United States of America
2.6.9 (Nov 29, 2010)
@SnoBrdr - because he isn't *writing* codecs, he is just packaging them together in an all in one deal - so whenever something gets updated, say for instance, a new version of FFDShow with a security / vulnerability fix, it requires an update to incorporate the new version.
Overall, a great piece of software, although I am annoyed that I now get Bing bar automatically installed every time. At this point, I may have to figure out my own way of installing ht codecs manually so I can avoid drive by installations. But SnoBrdr is right - go to the forums, --> general --> sticky about Bing, and read the second post - Shark has reg entries to never see Bing installation again.
184.108.40.206 (May 30, 2010)
Sorry to disappoint you, but as of Christmas Eve 2009 (aka 24 Dec 2009), Seatools 1.2.0.***1*** was out, not 1.2.0.*2*.
220.127.116.11 is a *newer* release - b/c as of Christmas / version 18.104.22.168, Windows 7 was not *officially* supported. Hence the version bump, to allow for Windows 7 Official Support.
22.214.171.124 (May 30, 2010)
This is hands down a must have utility.
Having, at your fingertips, access to all NirSoft *AND* Sysinternals utilities? And a Portable Apps version to boot? Now even including Windows' native utilities, too? Wow. Simply - Wow.
The update mechanism is nera flawless, and it makes life a lot easier. Being able to find the utility you want, to be able to use it as you want, and the only thing I can think of that would make it perfect would be to allow the user the ability to run each app with elevated privileges on demand. Still, this is such a minor thing (and would need to be tailored to allow for credentials on systems with restricted users) that it may not be the easiest thing in the worlf to implement, and thus is hardly worht any sort fo demerit.
2.40 (Dec 31, 2009)
At Sammo - you shouldn't blame BetaNews for this - this happens even when I have visited the site on my own looking for the codecs in Firefox. It's a RealTek issue, not a Betanews issue in this case.
These *DRIVERS* work well in Windows 7 64bit as well as Windows 7 32bit.
126.96.36.199 Beta (Apr 10, 2009)
DaemonTools does not load into Windows 7 in any way b/c of the SPTD drivers that it makes use of.
Although I agree with you about DT having the same and more functions, VCD is the only solution I can use on Win7 for the moment.
In addition, DT free versions come bundled with a search program that is at best, a nuisance, and although you can disable installation of said addon, it comes enabled by default.
VCD includes no addons and is 100% free - thus, for all the reasons noted above this software deserves a much better rating than you are giving it,
188.8.131.52 Beta (Aug 26, 2009 - 10:00 PM)
I hope that this makes the general public aware of the fact that the reason they are worried about the devaluation of he DVD is because of the incredible markup they have on them in the first place to maximize their profits. When people realize that the $1 rentals is still profitable for the members of the MPAA, then quite a few things are going to come to light, including the ludicrous judgments being pursued by the *AAs over file sharing....
184.108.40.206 Beta (Aug 26, 2009 - 9:56 PM)
I love W7 much more than I loved Vista. Contrary to popular belief, Vista was a much needed change from the rampant unbridled access to system resources that you got with XP unless you had a clue on how to run programs as a limited user, like you should have been doing in any NT-kernel-based in the first place, but the problems lay in the fact that it was rushed out the door with many enhancements removed and it suffered badly at the hands of folks who thought they were going to be able to take their 4 year old P4-based machines and install Vista and expect it to be as fast as XP. Furthermore, the whole works with Vista fiasco made things even worse - but in my opinion, the constant nagging of UAC was not only needed but sorely missing from XP.
In the article, the quotation from FSF reads as follows: "Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly." Has the FSF ever actually gone to and talked to the technology officials in actual school districts to find out *why* this is happening? In case the FSF folks haven't been paying attention, it is not M$ decision to implement what is used in a school - it is the school district's decision. Until the FSF can show cold hard facts that these school districts are *pressured* (as opposed to *enticed*, a completely different approach) this sort of argument has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS.
Then there is this little gem: "...FSF Executive Director Peter Brown argued that free software, unlike Microsoft software or anything with a price tag, respects individuals freedoms and does not extend the tentacles of the global spy syndicate." WTF??? OK, let's say I write this wonderful software for doing something as mundane a task as I can think of - let's say it regularly checks for updates for software that I have installed, and not only informs me about the update, but also categorizes the updates into types - critical, important, optional (critical for vulnerability fixes, important for minor bug fixes, and optional for just a new version with no real fixes, perhaps just new features involved). I then need a place to host it - after all, instead of writing the app in assembly, I used an IDE and my language of choice to make it easily accessible to the masses. Let's say the size is a mere 5 MB, and it gets downloaded, say, 2000 times a month.
Who is going to pay for my bandwidth? Who is going to pay for my time and efforts in developing the software? Who is going to compensate me for the technical support I have to provide?
I could just as easily include something like the Ask toolbar to offset my costs - oh, yeah, that most definitely "...does not extend the tentacles of the global spy syndicate." Right. Same as with bundled LOP (dot) com bundles of yesteryear, too, right? Same with adware of all sorts today. Which, of course, is why we even have advertising on websites to begin with, b/c we all know that maintaining websites and downloads is absolutely, unequivocally, free.
They need their heads examined. Collectively speaking, of course.
220.127.116.11 Beta (Aug 26, 2009 - 9:38 PM)
OTOH, If the claims being made by the FSF were *truly* so then you wouldn't have vendors like Red Hat and Novell around, now would you?
18.104.22.168 Beta (Aug 22, 2009 - 1:29 AM)
I am sure that you already know this, as these are tests that have been referred to for a while now with the various builds that were leaked - but Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has performed a bevy of tests comparing all three OSs (XP, Vista and 7) and has now started a round of tests with the RTM.
(links to the previous tests he performed are on the second page)
22.214.171.124 Beta (Aug 8, 2009 - 10:04 PM)
Good point - and that is evidenced further by the name calling, company- and software-bashing and rants and raves all over the net. It is rare to find a blog that does nothing but push forth infromation, as every blogger has their own take on what they are presenting and, more importantly, *why* they are presenting it. As you say people are subjective - so are test result reports, benchmark results, and supposed informational posts trumpeting the superiority of one piece of software over another.
I am human - I am subjective - and I prefer Fx regardless of whether it is fastest, fair-to-middlin, or slow - b/c of something completely different: the overall user experience. I have addons that make my life 10 times easier every day - things like Weave to BBCodeXtra to JetPack to Personas to GooglePaedia to Read It Later to Smiley Xtra. I love using Fx b/c of its massive extensibility, and I don't mean for making it look pretty - I mean for making it usable - I have 2 bands at the top, one with the menu (hidden) and navigtion icons and address bar and search bar, and the other with my bookmarks tool bar. At the bottom I have a single status bar. To the left I have the All in One Sidebar - normally hidden, activated by bump, using a thin (2 pixel) line. The rest of my browser is pure browsing real estate. All this on either of a pair of 22" widescreen monitors running at 1680 x 1050.
I can't do all this with any other browser out there - yes, some of these extensions are also availalbe in other formats for some of these other browsers, but no one has it all. Plus, these are not the only Fx extensions I have installed, nto by a long shot. There are even things about Fx that I don't like - but it is the least of all evils / best of all good (browsers). *To me*. I *love* it. And that is as subjective as you can get.
I am not going to tell anyone that *my* browser, *my* Office suite, *my* OS, *my* computer, *my* anything, is better than anyone elses. That would be ridiculous - because, again, as we're all subjective, we all have our likes and dislikes. Some of us like building and maintaining machines by ourselves, while outhers like the hassle-free existence of owning a machine assembled and serviced by someone else - it's the same with our cars - some of us are driving enthusiasts, while some are owner/mechanics, while still others look at it as a tool for getting from point A to B.
So the article shows that browsers run faster on XP - was XP using its famous 6 tiers of protection required to keep it safe while on the Internet? Were these same tests performed on a variety of machine types with a variety of variables adjusted, such as CPU speed, graphics power, RAM speed, RAM size, HD speed, HD size, HD Partition scheme, optimized drivers for the OS, etc? I mean, let's face it - W7 was just released - is it fair to compare apples to oranges? XP was released nearly 8 years ago - the codebase is smaller, there is a lot less checking going on, a ridculously inept firewall in place, no UAC, not antimalware / antispyware in place, and yet you want to take that 8 year old OS and place it on a machine that is relatively current and claim that browsers run faster on it than on a brand new OS, with a much large codebase, with UAC, with a FW that actually works, with DEP, with so many other features, with drivers that (most likely) are not feature complete, and run it on the same machine....
It's like taking a Porsche engine and dropping it in a 1200 pound automobile and saying it runs faster than in the Porsche it came out of - Seriously?
The following is for all people reading and posting here: We're all subjective - we all like our own things. Pointing fingers and name calling is for the 1st grade, people. Please grow up and *really* see what the blog says. You have to take the information in *objectively* otherwise we'll never get past the 1sr grade in anything we do.