View Full Version : The freewarePC - the article is posted
Here's the link:
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=570
bmc152003
07-20-2004, 09:23 PM
great article, i agree wiht your views on gimp... i tried it awhile ago, hated the interface... ill stick with paint shop pro 7
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-20-2004, 09:54 PM
How do you save to *.pdf in open office. I am using 1.0.1. Do I need to upgrade or install a plug-in? I do not see a pdf option in the save menu while I am in the word processor.
Aaron
07-20-2004, 10:01 PM
Agreed the interface in The GIMP is not very user friendly. However saiying that I have used it to produce material I would have used photoshop in the past for.
For a really unfriendly interface Blender really takes the cake:
http://www.blender3d.com
Functionality wise it is very good but the interface scares many away.
Many software developers haven't much clue about a good software interface. Probably more so in the open-source world for various reason.
Personally I am impressed with Apple's Mac OS X there is a much more consistent interface across applications than is seen under Windows or Linux.
All in all an nteresting article Roger. I don't agree with some of what you suggest but appreciate your viewpoint and reasons for the choices.
Aaron
Tokelil
07-20-2004, 10:01 PM
There should be a menu item in the File menu that says something like "save to PDF".
You can't save it as .pdf but you can export it to .pdf. In the midway of file-menu.
And thanks to Roj for the article. Many familiar and many never-heard-before-but-gonna-try-it-out programs.
And it sure sounded like you ;)
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-20-2004, 10:42 PM
I found out you can only export to pdf in v1.1
VirtualDub and TMPGEnc are definitely two useful programs.
www.fraps.com is also great from capturing video while in a program(capturing footage of a game).
All in all an nteresting article Roger. I don't agree with some of what you suggest but appreciate your viewpoint and reasons for the choices.
The world would be an unconscionable bore if we were all the same. :)
I'm gratified that you at least respect the reasoning. :)
And it sure sounded like you ;)
Heheheh...
You're welcome. :)
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-20-2004, 11:02 PM
I liked the fact that I had not heard of all of the programs before. I am sure that the big name websites do not really do any deep searching to find the free programs.
By memory compactors, do you mean the tools that are used to clear up ram? If you are, I agree. They do not really work that well/at all, definitely notr better than a restart.
By memory compactors, do you mean the tools that are used to clear up ram? If you are, I agree. They do not really work that well/at all, definitely notr better than a restart.Those are exactly the tools I mean and they are the biggest scam on the software scene today. Every Tom, Dick and Harry slaps one together and people pay for them as shareware. They Are A Complete And Total Ripoff And Those Vendors Are Thieves.
It's funny how NONE of them have anything to say as soon as you mention the word "Perfmon".
Fellow Illustrious Chilibeans:
The links to ALL of the utilities in the article are in the comments thread that you can get to at the bottom of the article via the "Discuss this in the forums" link:
http://forums.sudhian.com/messageview.cfm?catid=18&threadid=61610
Zayoos
07-21-2004, 12:31 AM
Interesting article You've wrote there Roj.
Some apps I've already known and few I didn't. How good this Serif PhotoPlus is? Maybe I will try my strengths with skining?
This article is well written, even for a guy like me (who never learned english in school and such) it mostly is easy to understand :cheeky:
OK, enough with these sweet words... ;)
I have big respect for You and your knowledge, but... (yes, there is one "but" :)) I can't agree with You in one matter:
(...) I also wouldn't base it on Windows 2000 because XP has rather obvious advantages over that OS in every category one could name, notably stability, performance and hardware support. (...)
Of course XP is newer and in most cases is better (and it will be supported longer by Microsoft), but stability is the same (these systems are not so different).
Hardware support - as You know XP is based on 2K, so anything that work with XP should work with 2K (and vice versa). I've never faced any hardware (drivers) problems between these 2 systems.
Performance (speed) - if You have a computer that fast (athlon XP 1900+, 512 MB RAM) I'm sure You will not see the difference between XP and 2K, but if someone have CPU below 1 GHz and below 256 MB of memory then win2k is taking the lead. WinXP is using to much of the system resources.
All this is coming from my experience and from what I have read about these systems. I don't want to do battle with You (like Hanzo said) in that matter :), I just thought I'll share my point of view with You (and others).
Sorry for my bad grammar :dead:
Cheers.
Of course XP is newer and in most cases is better (and it will be supported longer by Microsoft), but stability is the same (these systems are not so different).Actually, significant changes were made to the way XP handles device drivers. Commonly used drivers now bubble to the top of the stack where they are easily accessed. That improves response time and stability of most hardware devices and did require drivers to be rewritten to take advantage of that feature. The older drivers would istill work as you say but this new feature was not enabled with them. The mess with the Via 686B Southbridge was also corrected as were other anomalies with the KT133 and KT133A chipsets. Those changes were also significant, at least to those owning motherboards based on the particular chipsets in question (I was one of those users).
However, in many other ways the OSs remain identical and you are correct - XP can in fact be thought of as a HUGE Service Pack for Windows 2000.
Performance (speed) - if You have a computer that fast (athlon XP 1900+, 512 MB RAM) I'm sure You will not see the difference between XP and 2K, but if someone have CPU below 1 GHz and below 256 MB of memory then win2k is taking the lead. WinXP is using to much of the system resources.Agreed. The minimum I would use with XP is 256Mb with 512Mb being far more realistic. In the case of Win2k, the minimum drops to 128Mb with 256Mb being much more comfortable to use.
All this is coming from my experience and from what I have read about these systems. I don't want to do battle with You (like Hanzo said) in that matter :), I just thought I'll share my point of view with You (and others).No battle is necessary - when you're right I'll freely admit it and in this case you're perfectly correct. :)
Cheers!
duckie
07-21-2004, 06:40 AM
Great article Roj, will be checking out XNView and IZArc which I honestly have not heard of before.
The only point I disagree with would be browser and email client choice.
MPC is a most excellent choice, one which I have been recommending to anybody who cares to listen. However, in my opinion of course, ffdshow would be a better choice for users who do not encode video since it handles both DivX and Xvid. To that list I would add CoreVorbis for Vorbis audio, which is admittedly quite rare, but still out there.
Great article Roj, will be checking out XNView and IZArc which I honestly have not heard of before.
The only point I disagree with would be browser and email client choice.
MPC is a most excellent choice, one which I have been recommending to anybody who cares to listen. However, in my opinion of course, ffdshow would be a better choice for users who do not encode video since it handles both DivX and Xvid. To that list I would add CoreVorbis for Vorbis audio, which is admittedly quite rare, but still out there.
You know, I had my eye on ffdshow for a while but never got around to actually testing it. Perhaps when I get some time after I come back from my trip...
Thanks!
matty28carter
07-21-2004, 11:04 AM
Did you try CDBurnerXP Pro? Its quite good. Its under a lot of development at the moment for a new version 3 (this version will support bootable discs and gapless audio cd burning and more...). Give it a try. http://www.cdburnerxp.se/
Did you try CDBurnerXP Pro? Its quite good. Its under a lot of development at the moment for a new version 3 (this version will support bootable discs and gapless audio cd burning and more...). Give it a try. http://www.cdburnerxp.se/
Yes I did and I was quite favorably impressed, as I was also with DeepBurner. Unfortunately, neither currently support gapless audio. When CDBurnerXP Pro does come out with version 3, I'll give it another whirl.
matty28carter
07-21-2004, 12:34 PM
Cool. Its supposed to be out by August. :cyclops:
Inthewoods
07-21-2004, 03:51 PM
Yes I did and I was quite favorably impressed, as I was also with DeepBurner. Unfortunately, neither currently support gapless audio. When CDBurnerXP Pro does come out with version 3, I'll give it another whirl.
Roj, I'm waiting for version 3 of CDBurnerXP Pro for the same reason. As for Deepburner, I've posted a couple major bugs on their forum over the past few month and received absolutely no response from the developers. Unless those get fixed, it's on my "do not use" list.
Have you looked at Burrrn? It works well for me. I have both Burrrn and Burnatonce on my system as my only burning software other than EAC. Between these 3, I can do anything to, burning wise.
Have you looked at Burrrn? It works well for me. I have both Burrrn and Burnatonce on my system as my only burning software other than EAC. Between these 3, I can do anything to, burning wise.
That is SO funny! I was going to mention burrrn in my last reply and then thought "no, this is about general purpose burners - don't throw that in and confuse them".
I have and do use burrrn. :) Getting the command line MAD decoder to work with it took a wee bit of weirdness but...
Hanzo
07-21-2004, 05:57 PM
Hey Roj, congrats for a great article ! Read it yesterday and read it again so I can write down my opinion here in this honorable forum
The software products mentioned (I know quite a few) are the best of breed in their category, and in my opinion what makes the article more interesting are your well targeted "adjectives" towards lousy programs (like winamp)
:cool:
Hey Roj, congrats for a great article ! Read it yesterday and read it again so I can write down my opinion here in this honorable forum
The software products mentioned (I know quite a few) are the best of breed in their category, and in my opinion what makes the article more interesting are your well targeted "adjectives" towards lousy programs (like winamp)
:cool:
10-Q!
madjo
07-25-2004, 09:54 PM
Although I do like your article, and agree on the most points with you..
there are some issues I certainly don't agree with.
You state that Thunderbird really lacks hotmail support. There are lots of other mailprograms (for instance Operas M2) which don't have Hotmail support (natively).
I can think of only 2(!) mail programs, of the tons that are out there, that have native hotmail support: Outlook Express and Incredimail. Not even Outlook (mind you, I haven't tried the newest yet)
So I wouldn't call it lacking. Besides there are programs that enables you to grab your hotmail using pop3 by acting as a proxy. (like hotmail popper, though that one isn't free anymore :( )
Mind you, I use M2 for my mailing work ;-)
Also: Firefox is my browser of choice, and I have been using it for quite some time now (since 0.7 first came out, and it still was called firebird), and I have never encountered real memoryleaks with that one.
Also, standards are the ones w3c writes. If a site looks crap (excusez le mot) in Firefox, then probably the webdesigner did a poor job at writing the code of the site.
Firefox supports the webstandards better than IE does.
MirandaIM is also quite stable and very lightweight ;)
About the Gimp, I know the GUI looks aweful .. but have you tried Gimp2 lately? :)
*steps off of his soapbox*
You state that Thunderbird really lacks hotmail support. There are lots of other mailprograms (for instance Operas M2) which don't have Hotmail support (natively).
I can think of only 2(!) mail programs, of the tons that are out there, that have native hotmail support: Outlook Express and Incredimail. Not even Outlook (mind you, I haven't tried the newest yet)
All that means is that devs need to get off their collective butts. :)
So I wouldn't call it lacking. Besides there are programs that enables you to grab your hotmail using pop3 by acting as a proxy. (like hotmail popper, though that one isn't free anymore :( )
I was using Hotmail Popper - however, as you point out it isnt freeware any more. :( it also didn't play nice with Avast! Freeware AV.
Also: Firefox is my browser of choice, and I have been using it for quite some time now (since 0.7 first came out, and it still was called firebird), and I have never encountered real memoryleaks with that one.
Also, standards are the ones w3c writes. If a site looks crap (excusez le mot) in Firefox, then probably the webdesigner did a poor job at writing the code of the site.
Firefox supports the webstandards better than IE does.
I beg to differ on all points. First of all I have experienced the memory leaks / runaway threads on every flavor of Firefox up to and including 0.9. I never bothered with subsequent releases since the browser isn't ready for prime time as far as I'm concerned. In ALL cases, the browser would randomly fail my standard test, namely retrieving a large load of statistics from our Symantec AV gateways. IE fared no better. only Opera dealt with the large load of information correctly. I also disagree that Firefox supports the web standards better than IE: it doesn't support Microsoft extensions. Like it or not, it's a Microsoft world out there and their extensions are heavily in use everywhere. To ignore them is myopic at best and terminally stupid at worst. Also, Firefox has trouble with non-Microsoft issues as well. Try going to Yahoo launch and playing a video. Even aliasing the browser doesn't work. If they want to support only the limited subset of standards that are classified as "open", then well and good - they aren't going to win any converts from real world users who surf many of the sites that go beyond those so-called standards and couldn't care less about them.
And guess what: Opera doesn't have those shortcomings so other vendors aren't nearly as shortsighted.
MirandaIM is also quite stable and very lightweight ;)
Not in my experience. We used it here on my network heavily across several chat networks and found it to be far less than optimal. gaim on the other hand has given us no problems at all. In fact my 17 year old daughter blesses the day we ditched Miranda for that very reason.
About the Gimp, I know the GUI looks aweful .. but have you tried Gimp2 lately? :)
Not in about five months or so. I have a standard rule of thumb: if I can't get end-user software to do what I want it to within the first half hour then I junk it. It simply isn't worth it today to put up with an interface that was designed by a 13-year-old propellerhead when far more polished solutions are available. Also, if I have to tweak it out of the box just to keep it from crashing, it meets File 13 in a big hurry. The Gimp failed in both departments - badly - on Windows.
Sorry, mon...
Aaron
07-26-2004, 05:05 AM
Like it or not, it's a Microsoft world out there and their extensions are heavily in use everywhere. To ignore them is myopic at best and terminally stupid at worst.
That's indeed true but being in a Microsoft dominated world is NOT a good thing. There are various reasons why I suggest this...lets see how many the quinnware forum audience can name.
I don't want to hijack the thread so here is a little contribution of freeware - http://celestia.sourceforge.net. You'll like it I promise. :)
Cheers,
Aaron
That's indeed true but being in a Microsoft dominated world is NOT a good thing. There are various reasons why I suggest this...lets see how many the quinnware forum audience can name.
I don't want to hijack the thread so here is a little contribution of freeware - http://celestia.sourceforge.net (http://celestia.sourceforge.net/). You'll like it I promise. :)
Cheers,
AaronMy take on why a MS dominated world is not a good thing:
1) DRM
2) DRM
3) DRM
I don't subscribe to the whole "there is no innovation / consumer choices have been raped" El Toro Poo Poo - that's at best sour grapes and at worst alarmist nonsense. Windows is a brilliant OS that has satisfied more desktop consumers than any other alternative COULD in the history of computing and continues to do so far ahead of its nearest competitor for the best of all possible reasons: it's a damned good solution.
However, as you might have gathered, I utterly despire, abhor and loathe DRM.
Mind you, MS isn't alone in that filth - every major software vendor, bar none, is implementing it.
PS: My kids are also going to get that URL you posted - it's awesome.
Aaron
07-26-2004, 05:47 AM
Yeah DRM and closed formats (e.g. .doc) :mad:
I'd argue that Apple's OS X gives Windows a run for its money in the useability stakes but point taken.
Have fun with cellestia!
Aaron
My take on why a MS dominated world is not a good thing:
1) DRM
2) DRM
3) DRM
I don't subscribe to the whole "there is no innovation / consumer choices have been raped" El Toro Poo Poo - that's at best sour grapes and at worst alarmist nonsense. Windows is a brilliant OS that has satisfied more desktop consumers than any other alternative COULD in the history of computing and continues to do so far ahead of its nearest competitor for the best of all possible reasons: it's a damned good solution.
However, as you might have gathered, I utterly despire, abhor and loathe DRM.
Mind you, MS isn't alone in that filth - every major software vendor, bar none, is implementing it.
PS: My kids are also going to get that URL you posted - it's awesome.
Yeah DRM and closed formats (e.g. .doc) :mad:
I'd argue that Apple's OS X gives Windows a run for its money in the useability stakes but point taken.
Have fun with cellestia!
Aaron
The closed formats don't really bother me. After all, every vendor out there has their own and their spin that they're embracing XML is just that since each one has proprietary extensions to that format.
I'd agree with your assessment on OS X but you'll never see that ported; the registers the PowerPC has can't even be imagined by intel architecture chips and vice versa. A good buddy of mine and I have that discussion every so often and the chip architectural differences always end up putting paid to that idea. :(
#The fREaK!
07-26-2004, 05:07 PM
I beg to differ on all points. First of all I have experienced the memory leaks / runaway threads on every flavor of Firefox up to and including 0.9. I never bothered with subsequent releases since the browser isn't ready for prime time as far as I'm concerned. In ALL cases, the browser would randomly fail my standard test, namely retrieving a large load of statistics from our Symantec AV gateways. IE fared no better. only Opera dealt with the large load of information correctly. I also disagree that Firefox supports the web standards better than IE: it doesn't support Microsoft extensions. Like it or not, it's a Microsoft world out there and their extensions are heavily in use everywhere. To ignore them is myopic at best and terminally stupid at worst. Also, Firefox has trouble with non-Microsoft issues as well. Try going to Yahoo launch and playing a video. Even aliasing the browser doesn't work. If they want to support only the limited subset of standards that are classified as "open", then well and good - they aren't going to win any converts from real world users who surf many of the sites that go beyond those so-called standards and couldn't care less about them.
I think not supporting the latest standards is worse than not supporting MS extensions. There is already one thing on my very simple site that works in Firefox but not in IE. I havent noticed any problems with Firefox 0.9 so far, and every page I have visited have worked except windows update. But then I have never used Yahoo launch. (I dont use yahoo at all)
Aaron
07-26-2004, 10:48 PM
The closed formats don't really bother me. After all, every vendor out there has their own and their spin that they're embracing XML is just that since each one has proprietary extensions to that format.
One of my pet hates is when people send me a '.doc' attachment in email when a simple .txt would suffice.
I think this article has some good points on the subject of propietary formats.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html.
Propietary extensions are a real pain in the ass regardless of whether we are looking at text documents, HTML, SQL, C++, or whatever.
In my opinion all it promotes in the end is vendor-lock in (oops that should be 'embrass and extend'). Start using MS extensions and you are then tied into MS products, ditto for other vendors.
As I see it the idea behind standards is to give effectively the lowest common denominator across vendors - e.g. W3C in html, SQL-92 for SQL, the ANSI C++ standard, Fortran-90 etc etc.
File formats should be an important thing to consider when you consider a freeware application. Well actually any application really.
If the freeware (or commercial) application is no longer supported in the future and it uses a closed proprietary format as data storage then you may well be stuffed. I have been in the past.
If it uses an openly specified format you are better 'future-proofed' if required (i.e. the program is no longer developed/support but you have a need to access the data you have accumulated). At this point you may either choose to engineer a new solution to use your data. If the program is open-source you may have a more direct option, given time and programming input, to maintain your data and time investment.
Just something to consider.
I'd agree with your assessment on OS X but you'll never see that ported;
Probably not - but my wife has a G4 Mac at home running OS X. I don't have a need to have it ported to x86 so its all good :)
Cheers,
Aaron
One of my pet hates is when people send me a '.doc' attachment in email when a simple .txt would suffice.
Chalk that up to mail integration everywhere.
I think this article has some good points on the subject of propietary formats.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html.
I'll give that a read.
Propietary extensions are a real pain in the ass regardless of whether we are looking at text documents, HTML, SQL, C++, or whatever.
In my opinion all it promotes in the end is vendor-lock in (oops that should be 'embrass and extend'). Start using MS extensions and you are then tied into MS products, ditto for other vendors.
Very very true. That is also not going to change in any great hurry. As long as there is money to be made from a proprietary competitive advantage (and there likely always will be)...
As I see it the idea behind standards is to give effectively the lowest common denominator across vendors - e.g. W3C in html, SQL-92 for SQL, the ANSI C++ standard, Fortran-90 etc etc.
Unfortunately, that can also lead to stagnation, strangulation of innovation, mediocrity...
File formats should be an important thing to consider when you consider a freeware application. Well actually any application really.
Yup. That's why if something I'm considering for use has a MS counterpart and doesn't support the MS format, it hits File 13 really fast. That doesn't just apply to freeware - anything commercial has the same criteria.
If the freeware (or commercial) application is no longer supported in the future and it uses a closed proprietary format as data storage then you may well be stuffed. I have been in the past.
I've seen corporate examples of being bitten by that - very messy.
If it uses an openly specified format you are better 'future-proofed' if required (i.e. the program is no longer developed/support but you have a need to access the data you have accumulated). At this point you may either choose to engineer a new solution to use your data. If the program is open-source you may have a more direct option, given time and programming input, to maintain your data and time investment.
Just something to consider.
I've always had to deal with that potential set of circumstances in a corporate scenario - it's second nature now.
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-27-2004, 04:11 AM
In my opinion all it promotes in the end is vendor-lock in (oops that should be 'embrass and extend'). Start using MS extensions and you are then tied into MS products, ditto for other vendors.
Aaron
Start>Find>Files or Folders>Named:*.wma>Find Now...There are no items to show in this view.
I guess that there is no need for :dead: Windows Media Player :dead: on my system anymore either. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Aaron
07-27-2004, 04:26 AM
Start>Find>Files or Folders>Named:*.wma>Find Now...There are no items to show in this view.
I guess that there is no need for :dead: Windows Media Player :dead: on my system anymore either. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Probably but if you delete it then IE might stop working :pirate:
Aaron
Probably but if you delete it then IE might stop working :pirate:
Aaron
I'd keep it around because it downloads codecs that you won't get otherwise.
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-27-2004, 07:29 PM
I'd keep it around because it downloads codecs that you won't get otherwise.
I actually just meant that I was going to remove Series 9. I will keep 6.4. The only thing that I used WMP9 for was to send files to my portable player. I did not need it once I started using riorad explorer.
I actually just meant that I was going to remove Series 9. I will keep 6.4. The only thing that I used WMP9 for was to send files to my portable player. I did not need it once I started using riorad explorer.
My satement stands - there are codecs that 9 provides that 6.4 does not.
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-27-2004, 08:51 PM
My satement stands - there are codecs that 9 provides that 6.4 does not.
I really do not use a large amount of filetypes. The only file that 6.4 would not play was a wmv(it automatically downloaded the codec though). I guess each user is in a different situation and needs to choose what player to use. DVD is the only other video type I use that Windows Media PLyer 6.4 does not support. Anyway, I never uprgraded WMP9 for DVD anyway. I never used the Roxio plug-in, CD-Ripping feature, or Internet radio either.
Anyway, I think I might try burnatonce instead of Nero. I like the ogg support. What do you think?
I really do not use a large amount of filetypes. The only file that 6.4 would not play was a wmv(it automatically downloaded the codec though). I guess each user is in a different situation and needs to choose what player to use. DVD is the only other video type I use that Windows Media PLyer 6.4 does not support. Anyway, I never uprgraded WMP9 for DVD anyway. I never used the Roxio plug-in, CD-Ripping feature, or Internet radio either.
Anyway, I think I might try burnatonce instead of Nero. I like the ogg support. What do you think?
I use lots of different AVIs and WMP has those codecs. I'd never upgrade WMP for DVD, I absolutely refuse to use Roxio filth of any description and I rip with CDex. :)
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-27-2004, 09:12 PM
I use lots of different AVIs and WMP has those codecs. I'd never upgrade WMP for DVD, I absolutely refuse to use Roxio filth of any description and I rip with CDex. :)
There is no need to pay to do basic things like rip a CD to the format you want or play a DVD. Just to know that I would have to upgrade to do those things(even if I never planned to do them with the player) made me not want to use it for anything.
rorythedog
07-27-2004, 10:31 PM
My satement stands - there are codecs that 9 provides that 6.4 does not.
Roj, are you saying that I need to upgrade from WiMP 8.0 to 9.0? I hope not. I haven't used WiMP in over a year. LOL. In fact, it took me a bit there just to find out the version number.
acozz
07-28-2004, 12:00 AM
Roj, are you saying that I need to upgrade from WiMP 8.0 to 9.0? I hope not. I haven't used WiMP in over a year. LOL. In fact, it took me a bit there just to find out the version number.
I don't think there is a difference in 8.0 and 9.0 codecs.
teedoff087
07-28-2004, 12:01 AM
I actually just meant that I was going to remove Series 9. I will keep 6.4. The only thing that I used WMP9 for was to send files to my portable player. I did not need it once I started using riorad explorer.
Good luck with that. I tried downgrading once before and it seems almost impossible, that is if you're using XP. :disappoin
Zayoos
07-28-2004, 06:31 AM
DVD is the only other video type I use that Windows Media PLyer 6.4 does not support.
Oh yes it does ;)
You just need to create a proper new value in registry, at least in Win2k.
btw I've never checked if this works (I don't have DVDs), I only know the way how to enable it.
Roj, are you saying that I need to upgrade from WiMP 8.0 to 9.0? I hope not. I haven't used WiMP in over a year. LOL. In fact, it took me a bit there just to find out the version number.
Not if you have 8.x. Just download the codec pack from Windows Update and you should be good to go.
B.E.L.B.H.D.
07-28-2004, 05:00 PM
Good luck with that. I tried downgrading once before and it seems almost impossible, that is if you're using XP. :disappoin
No I am using 98 SE. I read that Microsoft made Windows Media Player a core utility in XP, making difficult to just uninstall.
And I had never heard of DVD in 6.4. The TV, FM radio, and DVD software that came with the computer is actually pretty nice. It is none of the products that I see with most systems today(PowerDVD...). It is all made by a company called Qi.(I have never heard of it). There is also a DVD player in the windows folder. It is very annoying though(the only way to use the VCR controls in full screen is to right click).
acushla
02-23-2005, 01:59 AM
Here's the link:
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=570
Excellent artice...and some very interesting concepts. I was puzzled before I began to read the article...I didn't understand why you wrote under one name for one article and then another name for a different publication. It was only later that it dawned on me that sudhian is the name of the site and staff would mean someone who worked for the business. Checking the rooster I did not see your picture or your name. If this is true then I find it highly unfair that credit was not given where credit was due. I do not understand what problem they would have in publishing the name of the person who wrote the article. Personally, I find it somewhat disconcerting and very self-serving on their part. It is almost as they want to assume credit for something they didn't do.
Excellent artice...and some very interesting concepts. I was puzzled before I began to read the article...I didn't understand why you wrote under one name for one article and then another name for a different publication. It was only later that it dawned on me that sudhian is the name of the site and staff would mean someone who worked for the business. Checking the rooster I did not see your picture or your name. If this is true then I find it highly unfair that credit was not given where credit was due. I do not understand what problem they would have in publishing the name of the person who wrote the article. Personally, I find it somewhat disconcerting and very self-serving on their part. It is almost as they want to assume credit for something they didn't do.
Thanks again for the kind words.
No, I don't work for them and it was a freelance article. That's why I don't appear in their roster. They did list the name I asked them to use - I'm known almost universally on the net (on occasion infamously) as "Roj" which is of course my longstanding nickname (I even sign checques that way now). I don't feel that they tried to rob me of credit.
acushla
02-23-2005, 01:37 PM
Start>Find>Files or Folders>Named:*.wma>Find Now...There are no items to show in this view.
I guess that there is no need for :dead: Windows Media Player :dead: on my system anymore either. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Came to the same conclusion and then attempted to remove every trace of it from my computer. Guess what? Cannot be done...just as you are about to delete the last file it clones itself and 4 more files pop up.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.