Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: 'Monitoring' (Score 1) 125

by ccubed (#27646339) Attached to: MIT Tracking Campus Net Connections Since 1999
Really, unless the people paid by the university who aren't students monitor the network, nothing happens. My school has our residential network monitored by students. Yes, you heard me right, Students. This is why a major file sharing client was allowed to run on someone's computer for several years. Why? Because why is the student going to say anything and get them riled up? They already deal with enough.

Comment: Re:Idiot? (Score 1) 359

by ccubed (#27388905) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Comes To Facebook
If software is worth $20 and I can download an ISO of that software where I would be paying $20 to buy it, it stands to reason that if 300 people download it instead of buying it, that company has lost $6,000 in potential profits. if those 300 people had gone to and bought it, they would have paid $20 a piece. Therefore, the software has value. In another example, copies of famous works of art are worth money. Not as much as the original, but still something. If we follow your logic, the copy is worth nothing, zilch, nadda, $0.00. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Comment: Re:Surprise? (Score 1) 724

by ccubed (#27388713) Attached to: Reliability of Computer Memory?

Umm, yes, it is true, many benchmarks were done of XP SP3 vs Vista SP1, and XP SP3 is definately faster than Vista SP1, and it definitely _requires_ less memory. I can run an XP machine with 512MB of RAM, and it will be OK. Not great, but OK. Put Vista on the exact same machine (or even on a more modern, faster machine, but still with only 512MB of RAM), and it will be a total dog. Vista really needs a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM to be usable, whereas XP will run acceptably on 512MB... you could probably get away with 320MB if you don't run any memory-itense applications.

Really? You mean Vista with 512 MB of ram (Below the recommended) runs badly? You don't say, I suppose my copy of Crysis would run like shit on high if I only had 512 MB of ram when it needs 1 GB on Vista or if I had a 1.0 GHz processor when it needs a 2.8 GHz. That being said, Everyone knows you need 2 GB of ram to actually run Vista worth anything.

Comment: Re:Compatibility modes (Score 1) 496

by ccubed (#26983859) Attached to: The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7
You want the entire OS to run in a compatability mode? You realize that's pointless right? If you want XP with a Vista theme, install XP and grab one of the hundred Vista themes. Otherwise, use VMWare or something. I can't imagine the hell that would be a completely virtual OS like you're talking about. Though I think it's time windows took out the 16-bit emulator.

Comment: More MS Bashing - Seriously, it's not that bad. (Score 1) 496

by ccubed (#26983781) Attached to: The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7
I've been running the Windows 7 64 Bit Beta since they released it and i've had absolutely no problems with it asides from a few quirky taskbar issues (Such as a maximized Zoom Player Pro making the autohide stop working). However, after doing a clean install, I HAVE NEVER seen a BSOD. I use to get them all the time on Vista, but not once have I got one on Windows 7. In fact, I'm using Windows 7 the exact same way I did Vista and it works better. Zoom player loads files faster, Games run better, Office appears to not be fucked up anymore and best of all, all the software I use to use (except for Daemon Tools which is a known case of compatibility errors and even stops you from installing it - I'll note that SPTD installs but seemingly all ISO mounting programs don't work and i've tried a few. That's okay though, just extract the images with 7-zip or burn them to a disc - I have enough blank Dvds to make a house.) So really, can we please accept the fact that sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't? To begin with, upgrading 3 times is just stupid. Why, who, would want to install XP, then upgrade to Vista, then upgrade to Windows 7. I didn't even do an upgrade when I went to Vista. You have to realize that upgrades are ALWAYS bad for Windows (and let's be honest with ourselves here, a few other operating systems). So really, if you're getting the BSOD on upgrading, why don't you try a clean install and if that doesn't work, then come back and bitch about it. On another note, I haven't had any hardware compatibility issues. My ATI Radeon HD 3650 worked right out thanks to a 1.1 Pre Release driver, My Audigy MB Advanced worked fine, all of my external devices (logitech Mx3500 desktop set, game controllers, external harddrives and USB devices) ran right out. So I'd like to know what hardware isn't working? I hate when people make claims and don't supply facts or even what didn't work. How can microsoft fix "My hardware doesn't work" without knowing /what/ hardware doesn't work?

Comment: Re:Make Windows Update work more like aptitude (Score 1) 422

by ccubed (#26804787) Attached to: Mozilla To Join EU Suit Against Microsoft

If this were opened up to support updating AND INSTALLING of Microsoft AND 3RD PARTY applications

Obviously, you've not used Windows Vista's version of Microsoft Update since the ability to install updates for 3rd part software was available from release. Mind you it may not have updates for /every/ third party program out there, but I get a majority of my program updates, especially for things such as ATI, my sound card, etc. Besides, why should they offer updates for /all/ products? There's a reason it's called microsoft update and there's also a reason that most programs have their own way of checking for updates. It's not like it takes that much time to go to help, check for updates in mozilla, though I haven't had to do that in..well i've never had to do that.

Comment: Re:First of Many Exploits of the Microsoft Monopol (Score 2, Insightful) 422

by ccubed (#26804411) Attached to: Mozilla To Join EU Suit Against Microsoft

I cannot believe that this case is not already closed. Internet Explorer is one of many monopolistic paths Microsoft has pursued. Also, Windows Explorer and IE are very closely linked and you can see this if you type a URL into the address bar of Windows Explorer - surprise, page loaded in IE, even if Firefox is your default browser...

Really? I just typed www.google.com into windows explorer and, OMG SURPRISE, it loaded in Firefox, my default browser.

Comment: Let's all sue every OS (Score 1) 422

by ccubed (#26804149) Attached to: Mozilla To Join EU Suit Against Microsoft
This isn't a browser monopoly. Hell, give me a linux distro and i'll show you a linux distro with a bundled browser. Give me Mac OS X and i'll show you Safari. Give me Windows and I'll show you IE. Give me the Google OS and i'll show you chrome. Moreover, it annoys the hell out of me when people complain that you can't uninstall IE but don't want to know why you can't uninstall IE. IE is tied into Windows several ways, not the least of which is apparent in .HTA programs and the HTML based applications that make use of the IE rendering engine. If you don't want IE that much then remove the shortcuts from the desktop and uninstall the update in Vista. Note that this won't uninstall IE, just the browser form of IE because IE is used by more than just the browser form of IE.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...