CoffeeFiend

I love it myself. But it's getting hard to find one in Canada. ncix doesn't carry it anymore seemingly. I might have to go with something else next time

I'm in the same boat as Tarun and Zxian here. I use a LOT of apps and do a lot of things on my box(es), and my boot times are still great. No need to reformat all the time. Like Mordac85 said, boot times on a stock install should be around 30 secs, but that often increases as you install some stuff (some software adds services, startup entries, etc) -- namely security apps, as well as the lack of doing any maintenance over the years (e.g. never cleaned temp files). But if it takes a lot longer than that (over a minute), then there's a problem somewhere (could be tons of things -- malware, slow logon scripts, network issues, badly behaving software, etc) and it should be easily fixable for the most part (clean temp files, defrag, remove startup entries, etc), and there are tools to trace the boot process as well. The OS has never been reinstalled on this box so far and still working great. And I only plan to do so when I switch for the x64 version soon-ish. And that install should last several years too. I've seen Win2k & WinXP installs that were several (7+) years old, and being used everyday, still working as good as they were on day 1. And even then, that's if it's not due to defective hardware or something like a driver update causing the issues...

Yep. "Mem Usage" is the working set size, whereas "VM Size" is private bytes. Yes, MS likes naming stuff in weird misleading ways when it comes to the task manager. The names are different when it comes to perf counters too. I personally always make private bytes the only column for memory (I don't normally need the others). But then again, I only use it for simple things (like killing a task quickly, without dropping to a shell) -- or starting/stopping services in Vista (the services tab is a very nice addition). Anything fancier and I just start Process Explorer anyways (I have it as a quicklaunch, so I only need to hit the windows key + the proper number to start it), which has everything named properly.

That's precisely what I was saying. Those numbers (the default column) means nothing RAM-usage wise. Can't really blame people for not knowing though, as they're all named strangely and it's quite misleading. A process' RAM usage is called private bytes, and in XP's task manager, they call that "VM Size", which you need to select manually. Alternatively, you can use something else that labels stuff with proper names, like Process Explorer.

Ah, I see. A lot of fun Well, what I was trying to suggest WRT that, was converting days hh:ss in a equivalent number (i.e. just seconds -- lots of them), which is a lot easier to store. It's also quite easy to transform it back in any format you please, using any language/tools i.e. "93 days, 7:56" being 134396 minutes, or 8063760 seconds. That should be easy to store in any database, including MySQL (a plain old INT would work).

Yet another update. XP's market share dropped below 70% (still being replaced by Vista quickly). Win9x market share still dropping real fast (~10% of their user base per month), and Linux growing even faster. Another month like this, and Linux will have TWICE the market share of Win9x!

If you want something simple (and great), then try Nagios (or munin, or cacti). Some people even just use very simple SNMP (or WMI polling) graphing using MRTG/RRDTool. Or there's always the MS-way: buy licenses for MOM... But if you really want to keep track of uptime only, then you can indeed write some scripts to poll computers and dumping the data somewhere (including a database). I'm not sure I'd use MySQL for something so trivial either (just keeping a computer name/uptime "pair") -- SQLite is a good fit for such things. As for how I'd store it in a database, I'd probably convert the uptime in numeric format first before storing it (much like the unix time format). Keeping it as a string is an option too for sure, if you want something very simple and don't want the trouble of parsing/converting the string to a number first.

@narayanaswamy: those numbers surely aren't private bytes, acrobat reader actually uses more than twice that. Hint: the default column selected in XP's task manager is mostly irrelevant (doesn't reflect RAM used by the apps)

You should have a look at private bytes. Opening a 4.54MB PDF file, I get: -acrobat reader 8: 46,320KB -foxit: 8,220KB Opening a 6.34MB PDF file, I get: -acrobat reader 8: 47,032KB -foxit: 10,456KB If I start the app (no pdf open), I get these: -acrobat reader 8: 35,824KB -foxit: 3,952KB That shows acrobat reader has a initial RAM usage that is nearly 10x that of foxit's. And also, that opening a PDF in foxit only takes about as much RAM as the size of the PDF you want to open, whereas acrobat reader uses about twice that. Haven't tried with v9, don't particularly care enough about it to waste time downloading & installing it.

When programming, I tend to need more vertical space (so I see more LOCs), not more width. And my 24" swivels, making it a 1200x1920 monitor, so I get to see plenty of lines at once. That works well for all kinds of stuff. To use dual 24" LCDs, I'd need to find (and buy) a suitable 4 port dual DVI KVM switch (that preferably also supports dual link DVI) first :/ And again, I'd prefer having a single 30" LCD over that (no bezels in the middle of it), but unfortunately the very nice 30" LCDs (i.e. MVA/PVA/IPS, with a nice set of inputs, that rotates, HDCP support and everything else) are rather pricey e.g. Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP at $2049 CAD. The 27" UltraSharp 2709W is cheaper ($899) but it's still 1920x1200.

I used to be like that with 4:3 monitors (CRTs), but then again using 2+ monitors was a pain in different ways: from software not really supporting it/requiring apps like ultramon, to being a real PITA when you wanna switch them using a KVM. Multi monitor KVM switches (like 4 port, dual DVI) aren't too common and rather pricey (last I checked around $500). And that's assuming you don't need dual link DVI or anything fancy either (and I can already foresee needing that with resolutions past 1920x1200) But nowadays @ 1920x1200 (high res and widescreen), I don't really have a need for dual monitors anymore (I'd rather have virtual desktops Compiz Fusion-style instead). There's barely enough space for a pair of 24" on my desk, and that's definitely wider than my field of view. If I wanted more, I probably would have went for a 30" instead (the Samsung 305T is around $1100 right now), which will also give you more vertical space, and be more useful than a pair of monitors if you plan on watching HD movies on it. I wish they'd get with the times, and offer spdif or toslinks on some high-end KVM switches too... I'd definitely be willing to pay $100 extra for that.

I fully agree with everything said before, so I won't bother repeating any of it. Some people use inexpensive-ish PVC conduit in places where they might want to change wiring more often (e.g. living room -- adding a HTPC later? more RG6 runs?), just keep a piece of conduit rope in there, this way it only takes a few minutes to run an extra line later on. As for places where I had one or two jacks and wanted more -- been there before too. Thankfully, most of the time the problem was only the number of jacks, so a cheap 5 port switch on that end was an easy fix (not an issue unless you have several devices who use a lot of bandwidth simultaneously).

12 per stacker 810 just to start, the smallest being 500GB. Then some more in other systems and a couple externals. There is no such thing as "enough storage", especially if you like HD movies, if you keep all your movies & tv eps handy for a HTPC (even if you delete the stuff you won't watch again) and/or use your computer to PVR stuff, if keep a library of VM images, if you like lossless music or such things. Going through a dozen TBs is very easy.

Even a single monitor can be pretty expensive... My 24" BenQ FP241W (P-MVA panel, not TN) was ~$700 CDN from ncix with taxes, shipping, and 0 dead pixel warranty. But I still spend more than that on storage.

Funnily, that's where I spend the least money. In my case, it would definitely be storage -- always was, always has been, and I don't see a sign of that changing anytime soon either. Storage gets cheaper, but files keep growing (large DSLR photos in RAW format, HD videos, multimedia stuff, VM images, etc)

Perhaps closing every thread with the last reply being over a year old? Or making it impossible for users that haven't been members for at least a year (or with a post count under 100?) to reply to threads more than a year old? The amount of seriously old topics being bumped up lately is getting quite annoying for sure.

Seriously old for sure. And installshield silent install switches have been thoroughly documented and widely known for years (and not just on MSFN, but on hundreds of sites) -- nothing worth bumping a 4 year old thread for. Any old Google search will turn them up in 5 seconds flat.

Those (I don't use either kind personally), and the dozens of startup apps we see on some boxes. Most of those being for useless systray icons, updaters and more pointless junk. Remove all that junk (Autoruns works great for this), remove any malware if there is any, clean temp files (CCleaner comes to mind), defrag, and it should already start a whole lot quicker. It should only take like 5 minutes to do.

Namely support for ActiveX & BHO stuff (thanks, but no thanks!) I sure can't. Their browser is slowly catching up to the basic barebone Firefox browser (e.g. finally starting to support old established standards half-decently), but I definitely couldn't live without my extensions as they make a world of difference. Not so much a question of easy to use, as "advanced" functions. Edit: well, I won't be wasting time trying beta 2, looks like is resource intensive to say the least... Like 3x the RAM usage of Firefox and using hundreds of threads.

I guess I'll add my own opinion too. I was a long-time fan of ATI cards (never had a problem with them back then). Then the GeForce 4 Ti4x00 came out, and it was supposed to be oh-so-great, so I spend a fair amount of money on it, and it turns out it sucked. The drivers weren't too great, the video input (it was a VIVO card) was crippled with Macrovision detection (unless you used ancient drivers), the video output (s-video) quality was pretty awful, and you *HAD* to reboot to change which display is your primary monitor (so things like the video overlay work, so you can play stuff on your TV -- think HTPC). That was perhaps the most problematic/most deceiving card I've ever owned. Then I got some more (including intel onboard, and a ATI x800 that worked fine besides a couple buggy versions of the drivers). No major issues with any of them. And now I felt like trying nvidia again, because of their then new video processor (VP2/BSP/AES128) that would supposedly decode H.264 in hardware and all that. Turns out, I never actually got it to work, using any drivers, on any OS, using any codec, or any player. And now we know these cards (G84/G86) are also experiencing very high failure rates. Combine that with poor drivers... I can't say I'm really happy about it. ATI doesn't seem to have the heat problems, their cards have always been a lot better for HTPC/video usage (for me at least), their Avivo/UVD stuff seems to work a lot better, their drivers could hardly be much worse, some ATI cards seem to be more power efficient (low power) than anything nvidia has to offer, and they currently beat nvidia on the 3D-power/$ (for gamers) too. And they're even releasing their specs to have fully working & open source Linux drivers. You know what I'll be buying next time.

Sounds like you're trying to use the toFixed method on a var containing a string (even though it contains numbers), and that will throw an error instead of work, specifically "yourvarnamehere.toFixed is not a function". So try to convert the contents of the variable you fill from the inputbox to a number first (many simple ways to do that, including Number() or subtracting 0 from it). A quick and dirty example of that (including the 2 quick & simple methods I just mentioned): <script type="text/javascript"> var somestring = prompt("Enter a number","12.34567890") var test1 = Number(somestring) var test2 = somestring - 0 alert ("The number is: " + test1.toFixed(2) + " or " + test2.toFixed(2)) </script> If you're using Firefox, you might as well take advantage of the far superior web dev tools, like the web developer toolbar, the javascript debugger, firebug and all those.

Maybe you have a special IE config (tweaks) that do this? Hard to guess. It would help a lot having more details, like an error message reported by IE ("download blocked" or whatever it might say), or a server error page or number. It's hard to just guess without any details. Or then again, maybe it's something with IE itself (dunno, the only time I ever use it is to download Firefox on a new box)

Sounds like your ISP is blocking ports. Try running it on a different port (i.e. not 80), and see if you can connect to it then.

Loads of them do (cable modems at least, never had DSL), and unfortunately it sometimes isn't enough to power cycle them (I could power cycle mine a hundreds times, and it still wouldn't hand out an IP to another box). Sometimes you have to ipconfig /release before you unplug the first PC for it to even work with the second (that, or give them a call, wait a half hour online, and get a tech to authorize your new MAC address every single time). A router would very easily solve this (plug as many PCs in it as you want, no issues whatsoever).

Exactly! Nice of him to go out of his way to make our point against himself like that. Want a faster car? Upgrade parts! (I was half-expecting him to say he happily charges $3500 to stick on a pair of racing stripes on the hood ) But when it comes to computers, somehow when you put a new motherboard/CPU/RAM in their PC, their monitor & printer that were perfectly good (he had no problem letting them keep them for use with their old tweaked P3, so they must have been OK) now NEED to be changed! That's like saying when you put that new engine in the Pinto, all of a sudden you need a whole new garage & driveway for it (even though somehow if you didn't replace the engine, they were adequate). And that makes your $3000 engine upgrade a $75000 upgrade! That's all he's been saying from the beginning, along with things like "the $3000 engine is junk" (i.e. the E21xx) and you need the $10000 engine! (even though countless millions are happily using them) Yet, letting them use the old Pinto engine once "tweaked" (for the same price as replacing it no less) is perfectly fine? And only then you don't need the new printer and monitor? And other nonsense like grossly over-exaggerating prices of solutions that makes him look bad (like ordering parts which would provide a LOT more boost than his tweaks). He never had a point, and further arguing with him is just going to be a massive waste of time, as he's obviously never going to have one.