CoffeeFiend
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CoffeeFiend
-
-
CCleaner is great, to remove crap in general, but as for making things faster, you never heard me claim that. It just keeps things tidy.
I used to use batch files way back in the Win9x days, but that was a PITA in general. You had to keep track of every location, which changed with software versions (e.g. browser caches), and batch files were pretty limited (forget about MRUs). I can also recall the batch terminating unexpectedly sometimes, or throwing loads of error messages on files it couldn't delete (e.g. temp files in use that couldn't be deleted). With CCleaner, it just works, it does it all quite well, somebody else takes care of updating the locations (file & registry) for you already and the interface is pretty good too (there's even a preview of what'll get nuked)
0 -
If you mean they wont work during guirunonce or whatever method they use
That's not what I said. I said that once they create a new user on that box, those new users will still have to go through all this. Settings chosen via IEAK (last I checked at least) will also work for new users.
As for updates, I've stopped using IE for that a couple years ago too (Vista & Win 7 don't use IE for that anymore).
0 -
-X-: the thing about those settings is, they'll only work for the current user. Not newly created users.
Personally, I only use IE as a Firefox downloader, so no idea (and at work, I force IE settings using group policy)
0 -
Hell no. Meta keywords used to be big, but these days most search engines (including google) mostly disregard them as they've been thoroughly abused for SEO purposes.
Just look at what google indexes. keywords ain't on that list, and like it says at the bottom: "Just remember that Google will ignore meta tags it doesn't know."
0 -
XP 64 bit was always like that, plagued with driver problems and what not.
Vista SP1 (and SP2) x64 runs great, I've had no problems with it whatsoever. Win7 x64 also runs just fine.
0 -
anything to do with the divx codec will crash
It's not so much divx related, as much as 99.99999% of video stuff these days (MPEG4-based, be it ASP or AVC, like divx, xvid, x264 and almost everything else) isn't supported by your CPU. Besides, your CPU is likely too slow to play such files at normal speed using ffdshow or anything else using the libavcodec lib (w/o dropping a lot of frames and getting severe audio lag problems, even with all post-processing disabled), while most other codecs will flat out not work like you've discovered.
As for converters, I normally use VirtualDubMod (along with avisynth), but the odds of all that supporting your CPU are near 0% too.
As for DVD Shrink, that's not encoding, that's transcoding (MUCH MUCH faster), and 11h isn't exactly what I'd call fast. My 2 year old box (using the 2nd cheapest CPU you could buy at the time) encodes a full movie in xvid (good profile too, and with pretty good avisynth script) in about 30 mins (with a newer CPU, it would be closer to 10). Converting to divx or xvid would likely take over a week on your box, and it couldn't even play them back afterwards (too slow).
0 -
It Is A Slow Computer But That Should Not Matter.
466Mhz Celeron
Actually, it matters a great deal. I believe that's your issue right there. Such a very old CPU (Socket 370, from 1999 era) doesn't support any SIMD instruction sets beyond MMX (no SSE, SSE2, etc), hence the illegal instruction errors. Most video stuff these days is optimized for SSE2 at least. You might be able to use some xvid builds instead, but either ways it'll be extremely slow (the latest DivX in H.264 mode would brutal too). That also explains your other crashes. Most likely, all the newer codecs will give you issues. BTW, Win2k is not supported either, and a mid-range P4 is recommended for SD (even then, still slow).
Long story short, you're WAY overdue for an upgrade.
0 -
0xC000001D means illegal instruction. I don't think that would be a missing runtime problem, besides, the divx requirements page doesn't say anything about it and if it needed it, it would likely bundle & install it anyways. I'd still go over that requirements list.
Anyways. We basically have almost nothing to work from. You didn't really state much, and we'd need LOTS more infos
-computer hardware (CPU, etc)
-OS used (SP?) and if you're using any particular protection (AV, etc), and if you have the latest video/sound drivers and directx
-if you have any codecs or codec packs installed, and particular versions of each
-which app you're using to encode
-does the VOB files play without crashing in any old media player?
-does it encode fine if you pick another codec?
-which version of divx is that?
...
Right now, we can't even tell what's actually crashing. Could be the encoding app, the MPEG2 codec trying to decode to decode the VOB files, or the divx codec, or a number of other things (muxer/demuxer, some bad filter loading itself like the dreaded mmswitch.ax, bad PIDs in the MPEG2, stream errors, etc). And without knowing what crashes for sure, it's hard to guess why it does it, and how to solve that.
Then again, I haven't used the divx codec in a lot of years. I would try xvid instead and see if that works. More advanced tests could be done using graphedit.
0 -
I don't know the exact name of it.0
-
That didn't work either. I have disabled TCP checksum offloading and TCP Large Send Offload on both NIC's.
You're not alone having that problem, and normally disabling offloading fixes it. I'd make sure it's also disabled in the VMs.
0 -
Well, it only took nVidia until SP2 to sort their Vista video drivers
Yeah, proper video drivers for Vista 2 years late -- right in time for Win7
Similarly, it seems to be almost only nvidia NICs getting these problems.As for the reported Realtek, I've had no such issues, with either 8111/8169 or 8168C(P), on several boxes, using the drivers on the disc or from windows update.
0 -
Try disabling TCP checksum offloading. I bet that'll do the trick.
0 -
I sitll can't login from Firefox 3.5.2. I've cleared my internet/temp files, cookies, history, etc...
Might be a problem with your profile, an addon, a corrupted install or something along those lines. 3.5.2 is working just fine here. I'd say give us a network trace, but there would be infos in it so there's not much we can do, until we can reproduce the problem on our end.
0 -
I am listening to 80s reloadedListening to 80s reloadedListening to 80s reloaded
Just how many times do you plan on posting the exact same thing?
I'm listening to: Slayer/Seasons in the Abyss/Dead Skin Mask.
0 -
im wondering, would i be better off running virtualbox with xp in it?
That's more or less what came across my mind: "I guess I'll just keep running XP in vmware for such things" (until I get my next box that'll run Hyper-V, which also requires VT/AMD-V, so it'll be AMD too)
However, your Q6700 supports VT. You're lucky.
0 -
"Before you download
Windows Virtual PC requires a CPU with the Intel® Virtualization Technology or AMD-V™ feature turned on."
That sucks, especially for most people with Intel CPUs i.e. anything pre-Core 2, and even in that era, there's a lot of them that don't support it e.g. the entire E2xx line, most of the E5xx line (only the versions introduced a month ago do), most of the E7xxx line (only the versions introduced a month ago or so do), the entire Core 2 Quad Q8xxx series seemingly, a LOT mobile C2D's too, all the Pentium D 8xx series, all P4's (save for like 2 specific models), all Celeron and Celeron D series, and all Pentium M's. That's not exactly great (and that's half the reason my next box is going to be AMD as well).
I'm definitely not buying a new CPU for that -- doubly so when it has to be a "premium" CPU (read: more expensive than what I really need) to support it. I'd have to spend like $200 for something that has it and that matches the performance of my old CPU. And at that point, I might as well get a quad instead, but then it has to be a Q9xx to get VT, which basically costs as much as a i7, only, you're still stuck with the old crappy architecture (Socket 775, FSB, etc). And going i7 also means a new expensive motherboard and DDR3 (more $$$ I don't have). Thanks Intel for the price gouging and crippling your affordable CPUs!
That means my kids (who don't need it) can use it on their AMD boxes, but not me on our fastest box (C2D w/o VT)... That's a pretty big deal breaker for many. None of our computers at work that are a year old or less support it either (nevermind the older ones and laptops).
Edit: Similar story for VMWare. You can't have 64 bit guest OS'es even if your host CPU is 64 bit and you also run a x64 OS, unless your CPU also has VT. Thanks Intel!
0 -
The NT lovers aren't listening, like usual, just regurgitating their points. I invite them to check older threads, in which the Win9x users have successfully rebutted their points many times.
The Win9x lovers aren't listening, like usual, just regurgitating their non-points. I invite them to check older posts in this very thread, in which the Win9x users have successfully rebutted their non-points many times.
If it's that easy to find such infos that proves us wrong, you're also welcome to copy/paste them here. So far those "points" Win9x'ers have made have been for the most part delusional nonsense (the latest bit being that "With proper configuration and patching, NT systems can be just as secure as any 9x system out there." that JustinStacey.x already quoted - I laughed out loud)
Now only if a way was found to pop a CD in, game over.Not if you use EFS or BitLocker. It's no help at all then. Yep, only game over for Win9x. Oh wait, you didn't even need to pop in a CD for that. And BTW, double ctrl-alt-del doesn't actually do anything in Vista/Win7 either (don't have a XP box anymore, can't check for sure)
0 -
Nothing to do with the file system?
Indeed, NOTHING to do with them.
The filesystem itself hides NOTHING. It could be hiding in plain sight right in the root on a FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, EXT2, EXT3 partition or anything else just fine. It's the code (the rootkit) that hides the files by hijacking your OS functions, NOT the filesystem, which is irrelevant here. That's how rootkits work. And like I said before, DOS isn't protected from any of this in any way. Of course you haven't seen code that does this nowadays, as nobody writes viruses for DOS anymore.
0 -
Rick Astley
As in, willingly self-rickrolling?
0 -
1) Managing general sound tasks (like system sounds and YouTube videos and the like) while reducing the demands on general system resources. Doesn't the Soundblaster have it's own chip and memory, thereby freeing up the main processor and memory for other tasks?
It won't be of any help for avi files and youtube and that kind of thing, as the mp3 sound (or similar codecs) will be decoded by your CPU anyway.
2) Handling more demanding sound tasks like recording and audio mixing in Audacity and Band-in-a-Box.AFAIK all that stuff is also done in software, so no help there either.
Although the SB Live will have better sound quality for sure, over an old low-end stereo-only AC97 codec.
Edit: Well, if it's not even a Live series card (Ensoniq ES1373 based)... It'll likely have a slight edge over the onboard codec, but not by much.
But seriously, even this $8 card has better audio than both (that's the absolute cheapest card I've ever seen). Or for $11 you can have 8 channel 96/24 playback, with support for recent codecs (DD EX/DTS ES ) and more.
0 -
Once the malware has entered your system, you have already lost. It's the same on NT.
Nice black and white view. Although very true in Win9x' case.
As for NT, different story. In the real world, people will run into malware now and then, and when it happens, the layered security truly helps. From techs to make the exploits not work at all (e.g. DEP), to making them run trapped in a sandbox (no system access whatsoever), and ACLs greatly limiting exposure. It's not the same at all.
A firewall running on your computer is not the same as running it on your router, which is a specialised computer that is much more capable.Which only shows you know nothing about the subject. Routers aren't magical, or all powerful. They're really just crappy little embedded processors (read: cheap, and very often with exceptionally poor and truly appalling build quality), running a very basic kernel and something like iptables on top of that. Like most Linksys, which use Linux (or VxWorks) and iptables indeed (with a crappy broadcom that overheats, almost no flash, and not much RAM). In fact, some routers don't even have firewalls but are rather just dumb NAT boxes (very limited protection). If you want a great firewall (with actual rules, not just a dumb NAT box), then pretty much all the best options are software, like ISA Server, pfSense, m0n0wall, ipcop, smoothwall, etc (although there are some decent "hardware" firewalls like sonicwall makes).
Except computer security is not like the real world.Says you.
Again, you're confusing local security with remote security.It only seems that way because you missed my point entirely.
refuses to acknowledge certain unbelievable NT platforms vulnsWhich I'd like you to list and explain for us to thoroughly debunk. FUD.
Other example is cuberti who escapes completely the point about the run as utility which is to say that code downloaded and executed through one or another exploit will have zero difficulty to get admins rights and take control of the whole machine because code to bypass those limited rights is just trivial to write.Which only shows, like JustinStacey said, that you have no idea what you're saying. There are standard features to elevate permissions, which require the password or the hash, neither of which the exploit would have. It's exactly like the sudo mechanism on Linux or Mac OS X. You're essentially saying those are vulnerabilities too, and trivial to bypass.
If anything, the NT file system made NT systems vulnerable to a class of malware (rootkits) that is difficult to detect and can be very hard to remove.Except, rootkits are totally not a NT-only thing, and it doesn't come from there either. They also exist on Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris and others. Win9x is not safe either. Even in the MS-DOS era, viruses were using similar techniques to hide themselves (e.g. hooking int 21 and filtering the results of functions like 4E/find first file and 4F/find next file, plus hooking int 13 and always returing "clean" bootsectors and so on). In fact, most OS'es on this list offer a decent level of security against those (like ACLs preventing installing one, without having to enter admin pwd or getting "access denied" errors), save for Win9x.
A file system that makes it easy to hide executables and processes is not a security asset.Except, it has nothing to do at all with the filesystem.
0 -
i guess it may come down to personal preference or maybe our perception.
That's what I was saying at the beginning. 94% prefer ClearType, but the others either don't care (1%) or don't like it (5%). Looks like you fall in that 5%.
Some people prefer aliased fonts, nothing wrong with that. ClearType looks much better IMO, a LOT easier to read, even at 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD.
0 -
Like many others before you who have argued this subject, you confuse local security with remote security.
Not at all. Like I said, anything that uses the network is affected by buffer overflows and such exploits. That was merely one example.
Not to mention that NT security is a joke to hackers, because there are several backdoors to administrator status, some of which can even be used remotely.If you say so
A software firewall is not useful.They certainly are, be they software, or software running on a specialized box (*all* firewalls are basically software). But hey, you keep thinking that.
Anti-malware is one of the top 6 dumbest ideas in computer security.According to you, perhaps (BTW, Ranum's ideas are quite funny). The rest of us live in the real world, where bad things happen now and then, and have to be fixed. Just like we have hospitals in case you break your leg.
Nonsense. This is not security through obscurity.You're right, it's security by incompatibility (based on obsolescence) and not being a target. It has nothing to do with obscurity.
The OS itself doesn't get updated, but many programs that run on it still do. The web browser being the most important one.The OS certainly needs it, just like the browser (many users in this section are still using IE6 too) and plenty of other software.
Your own extremely limited view of security seems to rest solely on having network services or not (being featureless), disregarding everything else, especially when the rest is so full of holes that there's practically only air left.
0 -
an NT OS can be taken over simply by sending a specially crafted packets to its ports leading to buffer overflow and code execution, remote control of the machine.
Like cluberti said, that's on a unpatched box only, it only affects versions that are like 10 years old, and that's also after bypassing firewalls. And that's hardly a NT-only thing. The same can be said for just about any software that uses the network in any way, like web browsers for example.
Someone could use one of the (very common) flash exploits or anything along those lines (browser exploit, etc), and use that to pwn your box (view the wrong page, get infected). At least, with a modern OS, the default browser is sandboxed so it won't actually do anything, and even if it somehow got past that (highly unlikely), then you're still not running as admin so no system files or apps would get infected (no permissions) and so on. It just can't do very much.
The same flash exploit used on an OS like Win9x means getting thoroughly PWNED (assuming the code can actually run on that old OS) -- there's absolutely NOTHING standing in its way: full access to memory, processes, files, registry, etc. So from there it can infect your system files, download some more malware, terminate processes of any "security" app, install rootkits and anything else it so pleases. There's absolutely nothing to stop it. When someone has that level of access to your box, it's game over. And it's definitely a LOT easier to accomplish such things against older OS'es like Win9x that don't have anything like DEP/NX bit support, where code can be executed inside data-only memory (zero buffer overflow protection).
The real protection against these vulnerabilities is keeping updated, which you can't really do anymore in Win9x' case as extended support ended years ago. Win9x security is an oxymoron. Your only security is not being a target.
Besides, all the people saying how XP is so insecure and such things... I haven't had a single virus in 5+ years, ~2/3 of that while running XP with local admin privileges. Running as a standard user used to be a pain circa 2000 too, but software has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years.
0
Similarly, it seems to be almost only nvidia NICs getting these problems.
Windows 7 and GDI hardware acceleration
in Windows 7
Posted
That this guy is making a lot of big accusations, based on very little evidence, and draws bad conclusions. Right off the bat, I can't reproduce his MMC issues. Sounds like he just discovered how bad nvidia drivers really are...