Glenn9999

I usually don't because it doesn't work 3/4 of the time I try it. But tried it now and got the name of the software and was able to download it (under WSC it's called "WSC Guard", under McAfee it's called "McAfee Wireless Security"). Such are things when most of the references just say "here's the link" or "google this and you'll find it". Doesn't work too well if it's not current. If anyone else finds this software, you have to click "Disable Authentication" to be able to use the free mode of the software, which is the WPA networking part. I also found an open source project called "WPA Supplicant" (which you can Google) which claims the same function. YMMV on either, I suppose. When I find a wireless net card I like, I'll get to try both

I've been looking for router drivers and software lately, and one interesting thing I ran into numerous references for is a software that claims to offer WPA support for Microsoft OSes made before XP (98/ME/2000). The problem is that the company which made this (Wireless Security Corp.) was bought out by McAfee and the original site URLs do not exist. Has anyone encountered this (or something like it)? And does anyone have a current URL link?

What'd you find, an old version? True. You have to look in the privacy cleaner part to find the other stuff you mention. As for the CCleaner thing, I just tried System-Cleaner on a system that CCleaner has been run on pretty regularly and it found 852 files and registry entries that CCleaner didn't...

Probably because Comodo doesn't push it very hard on their web site. They seem to favor their internet security things (paying stuff plus the firewall/anti-virus) over all the other local tools that they have done. I use it and like it. The GUI is a little clunky and the auto-update is kind of an annoyance, but it is definitely by far the most thorough product of this kind I've encountered.

If you do a search, the results page will have a side panel on the left side which can allow you to indicate more specifics, like "Everything", "Images", "Videos" and so on.

Okay, I ended up doing this and it worked very well. In fact, I remembered when I went to do it to verify the burn, so that folded in steps #2 and #3. The only other question I had out of this is about DVD-RW media. The disk I had set aside for general use didn't work, and I had to go 3 disks into the spindle of new disks I had to find a disk that passed the tests. Is/was this typical for 4X rewritable media, or would this might point to something wrong with my burner (since I went to another computer to burn it)?

Since I have a stack of rewritable optical media sitting here that hasn't been touched for a while. So, I was giving some thought on how best to test RW media (CD-RW, DVD-RW, others) to see whether it is good or not. Of course, I don't want to have to find out the hard way by trying to use it and come back with errors. I don't really want to throw these out, and the topic is interesting to me. One thing I do think is that it can be useful to have some form of "Scandisk" that will work in such a situation, but that isn't necessarily feasable on a write-once media (I think they only do it with UDF anyway), so I was thinking of some ideas. The best idea I had in mind: 1) Generate a file the exact published size of the media. What would be the best contents of the media? Would multiple files be better? 2) Burn those files to the media at the top rated speed of the media. 3) Check the files (compare them either against the originals or MD5 them). 4) Erase the disk. Of course if any errors come in the process then it is considered to be bad media. Any other thoughts or better approaches to take? (I apologize if this isn't the right forum, it seemed the best given the list)

See http://www.msfn.org/board/guide-download-everything-microsoft-msdbuild-t109264.html for most of the relevant software for Microsoft Update. The big thing is to opt-in to Microsoft Update if you want to have it come up right out of the gate. You can search pretty readily and find out how to rig a opt-in request on Microsoft's site (it's a registry change, as I recall, but it can be automated via program as well).

Moreso again. I keep hitting this downloader code I have (I got it to resume now), and found a site that sends HTML *as* the HTTP headers. So I'm still wondering if there's some kind of universal standard (there has to be I would think or the browsers won't work right). Any ideas on this one?

Thanks. It does seem so. The problem usually is to figure out what to expect. My problem that prompted this turned out to be that I was expecting a content length and that isn't valid for HTML. But still a good question, since I want what I'm working on to not be too "strange".

(I'm not sure where the best place would be to ask this, and this seems best) Are there any generally accepted rules for HTTP requests that are consistent with most sites? I ask because I've been trying to work (code-wise) on downloading a file pointed to by a valid fully qualified URL. Where I have it now is trying to handle "strange" URLs where valid files aren't necessarily specified. But I get stopped connection-wise if I try a main site link (like http://www.msfn.org/). So this got me wondering, and I'm not finding any good pages on it. What's the proper HTTP headers to be sending besides the obvious GET to download the file, in terms of what most sites will accept?