TravisO

IMHO that Samsung is the best price vs quality out there. And if your budget is 300uk then you can almost afford to buy two, go dual screen, and have them pivoted (aka rotated) which would give you the equivalent of a 30" display. Aside from that upcoming Dell screen, pretty much anything larger than 20" gets dramatically more expensive than it's worth, especially when you can do dual screen. Here's a picture of what I'm suggestion: http://snipurl.com/172lg

The Samsung that I recommend is the SAMSUNG 204BW Black 20" 6ms: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824001087 The new Dell one isn't for sale yet.

Look into Samsung, they make the "best bang for the buck" monitors out there. Their 20" 1600x1200 monitor (with pivot support) is a mere $300usd online. If you really want size, Dell just announced their $329usd (will probably be $299 street price in 3 weeks) 22" monitor that's 1680x1050.

Not running AV software is like not wearing a car seatbelt. Sure, I know how to use a computer, not go to sites that push junk ware or open email attachments (unless I asked for it) but just like a car, just because you drive safe, doesn't mean you won't ever get in an accident. If you were truly a "smart" user, you'd use a small & lite AV app (ex: NOD32 and Kaspersky are the best) and then follow sane computer use practices. I should also point out that both AVG and Avast are inferiour solutions (but I guess better than nothing right?) as there are many viruses that can get around these AVs and infect the system and even let the AV think everything is working correctly, I've seen this with my own eyes. PS: I'd also stick Windows Defender + DropMyRights (free XP util from MS) to make your PC even more secure. If you want to read my mini guide on this setup check out http://rhelik.lehost.net/help/security/ PPS: There are many scenarios to infect you despite being a "smart user" such as via an online game accessing an infected server, opening an Excel/Word/PDF document, streaming audio, etc etc. Although if you run all these apps via DropMyRights it does make it MUCH harder to infect you.

Google was invented for a reason! http://www.free-fonts.com/matrix_fonts.html

Umm you shouldn't be measuring memory in bits, it's silly. The only reason you would use bits is to make a small number seem very large, something that only a slimely marketer would attempt. Memory is measured in bytes, nowadays, you want a solid 1GB (that's gigabyte) ram in order to have a nice snappy PC, but you can get by in XP with 512MB as long as you don't use user switching.

I've written a mini article on the subject, using the software I use: http://rhelik.lehost.net/help/security/ In a nutshell I use: - Nod32 - Windows Defender - DropMyRights (runs apps in non admin mode) - Hosts Secure (blocks known bad urls) imho you couldn't get a more secure setup than this.

I'm never one to believe a new OS is buggy or flawed at all, nor have I ever seen it proved to me, and this SteveX guy shares that opinion, but he's listed a few bugs that seem very easy to reproduce and affect semi normal operations. http://blog.stevex.net/index.php/2006/12/1...sta-is-buggy-2/ Can anybody see if they can re-produce them?

I've been a dabbling graphic designer on the PC for about 10yrs and while 10yrs ago Apple was #1 in that realm, imho they lost the #1 spot about 8yrs ago. Apple wins on the video front (there are more & better apps available) but as for as static imagery, PC wins in my book. And lately, computers have been getting faster quicker than software can find a use for it, even the lowest end model MacBook (the new Intel based ones I mean) are much faster than you need for Photoshop or Illustrator, and as long as you have 1gb of ram, you're good. IIRC all the MacBooks are 1gb of ram, so if you want to splurge, upgrade to 2gb ram. I recommend you do get a combo CD/DVD burner in your laptop as you'll want to backup your work. Despite, I would still get a PC laptop with 2gb of ram and the Intel Core 2 Duo based CPU, but if you want a MacBook, any one will due as long as it has 1gb of ram or more.

You can't do that with DOS, you'll need to rewrite it into vb script: for ($i = 1; $i -le 256; $i++) { $cmd = "ping 192.168.96." + $i; invoke-expression $cmd } If you haven't heard of it, Powershell is MS's equivalent to a Unix shell http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...ll/default.mspx It requires XP/2003/Vista and .Net 2.0 installed.

Only hardcore gamers are graphics snobs (I'm one of them). WiiSports looks does NOT push the limits of the Wii by a long shot. Excite Truck is ok but obviously light years behind the nextgen GT. I'm a big Nintendo fan, because I've always liked fun games, and while I do understand, if not agree with Nintendo's choices, I still thing they could have taken the cpu & gpu of the Wii just a bit further. Using multi-platform games are not always a good way to compare, I'm referring to Call of Duty 3. CoD3 was obviously rushed on the Wii. I haven't seen CoD3 in action on the Wii, but from the screenshots, the graphics are barely Gamecube quality. The reason is, the game programmers have to rewrite the majority of a game's engine in order to take full advantage of a different system, this takes a lot of time and a lot of money. And considering games that choose to release at launch, time is something they don't have. Leave it to say Wii CoD3 should have waited another 4+ months to polish, instead we have a "it works ok, so we'll reduce the graphics to make up for the game's slowness". I'm hyped to play CoD3 on the 360 I plan on buying soon, but I wouldn't play Wii CoD3 if you gave it to me for free. Even IGN games gave it a 7/10 on the Wii, and a 9/10 on the 360. I'd like to point out that improving 3d games requires massive jumps, unlike back in the 2d days. In order to make 3d look "next gen" you need to jump at least 4x the power, and most companies shoot for 6x. Anything less will be barely noticeable. This is proved by the Wii where the hardware is only 2x or 3x the power.

I've already found and reported a bug that exists when using WMP11 in Firefox, it seems when you view a video that is running in a resolution larger than the encoding, WMP11 will resize back to the video's true height instead of using the HTML markup from within Firefox 2.0, but it works fine in IE6. The problem is the width does not resize, so my 640x480 video window, showing a 320x240 video resized to 640x240. My bug post is at: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358944 PS: this bug won't affect normal video playback in Firefox, so don't sweat it much guys.

There are more, as stated in another post, on large drives, NTFS is faster. If you disable the "last accessed" feature in windows, NTFS gets an minor boost. NTFS is transactional based, giving much better reliability, ever noticed you don't get "lost chains" like you use to when you run CHKDSK. NTFS is more efficient, giving you more free space on the same drive. In FAT32, as your drive gets larger, it's split into larger blocks, easily 16k or 32k, were as NTFS is 4k or 8k. What this means is, every file takes an entire block, if the file is 17k on a 32k setup, it's using 32k. At least on NTFS it would take 20k or 24k. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of files and it adds up.

Spybot & Trend Micro Online are crap when it comes to being secure, prevention is the best medicine. I have an idea, run a good AV/AS app (hint, it's NOD32 or Kaspersky). Both of which have great virus and great spyware prevention. Then throw Windows Defender in the mix which has great prevention as well and run your internet apps (ex: browsers, Usenet, IM) in a non admin mode via RunAs or using DropMyRights. You can read my guide about this at: http://rhelik.lehost.net/help/security/

After reading your full rant, and from my experience, I can't disagree with anything. Just to set the record straight, I didn't create this topic to put IE7 on a throne. I merely stated it's a great security improvement for XP. Honestly, I use Firefox for my surfing and IE.

I totally agree here. Heck, the first time I slipstreamed SP2 into XP, I didn't expect it to fit on a normal CDr. I wonder if XP would still fit in a CDr if I slipped ALL the patches into it and a the full install of IE7.

It's by design, they're will aware of it. I've even read a detailed explanation on a MSDN blog in the past (sorry no link). I guess MS just found a way to make use of those 500GB HDs! One of the most obvious reasons is that, without the entire install file, it wouldn't be possible to "Change Installation". Don't get me wrong, I hate the wasted space and while there would be simple shortcut, imho MS screwed that up. Obviously you could burn the entire folder to a DVDr, but it won't do you any good because Windoze renames the install file, and if the install file isn't found, Windows does ask for a diff location, but sadly, it uses the original install file name, not the new name, so there's no way to know which file it is!!!!! I've been peeking around and I can't find where MS hides this table of old vs new names.

You can buy a name brand CD/DVD burner /w Dual Layer support for $29. Time to get one. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16827106014

Most like because these sites are detecting your browser version and output 1 CSS for Firefox, and another for IE. IE7 can render CSS2 fully, so it's not IE7 that is the problem, it's the websites in question. Update: after reading some of the posts further down, it seems I was incorrect about full CSS2 support in IE7. I'll have to test it later on, but for now I'll have to assume the worst.

IE7 is a massive security overall from IE6 and whether you like it or not, parts of the OS makes calls to these APIs and HTML rendering DLLs. If you view some types of help, run MS Office, MS Money or use most any HTML editor then you are indirectly using IE. So go ahead and install IE7, it's actually faster than IE6 and doesn't use more memory. As an added bonus, installing IE7 won't change your default browser settings, so it won't steal focus away from Firefox or Opera or whatever you use. I'd say that IE7 is possibly the biggest security fix to Windows ever, but XP SP2 comes in a very close second. Only a fool would intentionally leave arguable insecure DLLs and APIs on their system, upgrade and forget about it. PS: yes I think the new UI In IE7 is quirky, even iTune-ish like. I know MS spends millions on user testing and is always taking steps to make their apps easier (for new users, current users don't really matter in the long run) but I'm not sure I like the new look of IE. PS: I have reposted this to my blog at http://thespoke.net/blogs/travisowens/arch...x_or_Opera.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Screen_of_Death The Blue Screen of Death (sometimes called "bluescreen", "stop error" or just abbreviated as "BSoD") is a popular name for the screen displayed by Microsoft's Windows operating system when it cannot recover from, or is in danger of being unable to recover from, a system error. ----------------- I'd also like to add, that the Malicious Software Removal Tool is not a required part of IE7's install, there's a very obvious checkbox right near the beginning of the install to "check for updates and run Malicious Software removal tool". Just uncheck it!

While I haven't seen official word from MS yet, but you can bet your panties that Vista keys will expire the day Vista goes RTM/Gold. If you want to use it in a virtual session or as a dual boot, fine, but don't try to use it as your home OS. MS has already admitted they have many dirty tricks when your key expires such as program randomly refusing to run, and lots of nags. I also agree, if you want to try Vista find RC2, beta 2 is ancient and will only leave a bad taste in your mouth.

You forgot to add the option that says... Call up Dell and spend $299 for a new computer Don't laugh, it's more common than you think.

Man take some Prozac, wait 2 weeks and you'll find them for $249 or less. Right now Intel is busy selling all their chips to the OEMs.

Man I can't believe you guys are posting on a thread from 2003, it's over 3yrs old now... Despite, before you jump onto your AMD bandwagon, I think you better take a closer look at the Intel Core Duo 2 which is cheaper and faster than AMD's best chips. http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/in...e-2-13-ghz.html