shambles/security mess drag on for far too long and that those who report on technology issues have let us down by kowtowing to Microsoft for year after year, effectively they've not given us the true facts. There's always been some excuse such as this or that patch will fix it or the next version of IE will do so. However, that's never eventuated and the we've seen the same old security issues just keep marching on and on.
   
   Fact is, even if there was an excuse 15 years ago for bad code (but it's not a view I subscribe to), then it ought to have been fixed back then. Microsoft has always gotten away with as little as it possibly could and the fact that it was let off the hook so regularly and so often that has cost us users very dearly both in security and financial terms.
   
   Shame we can't all collectively sue Microsoft and get it to pay for the collective damages (as is the case with products in other industries).

8. Comment - Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

   1.5.8 (Feb 4, 2010 - 1:47 PM)

   Defined as the best of class. Check the Wiki definition, second item, 'noun':
   
   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce
   
   Apologies for the slang.

9. Comment - Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

   1.5.8 (Feb 4, 2010 - 1:39 PM)

   @mfarmilo
   
   Most posts are written in a hurry--certainly mine are, and on occasions it would be nice to go back and make what's written more cogent, perhaps so here. However, I stand by the thrust of what I've written.
   
   You make reference to point 4, which is that 'MS should force non-genuine Windows to IE7 or 8', this adds to rather than detracts from my point. Initially, I'd included two quotes from the article but I deleted the second along with other comments because the post was too long. That second quote was from point 4.
   
   The fundamental point at issue in point 4 is essentially the same, which is that the article implies or suggest an ongoing authoritarian control by a manufacturer over a product already released to the marketplace.
   
   Any such action would raise serious issues:
   
   1. In Western liberal democracies, when a purchaser buys a product--except where its use is controlled and monitored according to law as with weapons, munitions, nuclear materials etc.--the purchaser has control over that product [by the very virtue of the sale], he is free to do with the product whatever he wants (so long as it's legal). If he wants to put the Windows disks into a shredder (and I've done that before today), or whether he wants to install it on a computer is NO concern of the seller--here Microsoft. In law, it's none of Microsoft's business, nor should it be.
   
   2. That Microsoft has an ongoing interest in a product once it is sold is just that--an ongoing interest--no more no less. Microsoft has no rights to tell the user what he can or can't do with the product, nor can Microsoft exercise any other rights of control over it, for example it cannot force changes to the product such as altering or patching the code etc. That commentators, as here, are suggesting that Microsoft be endowed with such powers smacks of totalitarianism and such notions should not be considered in a democracy for one second.
   
   3. That somehow Microsoft still exercises control over the product's use after its sold because of its copyright is nonsense. Copyright only confers on Microsoft a right to have its work protected against unauthorized reproduction. This is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the use of the product per se.
   
   4. If Joe Wilcox is suggesting that the law be changed to make an exception for software then this too would be unacceptable. Not only would it fundamentally undermine the free enterprise system so axiomatic to the American way of life, but also it would mean that software deployment and use would have to be tracked by the manufacturer. No only would the logistics be monumental but the privacy and security implications would be both horrendous and unacceptable.
   
   5. 'Automatic Updates' is only acceptable because the user agrees to them. Forcing them on the user as a condition of sale would also be unacceptable for (a) it presupposes every user has access to the Internet which is not the case, and (b) if at anytime things were to go wrong then Microsoft could easily be sued under common law and thus would not want to expose itself in this way.
   
   6. Moreover, privacy issues would raise themselves here too, thus exactly what 'Automatic Updates' did would have to be in the public domain (its source code published) and there'd have to be other changes too or governments and those sensitive to security issues etc. simply wouldn't use the product.
   
   7. Theoretically, if Microsoft could enforce an alteration to Windows after its sale then complex issues arise about the exact nature of the product beforehand and afterward. After patching, its modus operandi will have changed and some users will perceive the product as no longer doing what it did when they purchased it. Moreover, any such scheme would also have to include legit users who are not using 'Automatic' Updates' and I can assure you there are many of these, me included. There's little doubt the lawsuits would come thick and fast.
   
   Press Commentators and Microsoft
   -------------------------------------------------
   
   This present Internet Explorer 6 crisis exemplifies a longstanding problem for the long-suffering software user. For years, commentators have been in awe of Microsoft. They remind be of cult worshipers kowtowing to some almighty deity. Irrespective of any criticism they make about Microsoft, ultimately, over many years they have skirted around or ignored the key issues which are that Microsoft was negligent in security matters, and that Windows and IE6 had manufacturing faults and security issues which raise fundamental questions about 'fitness for purpose' of these products. Faults of this magnitude in products within any other product class other than software would have had them withdrawn from the market just on marketability issues alone let alone the lack of 'safety factor'.
   
   Software reviewers in their reviews continually omit the aspect of merchantability. So bad and irresponsible has this reporting about Microsoft been over the years, that both governments and their agencies are now belatedly and loudly saying what the technical press should have said a decade or more ago.
   
   Clearly, this longstanding love affair the press has had with Microsoft has cost us users many billions of dollars. By their underreporting of the problem not only has our security been compromised but a complete security industry has been built up around Windows and Internet Explorer which we users have had to pay for not to mention the millions of hours of user's time that have also gone into combating the problem.
   
   For example, both Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer are built into Windows and CANNOT BE REMOVED without crippling it. Microsoft blatantly and deliberately did this to avoid competition and gain market share for IE. That an 'Operating System', which in those days meant a 'Disk Operating System', was extended to an Internet Operating System and that it wasn't optional for users to fully decouple the Internet function was hardly criticized by the press at all, any criticism was just a by-line. In fact, at the time many of the press warmly welcomed the integration of IE into the O/S even though it was obvious to Blind Freddy that there were all sorts of difficulties and ramifications with this approach. And that Microsoft had an almost total monopoly further highlighted the press's unprofessional reporting of the problem.
   
   That there was no vehement or relentless outcry from the press and that it was not vociferous enough in pursuing something that was obviously wrong with Windows is the reason we are in horrible predicament now. Reason went out the window as cult Microsoft had unusual influence over otherwise rational individuals. That the press--who ought to have known better--did not go for Microsoft's jugular also meant that neither did the public. Thus, there were few critics left to show up the problem, and ultimately, as the pressure from citizens was at best moderate; governments vacillated and effectively did nothing to protect the consumer.
   
   Today, in this present crisis, we are still left with an Internet Explorer 6 that cannot be uninstalled or fully decoupled from Windows. Had the press exercised responsibility early on, campaigned for a better deal for users, and Microsoft forced to properly decouple Internet Explorer from Windows, then now it would be a simple matter of just uninstalling IE6 (and installing something more secure if you want Internet access).
   
   Right! STILL THERE'S NO CALL from the press for Microsoft to bring out a patch that would allow users to completely uninstall IE6. Instead, we're told a lot of mealy-mouthed words that cloud the main issue. Responses such as the enforced patching of pirated copies of Windows are just woolly thinking. For starters:
   
   (a) It presupposes those who are using pirated copies of Windows would use 'Automatic Updates' when up until now they've been banned from doing so. For example, if the policy were changed, how would they be contacted if 'Automatic Updates' remains turned off?
   
   (b) Even if 'Automatic Updates' were available, many users would not avail themselves of it for fear of being exposed as possessing a pirated copy of Windows.
   
   (c) Hypothetically, even if there were to be a forced upgrade of IE6 then how would it be accomplished? For example, would the forced upgrade allow users to use say Firefox or would it be IE7 or IE8 only? What happens if later security breaches were to be found in both these products too?
   
   Finally, may I suggest this problem is not going away anytime soon, as XP will be supported until 2014 and the product will still be around for quite some years after that. I can assure you of this as I've customers who are already asking about how long they can use XP after this deadline and they will do so. I know this well, as I've now customers who continue to use Windows 98 and nothing seems capable of budging them, even the threat of viruses only invokes responses such as 'we'll get an improved anti-virus product'.
   
   Once, technical reporting was an objective and trusted profession whereby reporters--who were usually technically qualified engineers--would actually do detailed testing of a product then publish and defend the results without fear or favor. Today, most reporting on technology products such as Window, Internet Explorer etc. has reached rock bottom. Reviews are rarely little more than the reporter's subjective view, they can't even kerb their delight with the product let alone describe its technical aspects accurately and with objectivity. Moreover, as for objective testing--well that's a thing of the past, except where the feature holds interest for the reporter, the speed comparisons between say an old and new version of Windows is but a good example but there'll be no extensive vulnerability testing as that is just a yawn.
   
   Why the press has been so negligent for so long on the issue of Windows and Internet Explorer security remains a mystery to many of us. Clearly, it has to do with those issues that I've already identified but is also about the 'sacred cow' nature of these products in that people's love of them makes them blind to the issues. Over the years, the press's irrational infatuation with Windows and Internet Explorer technology has continually thwarted attempts to cut to the core of the problem, expose it and have the very real dangers posed by Microsoft's shoddy workmanship and manufacture fixed once and for all.
   
   How we get back rigorous and honest reporting of technology products remains a problem without an obvious immediate solution. It is clear though that overcoming the very real problem of technology addiction and the 'wow' factor in those who report on technology and the fact that it colors their reports is now a serious issue for all of us. (Moreover, it's interesting that recently sociologists have started to investigate the matter of technology addiction--although in a more general sense and not specifically targeted at technology reporters--although one can see that soon looming on the horizon).
   
   This is a now serious issue for us users as our lives have come to depend more and more on this technology and we are simply not getting the real warts-and-all facts about much of the junk that's being peddled out there in the name of software or the latest hi-tech gadget.

10. Comment - Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

    1.5.8 (Feb 3, 2010 - 5:46 PM)

    I've reread this article again and perhaps I was half asleep the first time, but I can't believe my eyes, but I think I read this.
    
    "I contend that Microsoft should disable non-genuine Windows copies without warning."
    
    Are you wearing brown or black jackboots? The damn hide of you. Clearly, you don't work with half-broken legit copies of Windows where crashes have screwed certificates etc. etc. It happens all the time with legit copies of Windows. When stuffed, they can look like an illegal copy. I've seen automatic updates/MGA say legit software was illegal many times. Right, actually on legit software. Got it?? (Clearly you're only an operator, not a techie or you'd know this can be a common problem.)
    
    If Microsoft started that tactic, it'd be inviting law suits by the dozen. And deservedly so.
    
    If IE6/Windows was Rolls Royce software with no security faults, then this Gestapo-type tactic would still be unacceptable enough, but when we're really talking about third-rate junk software that has hundreds and hundreds--if not many thousands of security patches--then its unforgivable.
    
    Do you realize what this slovenly-manufactured junk has cost the world over the last 15 or so years--because it was build so badly that it can NEVER be made secure? So bad in fact that governments are now calling for it not to be used, soon the call is likely to be an outright ban. Well, it's billions upon billions of dollars outlaid by users across the world in maintaining this junk, and all you worry about is whether the software is pirated or not.
    
    Well, sell your M$ shares so you can be more objective.
    
    Why the hell are you such an apologist for Microsoft? After all, it's their insecure, broken, crappy software which is at fault and the cause of all this trouble--NOT THE USER! Moreover, Microsoft has had a decade and a half to fix Internet Explorer and Windows and they're still fooling around the edges of the problem with little hope of it being ever resolved.
    
    Patches are piecemeal and never-ending, the security patching never stops. Shame we don't have the source code for IE6, as you'd find it was an unholy unsystematic mess. In any other profession, manufacturing etc. this product would have been withdrawn long ago or been the subject of widespread damages under lemon laws.
    
    However, because it's software, and its writers have convinced the gullible that the merchantability of software is 'somehow' different to everything else on the planet--and because its faults are hidden and locked up by compiled code--somehow this crap escapes the scrutiny of the regulators.
    
    Yet, year in and year out, your editorial staff find some way of blaming the poor user instead of the source of the problem. It really is unbelievable. Moreover, its not only BetaNews, rather much of the popular tech press is guilty of it. Somehow, you've got it into your head that selling faulty goods is actually acceptable--talk about the laws of business being reversed.
    
    With the apologist, woe-with-Microsoft attitude in editorials in recent times being so prevalent, all I can say is that the number of free complimentary copies of Windows etc. out in publication-land must be enormous.
    
    It simply is beggars belief that you can write an article like that and not call for the company to undergo capital punishment.
    
    Clearly, you have a very different value system to most of your readers.