CoffeeFiend

Thank you. I was already suspecting it to be course material seeing the university's IPs and domain names in there. Asking others to do your homework goes against the forum rules (particularly 2.c) Closed! Further violations will result in a ban.

No need to double post, much less using two user accounts (one will be gone shortly, so pick one!) Either ways, it looks like you didn't do your homework (port 139 traffic should be a dead giveaway to anyone -- and there are many other simple clues) and somehow expect us to, without really giving us any infos (and thinking we wouldn't notice it's you again, heh). That makes me feel too lazy to even bother with SNORT's ugly and inconvenient ascii log output. This may sound harsh, but if you can't figure out the very basics from this then maybe SNORT is not for you... IDS and other network related tools kind of require you to have some basic knowledge about networking and protocols first. Closed.

MS-DOS was good for its time, no real complaints... Win 3.x was barely OK. Most people used it as a launcher for DOS apps primarily (kind of useless IMO). Besides MS Office 4.x and Claris Works (and solitaire/minesweeper) there just wasn't much windows apps yet. Still, it was pretty good for its time. Win95 was a big change, and pretty good for the most part. Win98 mainly brought bloat (ran like crap on a $3000+ P133 which was like 3 years old at the time) and somewhat better support for USB devices that nearly nobody used yet. Unimpressive. WinME was a bad joke. Kind of like Win98, but only suckier, and trying to hide the real DOS mode (which was half the reason to still use Win9x). Biggest epic fail ever. NT 3.1 was a very nice OS. It might have had the GUI of Win 3.1 but it was a very solid, quality OS that worked fine for the most part. There was a bunch of DOS stuff that didn't work though, which is why most people didn't use it. However, we had support for 32 bit apps (none of this win32s junk). Same story more or less with NT 3.51 (rather short lived though) NT 4 was a big improvement on 3.x, sharing Win95's GUI. But, a lot of software back then still wasn't really written for NT (mainly 9x) and didn't run... Drivers were a real problem (e.g. having to wait months for a service pack to get a driver for your expensive & high quality printer, and even then it only worked at half the resolution!) Win2k Pro was a decent improvement technically speaking over NT 4 and Win9x, but driver support was truly abysmal. That alone made it suck really badly (totally unusable on many systems), pretty much until XP came out. It sucked until it was replaced, at which point it became functional but pointless. Also, *loads* of apps just weren't written for systems with multiple user accounts and just assumed everyone had admin rights... So loads of software didn't work either (again, fixed when XP came out). It even sucked for games (9x was still vastly better at that). I wouldn't rate this much higher than WinME (Win98 was still more functional in many ways -- again, until XP came out). If I rated it based on it's "active" lifetime (before XP came out & replaced it), I'd rate it second worst, right behind WinME. Win XP was fantastic (features, looks, stability and all, mostly everything ran on it, good & stable drivers available for most stuff), albeit too easily PWNED until SP2 came out. It's basically what Win2k should have been. Arguably, it's the first OS that was quite decent since just about forever. But it's very much showing its age now. I wouldn't call it obsolete yet, but it's heading there fast (I don't miss it one bit either). Vista suffered mainly from the same thing as Win2k (drivers not ready in time). And stupid OEMs trying to sell it on PCs that were barely sufficient for XP, and some people blaming it too for the transition to 64 bit so it got a bad rep. But as of SP1, driver support is basically just as good as XP and it works just fine (I'm still using it at work). It was the first Windows OS to bring x64 to the masses too (XP 64 sucked, and running 64 bit versions of server OS'es on your desktop also does). Loads of nice features over XP. Never had to reinstall it either. Very stable OS too. Win 7 is the absolute best hands down. There's just no contest.

Well, it depends. From the current and previous releases? Too late ("Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual" -- that is, until copyright expires and then it's no longer protected). Can it stop others from doing whatever they please with those versions? Nope, as long as whatever they do falls within the CC rules. For upcoming releases? The "licensor" has the right to change the license, but that requires you to "own" all of the released code & other bits (text, images, translations and all), or to get the creators of everything to agree upon that change (you can't just change the license on the bits you didn't create yourself). Kind of like Sun does when you submit patches with their Sun Contributor Agreement when you submit patches (they make you agree to terms that makes them the [co-]owner of the said patch basically). Various other companies do the same. Then again, you could try to release it with different parts covered under different licenses (e.g. "pics, documentation and translations under CC" and "everything else under xyz"), but that's kind of a mess... Not at all. But personally, I'd definitely look into moving to a license meant for software. I wouldn't want them to use the WPI name either (the license forces them to give credit e.g. "based on WPI" or such). It's always going to be fun trying to prevent random strangers on the internet from editing jscript (or plain text and such content) regardless. Everybody assumes the creator isn't going to sue unless you're big fish and there's money to be made (lawyers cost a LOT to begin with, and lawsuits in foreign countries are well beyond merely expensive). It's always going to be an uphill battle.

...and this is why you don't normally use a CC license for software. It's ambiguous. Here, you're taking a license not meant for code ("We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software.") and then try to "modify" it with other clauses... The share-alike license already states that... Kind of redundant. That's kind of funny in a way. Usually, the name is the one thing people don't want others to use (e.g. Firefox "tweaks" that have to be rebranded to "Iceweasel"). If you force everyone else to use that name (which might actually be against the CC license -- isn't modifying as one wants permitted after all? Are you trying to say the license doesn't fully apply?), then is the name really yours anymore? Just like to keep a trademark, you normally have to "defend" it. IANAL, and you'd have to be one to answer this (a copyright lawyer no less, and his area of expertise doesn't always apply to every country either). See what I meant by "ambiguous" yet? I'm not sure I'd want random stranger's work to use my product's name either (it could harm its reputation if it's buggy or whatever) Which again the CC doesn't mention (so you're trying to make it into something it's not, and/or making a frankenlicense out of two things, or does it try to enforce 2 licenses together at once?). Even in traditional open source licenses, you don't have to do this (it only has to be made available e.g. upon request), so it even goes against that. And you're even forcing people to fully document their changes and send that to you? Not that I've ever seen a license that even tried to pull that off (nor that there are any "real" definitions of that in the first place) And what you're doing here goes right against the terms of the CC license too: i.e. it basically says only the CC applies, and nothing else. You picked a license that says to disregard your other licensing terms, so seemingly one could legally ignore them all (essentially waiving them by doing so). This is why one usually picks a standard license meant for software (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, CDDL, Apache, MIT, etc) and sticks with it (as-is). Or if you didn't really want the CC (or another license as-is), then you write your own... And even if you wanted to change your confusing license now, the CC license (the unaltered one, that doesn't include your extras) is non-revocable. And all future versions (that would be derivative works) also have to be covered by it.

That kind of talk isn't allowed or tolerated around here. Check the forum rules, particularly 1a. Consider this your (first and last) official warning! Topic closed for obvious reasons.

The home page seems to say it's under the creative commons license which says: So you don't actually have to ask for permission.

Here is the latest BIOS update + flasher for it. There's nothing specific for Win 7 there (not that you should need any kind of BIOS update to support a new OS)

I noticed it earlier, and I'm sure it'll be worth the $99 upgrade price, but yeah, I was thinking it probably has some bugs left to quash, and "beta" versions tend to run slower too so I'll wait until it's stable.

AFAIK mouse pointers don't change when you switch from right to left handed. If it does then it must be really minor (I use my younger daughter's left handed mouse all the time and never noticed anything). It would be a lot easier to understand what you're getting at with a picture.

"It appears that the ia64 WinPE uses a different set of boot files than the x86/amd64 images" Considering the Itanium is a totally different architecture, it's anything but surprising (not only WinPE would be different but pretty much everything ran on it -- unlike amd64 which is backward compatible with x86). What's surprising is that there are some people out there who bought Itanic systems Also, moved to WinPE section.

Avira is arguably the other good freeware AV. But the annoying popups every time it updates? It gets old quite fast. I gave up on Avira before precisely because of that (right when the newer version came out, where you couldn't just block the executable that pops up ads from running). Adware sucks. At this point, either Avira will remove their ads, or get their market share eaten away by MSE. Competition is good! Now being free is no longer an excuse for having a crappy product (low detection rates, high positives, buggy, slow? well, yeah but it's free!) Other companies will have to offer us something better for free if they expect us to use their apps.

Are you implying it has ever been up the hill before? It always had poor detection rates, it's notorious for its high amount of false positives, and it's not particularly fast either. The only thing it ever had was price, and even that is a moot point now. If you try this, you don't go back to AVG.

Both have 3GB RAM, a 250GB HD (both SATA, both 5400rpm), a modern dual core CPU one could qualify as "good enough" for most tasks, both have HDMI and wifi, both come with Vista Home Premium... That being said, there are differences. The ~$80 cheaper HP model: -has a somewhat better CPU if we believe the detailed description (the first one says "Turion x2" in it!) -should still have a good battery (still covered in warranty -- not sure if the warranty is transferable mind you) whereas the other doesn't -the screen is bigger and it's 1366x768, and we can't tell for sure the what the DV5's is (not knowing which specific DV5 model it is) but chances are it's 1280x800 -it has a webcam, whereas the other makes no mention of this -it has a full keyboard Also... -can't really compare the video cards as we don't know what's in the DV5 -the cheaper one has a 8x DVD writer, whereas the other has ... something? It might say Blu-Ray above that, but it's highly unlikely given the low-end CPU and small screen (making high def kind of pointless), and I'd definitely ignore that section altogether seeing how the CPU listed in there doesn't match the description underneath one bit. -the "free bonus" MS Office 2007 is likely warez or at least not properly licensed (no disc, no nothing) so don't count on that as a free license (mind you even without that it's still all-around better) So the G60 is cheaper and better. The only thing that worries me is the "SOLD as is" bit.

, from the Roadrunner United album. Glen Benton FTW. Joey Jordison's in it too.

IA-128? Shuffling deck chairs on the Itanic? Epic Fail, part deux? Groundhog day? Thanks, but no thanks! I hope AMD comes up with a sane alternative this time again. Not that I really see a point to 128 bit just yet. Surely, 256 Terabytes to 16 Exabytes of address space is still plenty for the foreseeable future... Or do we need that excuse (new arch) to add a few more registers to our CPUs? And don't try to tell me it's about data bus widths (no need to move to 128 bit for that) or specialized instructions (SIMD instruction sets already have that)...

It's an email server (not a client). So no, you don't need it to use outlook.

Look at this. It can also be done at the card level, but each adapter has a GUID in its path which then leads to another... That's the easiest thing I can think of, short of firing up a VM and making snapshots to find more details. AFAIK no WMI class exposes methods to pull this off easily. Edit: looks like it deletes and changes dozens of reg keys when you bind/unbind it. Fun!

Well, it's at least the third topic you open that talks about replacing that case... What more can we say? That case is pretty decent (although I very much preferred your previous CM stacker), I don't see any real need to upgrade... Your CPU is likely overkill for your usage (not that you ever said anything about that) Your heat sink is one of the best, definitely no need to replace that Your current PSU has plenty of power to spare for the foreseeable future (and it's a good quality unit too) 8GB of RAM is more than enough for just about anything, and a fan is totally unnecessary, unless you're into mad OC'ing or something Hard drives? We have no way of knowing if what you have fits your storage needs. And finally, your video card. Not having the slightest clue about what you do with your PC (do you play games even? all the latest titles on a 24" LCD at max settings or something?), I'm not sure how we're supposed to guess what you need (not that I keep up with video card stuff much) You don't even say what you do with it (video? rendering? gaming? encoding? just checking email?), or what it's not good enough at or whatever. We can only guess so much.

What? No fancy LeCroy scope handy? (Not that I do either, only Tektronix & HP units around here) Fault finding for the average person can be fun indeed. Swapping is the easiest and quickest thing for sure. Although one can get to the pins while the ATX connector is in and the computer is running with the probes of any old multimeter (that's only very a basic test though)... QFT x2. When it comes to power supplies, you usually get what you're paying for. Although some nice companies make some good and inexpensive basic units (like these which can be had for like $35 when on special), and some ghetto companies have expensive models that are all about looks and marketing (too many to list). One should stay away from generic, no-name cheapos. Some people need a disaster to happen before they learn that lesson (seen too many of them take out half the computer before)

Why an old generation triple core with so-so single threaded performance (will be no faster than the E2140 at most tasks in the end, doubly so as you'll just about never use all 3 cores)? Why would you pair any CPU with so little RAM? That will make it crawl regardless of what CPU it is (unless you're the kind that won't upgrade past XP, and don't do anything besides checking email like most grandmas). I'd much sooner pick a cheaper/slower CPU and more RAM. Mobo wise, I'm not sure if I even want to know what's in that bundle... Edit: Oh, so you're assuming the old RAM survived that?

For the price of a new motherboard and the new CPU, you might as well just get a new quad core that fits on your existing motherboard. Faster (especially since it's not a Phenom II X3) and basically the same price. Nevermind that even if you were going AMD for some reason, you could get a significantly faster Athlon II X4 620 (quad core too) for like $10 more. Personally I'm still using a overlocked E2160 (@ 3.4GHz) in my main box. It does everything I throw at it just fine (with the exception of not having VT)

That was my point. It doesn't. He's quoting this old post, and I *did* try it like 6 months ago... Just like I said before.

Not totally sure what you're asking. The most popular DOS extender was DOS/4GW, and by a long shot (pharlap was also somewhat popular). Then again, all this stuff has long been EOL'ed (like a decade ago). There's not much people still using DOS (instead of Windows) out there.

It doesn't matter as much which app you're trying to use as much as which video renderer you're using (overlay mixer, vmr, etc)