CoffeeFiend

You didn't get burned. We're just disagreeing, that's all. Cheers

Precisely. There shouldn't be malware on your box in the first place. Using a firewall to block malware's outgoing packets is a band aid fix at best, whereas working towards not getting malware would be the actual fix. I can even let my kids browse using IE8 on their new Win7 RC box (been too lazy to throw Firefox on there yet), and so far they picked up exactly 0 infections/adware and such crap. They've always kept their XP box clean too (and we're talking about 10 year olds here), even if the box wasn't even locked down (they were local admins, no hosts file or anything like that) It's amazing the amount of trouble some people to have with malware. If they only stopped running every .exe straight from P2P and so on, and their problems would end instantly.

Exactly. I don't see a need to block any outbound stuff myself. NAT isn't a firewall, but it still blocks all unsolicited incoming connections, blocking the undesirable stuff as a side effect (as the router wouldn't even know where to fwd them packets to). I haven't run a software firewall in years, and I'm not about to either. Not until we're all on IPv6 or something, where every computer & device you have is accessible directly on the internet.

See this topic. [closed]

There are plenty of people able to moderate in here. It's just that together we don't cover every single minute of the day (gaps when most of us are sleeping or at work) That guy is a pain in the butt for sure, and somehow he doesn't seem to get he'll get banned every single time he comes back, and that no one wants of his crap. Appointing more mods solely to ban him won't really solve the problem (nothing will completely fix that), and would only help if it was someone who'd happen to be on the forums in the time frame where the rest of us sleep/work.

There's lots of cards that fit the bill. I've seen a Radeon HD 3640 (for like $40 CAD a couple days ago) that would work fine. However, you're usually limited to H.264 profile 4.1 if you want hardware decoding. That type of content (1080p @ 10mbit) plays with like 1% CPU utilization, but it very much depends on the drivers/codec/player combo (works fine here, using MPC-HC's built-in stuff and ATI's latest drivers -- never got it to work on my old nvidia card). It even works fine using onboard video from AMD's 780G chipset. Once you want to watch contents that isn't limited to profile 4.1, then the CPU load goes up a fair bit...

No need for links as of now, the help > check for updates drop down menu works. It's great! Most extensions worked as-is too, besides tabmix plus which has a compatible dev build.

Use process explorer instead. Then you'll be able to see which service is doing it and such.

» Posting Guidelines 1.a This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (porn, cracks, serials, etc..) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens or any other illegal activity will also not be tolerated. You will be banned without notice. Banned. Thread closed.

» Posting Guidelines 1.a This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (porn, cracks, serials, etc..) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens or any other illegal activity will also not be tolerated. You will be banned without notice. Banned. [topic closed] Edit: beatcha at it geek!

I'd just solder a full pin header in there. Then use a IDC connector on it (part of your JTAG cable). If you're in a hurry and don't have some parts on hand, look at typical JTAG cable schematics, you'll see what you need. Now's a good time to solder the other pin header as well (for serial ports -- 3.3v though!)

First pic found using Google (plenty more of them around) Not a problem.

If you're handy with electronics, you could solder the header on the JTAG port and use that to reflash it (i.e. CFE.BIN, then you should be able to tftp the firmware over -- I'd use Tomato or DD-WRT instead). Often TFTP works (assuming you have boot delay on), but not with the factory firmware...

Forum rules: 2.d Please be mindful of other users on this forum, and post in English. If you must post in your native tongue, please include an English translation along with it so that it can be better read and responded to by the rest of the forum members who are also using English, and also so that if it ends up being a useful post, others will be able to view and read it later. This site is an English site, so please be mindful of that when you post. Most of us have no idea what you just typed. I can guess from the title it's something about Seagates drives, in which case it should also be in that topic. Please, post in english, in the proper topic. Thank you. [closed]

And what isn't scientific out of that? Care to explain? The companies who do those stats group all Linux distros together, otherwise you'd have like 500 entries with 0.02% each. I don't see a reason not to either. That's what most people do when individual numbers get too low (that's also why win9x is grouped in my latest graphs, they're all small fractions of 1% now). The graphs would be pretty ugly too with a couple hundred lines all on top of each other at the very bottom. It clearly shows there's more Linux users than of certain outdated versions of Windows, and less than recent versions. It just shows the biggest groups by themselves, and the little guys grouped in bunches that sort of make sense (e.g. Win9x or Linux distros), that's all. BTW, It wasn't meant to be a highly scientific study either, it's just interesting to see the overall trends. Edit: as hitslink's numbers recently went completely crazy, then they had no numbers available for a month, and now all the numbers are completely different (and weighted in odd ways), I won't be updating this topic anymore. You can't follow trends from their site anymore either (no back history). So that's the end of it. Topic closed and unpinned!

Wasn't obvious. There's a LOT of die-hard win2k users who talk exactly like that, but are dead serious about it all. Ditto for OS X ("At least 9 GB of disk space available.")

I'll include that in the new charts next week. 767% more space, if we go by your numbers. And going by that: Price of hard drives circa 2001 (should have been even more expensive the year before when Win2k came out), WD 40GB being $250: $6.25/GB Price of hard drives today, 1TB drives being commonly found at $80: $0.08/GB. So storage space was 7812% more expensive back then (probably a little more, as I'm going by the price the year after) 767% of the space, at 1/7812% the price, means it effectively only costs 9.8% as much in disk space for your Win7 OS install now as your Win2k install did almost 10 years ago. Great deal if you ask me. No need to spend $250 up-front on a drive anymore either. But if you just wanted to compare a cutting edge OS (which is not even released) to a really outdated one, with nearly 10 years (3535 days) separating them, sure, the increase is pretty dramatic. That's akin to comparing Win2k and something from June 1990 (also 3535 apart), which in this case would be Windows 3.0. Win2k min requirements says: 133MHz+ CPU (recommended: P2), 32MB RAM (recommended 128MB), 650MB of HD space (recommended: 2GB), and also CD-ROM. Win 3.0 min requirements says: a nice and shiny PC XT with 640KB RAM (1MB recommended), 6 to 7 MB of HD space, CGA or better. That's 5120% more RAM minimum, or 12800% more RAM recommended, 10000% the min disk space, but more like 31500% recommended. Win 3.0's requirements are also very high compared to a 10 year older OS. Edit: a similar post of mine, in another topic that got out of hand:

I've never seen cheat sheets like that. They're mostly for trivial/simple things it seems. In this case, you could start making your own by compiling simple chunks of code, and seeing how it looks. However, it's probably not going to be that simple. The generated (compiled) code is going to vary depending on a LOT of things: -platform (x86? Freescale? PPC? ...) -depending if it's 32 or 64 bit code (x86/x64) -depending on calling conventions used (cdecl/stdcall/fastcall/etc) - changes a lot of things by itself (how args are passed to a function, who clears the stack, etc) -depending on which particular compiler is used -depending on the type of executable (e.g. old MZ .exe's or PE) and memory model -language used of course (you might not always just look at asm from plain C) -in some cases, we don't always look at asm either (e.g. MS IL) ... But most of it becomes fairly obvious after a bit (assuming you know the basics, like say, the Windows version check I've shown in this post before) Depends on the particular condition for starters. One example: if(string1==string2) {...} You could have something like: push address_of_string1 push address_of_string2 call lstrcmp* (could also be a CompareString call) or eax,eax (test if eax = 0) conditionnal_jump_goes_here (je/jz/jne/jnz...) Or even simpler: if(int1==0x123) {...} mov eax, location_of_int1_in_memory cmp eax,123 conditionnal_jump_goes_here Depends on the loop type (for, do while, while...), condition and so on. Depends on the calling convention. Those kind of things you just have to know, by reading the processor's instruction set reference or such (get the value from the stack into your chosen register, and increment the stack pointer) Also, the set of tools you use could make your life a lot easier (or vice-versa). There's even some tools that will do asm -> C for you automatically. The best tools aren't cheap though (could be 1000's of $) I'll probably take a stab at your other post later today. Edit: looks like jaclaz already got around to that with a pretty good answer.

Why in the world would you do that (use variable length string to store what's essentially a boolean value), instead of using a bit?

I don't see how it could be false. There's hundreds of such articles on news.google.com right now. I just can't see every journalist out there not having done their basic homework on something so important. Edit: Actually, it's on the news.google.com US front page right now, first article at the top, and it says "all 3,234 articles" right underneath. I'm not a big fan of pop music, but it's a pretty big loss for the music world for sure.

copy con p.bat ping 192.168.1.%1 [ctrl]+z, [enter] Now just type: p 123 at the command line to ping 192.168.1.123

I tried it today. It's nothing spectacular, but then again 99% of AV programs aren't, especially the free ones. My main gripe is with RAM usage (private bytes around 110MB for MsMpEng.exe alone, then the user interface, msseces.exe uses another 8MB or so). Other than that, no problems yet, no false positives, the GUI is alright, and there's no annoying "upgrade to pro!" kind of popups and so on. Not bad at all for the first beta of a brand new product. I'd say NOD32 is still better, at least in terms of RAM usage (actually, haven't tried v4 at all), but it would also cost $100/year for our home PCs. That's enough $ over a 3 year span to buy like 24GB of RAM at current prices. Then again, it's a bit early to say how well MS will be at keeping definitions current.

No idea what you're saying. CTRL-F doesn't even find "calendar" anywhere on the page.

Another clear win for Hyper-V. Can't wait

Of course if one has the budget for four drives, why not? But for most people, a pair of say, WD RE3 WD1002FBYS (1TB) is already pricey enough (~$320), 4 is a bit extreme (more like ~$640). Even on cheaper drives, it's the difference between $200 and $400 for disks alone. And it's not so much the total cost, as much as having to buy them all at once (a $100 HD a month doesn't seem too bad, but dropping $400 on 4 drives at once... takes a sizable part of disposable income out of a pay) 4 drives isn't that impressive on the average desktop in RAID0 compared to 2 drives in RAID0 (diminishing returns beyond 2 drives mostly, especially on "cheapo RAID" -- good SSDs are perhaps a better option in a way for perf beyond 2 drives) 4+ drives would be nice for RAID5, if only I could afford a nice Areca card with enough ports (many hundreds of $), ditto for RAID6 4 drives would be nice for RAID10, only if I could afford a bunch of Norco RPC-4020 cases and several RAID cards to fit all my drives in (I got like 16 drives already and I'm VERY low on space, no idea where I'd put 20+ more!) It's the hundreds more in drive space, it's the hundreds more in fancy RAID cards, it's the hundreds more in big fancy cases to hold all the drives in (and good PSUs and everything else)... I only wish I could afford that kind of stuff