|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Google is the new AntiChristnew AntiChrist :-) Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on topic!) I installed Google Chrome web browser. I did not like it and so I uninstalled it, and upon doing so I discovered that all web page links (hyperlinks or whatever you call them) in MS Word and MS Publisher and various other applications failed to work, popping up a message to the effect that the operation had been cancelled due to restrictions in effect on this computer and that I should contact my Administrator. So, I took the advice of the error message and I contacted my administrator (me!) but I'm afraid I drew a blank! Anyway, it turns out that Google Chrome had not only left behind numerous unwanted registry entries (which the MS uninstaller failed to catch but which Revo Uninstaller got rid of) but it also seems to have left behind many "changed registry entries" that are actually required but that in fact are left pointing to something that no longer exists. There was so much crap that it was almost impossible to get rid of. As it turned out, the solution was to install the Mozilla FireFox web browser, which apparently corrected all those damaged entries, and then all the links in MS Word and various other programs started working again, and they continued to work even after I had uninstalled FireFox. This is not really unexpected of course, because Micro$oft and Google are currently fighting like wild beasts in an attempt to gain control over what they consider to be the new web browser honeypot, and Google seem to be winning. Well done, Google. You are the new AntiChrist. That's not to say that I actually like Micro$oft of course, because I don't, and I still think they are a bunch of corporate gangsters, but I do admit that of late they have been taken on by the new Google Gansters, who seem to be fighting even more dirty than Micro$oft did, sometimes even surpassing Micro$oft's own nasty gangster behaviour in Africa! Mike "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message Or you can use System Restore...news:i599oq$jii$1@speranza.aioe.org... > As it turned out, the solution was to install the Mozilla FireFox web > browser, which apparently corrected all those damaged entries "Nobody" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message Or I could have gone the whole hog and brought the machine back to its "out news:i599to$jrc$1@speranza.aioe.org... > Or you can use System Restore... of the box" condition. But I always do that, and I always do a system restore, as a last resort because there are often things I have done since the problem arose (and before I noticed it) which usually make it more desireable to find the actual solution to the specific problem, rather than hitting it with a sledgehammer and messing up (or reintroducing) some innocent applications that were installed at a later date. Besides, before you can restore the system to the state it was in immediately before the problem arose it is necessary to identify what the problem actually was, and to identify the time at which it initially arose, or you can end up restoring to a restore point that also has the problem, or to a restore point long before the problem arose which messes up something else. When I initially discovered the problem I had no idea that it was the Google AntiChrist that had caused it (my post was just a quick resume of what had happened, otherwise I would have been here all night writing it). Paradoxically, it took a bit of "Googling" to discover what the problem actually was ;-) Anyway, as I have said, an install and an uninstall of FireFox was the solution to the Google Chrome problem, and it had the advantage of not messing up anything else. Google is the new AntiChrist. Mike Okay, staying on topic for VB. If you do a system restore, your compiled VB
apps will also revert back to the way they were before the system restore, so make sure that you recompile any recent things you have been working on! There is a way to exclude certain files or folders that I have seen, it's in MSKB somewhere. Time to whip out a small add-in to do an optional system restore before
compile. Show quoteHide quote "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:i59c3k$nkv$1@speranza.aioe.org... : "Nobody" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message : news:i599to$jrc$1@speranza.aioe.org... : : > Or you can use System Restore... : : Or I could have gone the whole hog and brought the machine back to its "out : of the box" condition. But I always do that, and I always do a system : restore, as a last resort because there are often things I have done since : the problem arose (and before I noticed it) which usually make it more : desireable to find the actual solution to the specific problem, rather than : hitting it with a sledgehammer and messing up (or reintroducing) some : innocent applications that were installed at a later date. Besides, before : you can restore the system to the state it was in immediately before the : problem arose it is necessary to identify what the problem actually was, and : to identify the time at which it initially arose, or you can end up : restoring to a restore point that also has the problem, or to a restore : point long before the problem arose which messes up something else. When I : initially discovered the problem I had no idea that it was the Google : AntiChrist that had caused it (my post was just a quick resume of what had : happened, otherwise I would have been here all night writing it). : Paradoxically, it took a bit of "Googling" to discover what the problem : actually was ;-) Anyway, as I have said, an install and an uninstall of : FireFox was the solution to the Google Chrome problem, and it had the : advantage of not messing up anything else. Google is the new AntiChrist. : : Mike : : : Mike Williams presented the following explanation :
Show quoteHide quote > Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it is!). Google is the LOL... FINALLY SOMETHING WE AGREE ON!....> new AntiChrist :-) > > Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on topic!) I installed > Google Chrome web browser. I did not like it and so I uninstalled it, and > upon doing so I discovered that all web page links (hyperlinks or whatever > you call them) in MS Word and MS Publisher and various other applications > failed to work, popping up a message to the effect that the operation had > been cancelled due to restrictions in effect on this computer and that I > should contact my Administrator. So, I took the advice of the error message > and I contacted my administrator (me!) but I'm afraid I drew a blank! > > Anyway, it turns out that Google Chrome had not only left behind numerous > unwanted registry entries (which the MS uninstaller failed to catch but which > Revo Uninstaller got rid of) but it also seems to have left behind many > "changed registry entries" that are actually required but that in fact are > left pointing to something that no longer exists. There was so much crap that > it was almost impossible to get rid of. > > As it turned out, the solution was to install the Mozilla FireFox web > browser, which apparently corrected all those damaged entries, and then all > the links in MS Word and various other programs started working again, and > they continued to work even after I had uninstalled FireFox. > > This is not really unexpected of course, because Micro$oft and Google are > currently fighting like wild beasts in an attempt to gain control over what > they consider to be the new web browser honeypot, and Google seem to be > winning. > > Well done, Google. You are the new AntiChrist. That's not to say that I > actually like Micro$oft of course, because I don't, and I still think they > are a bunch of corporate gangsters, but I do admit that of late they have > been taken on by the new Google Gansters, who seem to be fighting even more > dirty than Micro$oft did, sometimes even surpassing Micro$oft's own nasty > gangster behaviour in Africa! > > Mike Despite what you think, I'm only neutral on MS - but, I particulary don't like Google and their "don't be evil" crap. -- Tom Shelton Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote in
news:i59db9$fkc$1@news.eternal-september.org: <SNIP>> Mike Williams presented the following explanation : >> Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it >> is!). Google is the new AntiChrist :-) >> >> Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on >> topic!) I installed Google Chrome web browser. I did not >> like it and so I uninstalled it, and upon doing so I >> discovered that all web page links (hyperlinks or whatever >> fighting even more dirty than Micro$oft did, sometimes The boss forced me to sign up for Google to use the Docs thing >> even surpassing Micro$oft's own nasty gangster behaviour >> in Africa! >> >> Mike > > LOL... FINALLY SOMETHING WE AGREE ON!.... > > Despite what you think, I'm only neutral on MS - but, I > particulary don't like Google and their "don't be evil" > crap. because *he* has no organizational skills, constantly loses documents and e-mails (*his* problem) and he would basically lose his head if it wasn't. This guy's dropped more balls than T.O. did over his whole career. And everynone needs to adjust to make up for *his* (extreme) shortcomings. This was an e-mail I sent out to the entire company after signing up....... ------------------------------------------------- As instructed by *****, I have created a Google account for no other reason than using Google Docs. Since I'm sure none of you had read the full licensing agreement prior to doing, so I thought I'd let you know what we have all agreed to........ 4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google's sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services. 4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account. 11. Content license from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty- free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services. 11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. on 8/28/2010, DanS supposed :
Show quoteHide quote > Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote in HOLY CRAP! And people actually are using this stuff?> news:i59db9$fkc$1@news.eternal-september.org: > >> Mike Williams presented the following explanation : >>> Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it >>> is!). Google is the new AntiChrist :-) >>> >>> Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on >>> topic!) I installed Google Chrome web browser. I did not >>> like it and so I uninstalled it, and upon doing so I >>> discovered that all web page links (hyperlinks or whatever > > <SNIP> > >>> fighting even more dirty than Micro$oft did, sometimes >>> even surpassing Micro$oft's own nasty gangster behaviour >>> in Africa! >>> >>> Mike >> >> LOL... FINALLY SOMETHING WE AGREE ON!.... >> >> Despite what you think, I'm only neutral on MS - but, I >> particulary don't like Google and their "don't be evil" >> crap. > > The boss forced me to sign up for Google to use the Docs thing > because *he* has no organizational skills, constantly loses > documents and e-mails (*his* problem) and he would basically > lose his head if it wasn't. This guy's dropped more balls than > T.O. did over his whole career. And everynone needs to adjust to > make up for *his* (extreme) shortcomings. > > This was an e-mail I sent out to the entire company after > signing up....... > > ------------------------------------------------- > > As instructed by *****, I have created a Google account for no > other reason than using Google Docs. > > Since I'm sure none of you had read the full licensing agreement > prior to doing, so I thought I'd let you know what we have all > agreed to........ > > 4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and > agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) > providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to > you or to users generally at Google's sole discretion, without > prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any > time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you > stop using the Services. > > 4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to > your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, > your account details or any files or other content which is > contained in your account. > > > 11. Content license from you > > 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already > hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, > the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content > you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty- > free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, > translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and > distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or > through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of > enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services > and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the > Additional Terms of those Services. > > 11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for > Google to make such Content available to other companies, > organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships > for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such > Content in connection with the provision of those services. -- Tom Shelton | By submitting, posting or displaying the content That's very similar wording to the hotmail| you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty- | free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, | translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and | distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or | through, the Services. terms that Microsoft later backed away from. It allows them, among other things, to use your private email and family pictures in an ad if they want to. In a way I don't have much sympathy for people. There's an odd attitude that services like email are not worth the price of a cup of coffee for a month's service...yet then people turn around and express surprise that free email is sleazy. I'm surprised, though, that any kind of business would sign up for such free services.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message To expand on that, I think you truly have to be from the "Land of the news:i5b6tc$6vi$1@news.eternal-september.org... >| By submitting, posting or displaying the content > | you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty- > | free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, > | translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and > | distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or > | through, the Services. > > That's very similar wording to the hotmail > terms that Microsoft later backed away from. > It allows them, among other things, to use > your private email and family pictures in an > ad if they want to. > > In a way I don't have much sympathy for people. > There's an odd attitude that services like email > are not worth the price of a cup of coffee for a > month's service...yet then people turn around and > express surprise that free email is sleazy. I'm > surprised, though, that any kind of business would > sign up for such free services. Tiny Brained Folk" to believe that your data is safe and secure in the "cloud" somewhere.. Show quoteHide quote > mbyerley explained on 8/28/2010 :
Show quoteHide quote > "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message That's why I don't really think the "cloud" will ever be a replacement > news:i5b6tc$6vi$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>| By submitting, posting or displaying the content >> | you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty- >> | free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, >> | translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and >> | distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or >> | through, the Services. >> >> That's very similar wording to the hotmail >> terms that Microsoft later backed away from. >> It allows them, among other things, to use >> your private email and family pictures in an >> ad if they want to. >> >> In a way I don't have much sympathy for people. >> There's an odd attitude that services like email >> are not worth the price of a cup of coffee for a >> month's service...yet then people turn around and >> express surprise that free email is sleazy. I'm >> surprised, though, that any kind of business would >> sign up for such free services. > > To expand on that, I think you truly have to be from the "Land of the > Tiny Brained Folk" to believe that your data is safe and secure in the > "cloud" somewhere.. > >> for current computing models. There are places it has value - but, even then I would think more on an Intranet basis. I just can't imagine any corporation is going to trust their data to the world wide cloud :) This has been tried before in the 90's with the "network computer" pushed by Sun, Oracle, and Netscape. It failed. It will fail again as well. -- Tom Shelton On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:49:17 -0400, "mbyerley"
<mDotByerley@VerizonDottieNettie> wrote: > To expand on that, I think you truly have to be from the "Land of the Yeah, but how many times have we seen failed hard drives from friends,>Tiny Brained Folk" to believe that your data is safe and secure in the >"cloud" somewhere.. family and neighbours and we tell them all their files and photos are gone? Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ "Tony Toews" <tto***@telusplanet.net> wrote in message Well, I still have my first 10mb 5-1/4" Winchester Drive back here on the news:6vri769gvcosu27k31fn2fk0407abpt4je@4ax.com... > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:49:17 -0400, "mbyerley" > <mDotByerley@VerizonDottieNettie> wrote: > >> To expand on that, I think you truly have to be from the "Land of the >>Tiny Brained Folk" to believe that your data is safe and secure in the >>"cloud" somewhere.. > > Yeah, but how many times have we seen failed hard drives from friends, > family and neighbours and we tell them all their files and photos are > gone? shelf from 1982 and since that time, I can only think of maybe three drive failures in any machine in house or in service out of maybe a few hundred. None of the failures resulted in loss of data because of the diligent backup and replication efforts. Always had tape drives and when mirroring became available, utilized that since. Backups now are to removable SATA drives. Now I don't know if running my machines 24/7 has anything to do with longevity or not, but that is what I do. Show quoteHide quote > Tony > -- > Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP > Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm > Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ > For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files > updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
Show quote
Hide quote
"mbyerley" <mDotByerley@VerizonDottieNettie> skrev i meddelandet I always replace my HD's every 3 years, wherever they are perfecly good.news:jvqdndPG_aKmHOTRnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@giganews.com... > > "Tony Toews" <tto***@telusplanet.net> wrote in message > news:6vri769gvcosu27k31fn2fk0407abpt4je@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:49:17 -0400, "mbyerley" >> <mDotByerley@VerizonDottieNettie> wrote: >> >>> To expand on that, I think you truly have to be from the "Land of the >>>Tiny Brained Folk" to believe that your data is safe and secure in the >>>"cloud" somewhere.. >> >> Yeah, but how many times have we seen failed hard drives from friends, >> family and neighbours and we tell them all their files and photos are >> gone? > > Well, I still have my first 10mb 5-1/4" Winchester Drive back here on the > shelf from 1982 and since that time, I can only think of maybe three drive > failures in any machine in house or in service out of maybe a few hundred. > None of the failures resulted in loss of data because of the diligent > backup and replication efforts. > Always had tape drives and when mirroring became available, utilized that > since. > Backups now are to removable SATA drives. > Now I don't know if running my machines 24/7 has anything to do with > longevity or not, but that is what I do. > >> Tony >> -- >> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP >> Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm >> Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ >> For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files >> updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ > > /Henning "mbyerley" <mDotByerley@VerizonDottieNettie> wrote in message I packed my Windows 98 desktop computer in a large plastic bag(not fully news:jvqdndPG_aKmHOTRnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@giganews.com... > Well, I still have my first 10mb 5-1/4" Winchester Drive back here on the > shelf from 1982 and since that time, I can only think of maybe three drive > failures in any machine in house or in service out of maybe a few hundred. > None of the failures resulted in loss of data because of the diligent > backup and replication efforts. sealed) for maybe 4 years, then took it out and power it on, and it took forever to scan for bad sectors. The hard drive is almost unrecoverable. It had a 3.5" hard drive, perhaps less than 2 GB, maybe 512 MB, I am not sure. It was working fine before it was packed. | For what it's worth, I've seen testing reports indicating| I packed my Windows 98 desktop computer in a large plastic bag(not fully | sealed) for maybe 4 years, then took it out and power it on, and it took | forever to scan for bad sectors. The hard drive is almost unrecoverable. It | had a 3.5" hard drive, perhaps less than 2 GB, maybe 512 MB, I am not sure. | It was working fine before it was packed. | that hard disks tend to go one way or the other: Some fail early. If they hold up past a certain point they generally hold up for a long time. But I don't remember where I read that. (Sounds like a link-search job for Nobody. :) Mayayana wrote :
>> I heard Google wrote one being the largest user of consumer grade hard >> I packed my Windows 98 desktop computer in a large plastic bag(not fully >> sealed) for maybe 4 years, then took it out and power it on, and it took >> forever to scan for bad sectors. The hard drive is almost unrecoverable. It >> had a 3.5" hard drive, perhaps less than 2 GB, maybe 512 MB, I am not sure. >> It was working fine before it was packed. >> > > For what it's worth, I've seen testing reports indicating > that hard disks tend to go one way or the other: Some > fail early. If they hold up past a certain point they generally > hold up for a long time. But I don't remember where I read > that. (Sounds like a link-search job for Nobody. :) drives in the world. -- ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message I don't remember that, but heat and power surges are the cause for many news:i5dpip$3kn$1@news.eternal-september.org... > For what it's worth, I've seen testing reports indicating > that hard disks tend to go one way or the other: Some > fail early. If they hold up past a certain point they generally > hold up for a long time. But I don't remember where I read > that. (Sounds like a link-search job for Nobody. :) failures that I have seen. I have had power surges that damaged hard drives, but not the motherboard or CPU. This was the case for WDC hard drives with less than 8 GB. I found they have diodes that short easily. Perhaps they fixed this problem lately. Heat is also a factor. Some system builders use cheap cases with not much room to place a hard disk(only two or three slots), and they mount the drive on the last slot, which doesn't have much room for air circulation. If you add another hard drive, then with these cheap cases you have to put the drives next to each other, blocking air circulation. I have had an 80 GB Samsung drive for 3 years, while others experienced high failure rate in less than a year. It's the system builder who is cutting corners, so if you buy a case, find one that has slots for hard drives from top to bottom, so you can space them 2 or 3 slots apart. "Nobody" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message I agree that how they are assembled has a great deal to do with longevity.news:i5dvn8$8lf$1@speranza.aioe.org... > "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message > news:i5dpip$3kn$1@news.eternal-september.org... > Heat is also a factor. Some system builders use cheap cases with not much > room to place a hard disk(only two or three slots), and they mount the > drive on the last slot, which doesn't have much room for air circulation. > If you add another hard drive, then with these cheap cases you have to put > the drives next to each other, blocking air circulation. I have had an 80 > GB Samsung drive for 3 years, while others experienced high failure rate > in less than a year. It's the system builder who is cutting corners, so if > you Very few business installations I have done over the years were purchased boxes. Mostly hand built. Always used two fans (which isn't so bothersome with the new low noise fans) and try to keep the cable routing out of the way of airflow to the drives. Show quoteHide quote > buy a case, find one that has slots for hard drives from top to bottom, so > you can space them 2 or 3 slots apart. > > > Nobody wrote:
> Mayayana wrote: An UPS (uninterruptable power supply) is essential for protecting the >> For what it's worth, I've seen testing reports indicating >> that hard disks tend to go one way or the other: Some >> fail early. If they hold up past a certain point they generally >> hold up for a long time. But I don't remember where I read >> that. (Sounds like a link-search job for Nobody. :) > > I don't remember that, but heat and power surges are the cause for many > failures that I have seen. I have had power surges that damaged hard drives, > but not the motherboard or CPU. This was the case for WDC hard drives with > less than 8 GB. I found they have diodes that short easily. Perhaps they > fixed this problem lately. circuity of hard drives, and the overall machine. > Heat is also a factor. Some system builders use cheap cases with not much Temperature is definitely an issue. It is important to make sure the > room to place a hard disk(only two or three slots), and they mount the drive > on the last slot, which doesn't have much room for air circulation. If you > add another hard drive, then with these cheap cases you have to put the > drives next to each other, blocking air circulation. I have had an 80 GB > Samsung drive for 3 years, while others experienced high failure rate in > less than a year. It's the system builder who is cutting corners, so if you > buy a case, find one that has slots for hard drives from top to bottom, so > you can space them 2 or 3 slots apart. computer's case has proper ventilation (this is not always the case, even for know-brand machines, specially consumer-grade ones). A well ventilated machine will have *more* fans than the ones that come with the power supply and the processor. If not, an extra fan can be installed via motherboard j-plug or power supply. Although it's OK for drives to become hot, it's not OK if they cannot dissipate the heat they generate. The temperature could build up and it will make the drive perform in a higher temperature than it was designed for, shorten its lifespan. Same for all the other computer components. Stress also shortens the lifespan of a hard drive. The OS puts too much stress on hard drives, so the safest way will be to have separate drives: *a system hard drive* with the OS, and a *data hard drive(s)* for your data files. That's the configuration I have always used and never had a crash. Note that when I say "separate drives" I mean *separate physical drives* and *not separate partitions in the same drive.* Based on my own experience, I have found SCSI (and not PATA/IDE, nor SATA) hard drives to be best for the OS. They are incredibly more stable, and exceptionally faster (up to 15000 RPM comparing to the traditional 5400, 6200, 7200 RPM). Unfortunately SCSI drives are expensive, louder and come is smaller storage sizes. If the hard drive is *heavily* used all the time, the only way to make sure it lasts the longest is to decrease its own operating temperature. Heat is always the big enemy. That plus selecting a good hard drive. Brand makes *a huge difference.* Although brands *change* quality over time, so one cannot assume a particular brand is still good-quality today just because it was 4 years ago. Brands like "Maxtor" used to be really good more than a decade ago, but not for long as it became the worst a couple of years after that. IBM used to manufacture the best hard drives I have ever seen. They were business / professional-use drives that had a 5 year warranty. Unfortunately, IBM sold his data storage to Hitachi many years ago, but they seemed to keep honoring the original IBM commitment to quality. Today these are the drives I personally prefer and recommend. Note, however, that drives under *a lot* of stress (like the ones used in DVRs, high-end video-editing, and heavy-traffic Internet servers) are destined to have a shorter lifespan. I have seen tons of cases during all my years of IT experience. I can say I have been using the above configuration and UPSs, plus good drives like IBM and Hitachi, for personal and business use, and I have never had a crashed drive. -Nando | Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it is!). Google is the No argument there. I can't figure out how it's| new AntiChrist :-) | taken so long for the geeks to *begin* to see that. People on Slashdot are often using Chrome, even though one can only turn off script with a command line option. Anbd it's not so long ago that people were proud to have a gmail address... with Google hoarding their emails. The mainstream media don't seem to have figured out that "don't be evil" is not proper English. It's semi- literate geek-speak. "Evil" is used by geeks to refer to things like stale cookies, or excessively long walks from the parking lot into the mall. The public thinks they actually meant "evil". :) at the end of the day a for-profit company is a company. I was very pro-MS
until they messed up VB. now I am neutral. I don't like Google, given a choice MS is a lot better than Google. I see Google desktop search, toolbar included with freeware like irfanview. if Google were so contributing towards the open source community then they would have invested in improving Firefox than doing me-too and making their own browser. I avoid using Google, i use bing not becuase its a better search engine but becuase i dont want to be dependent on one provider. and i always use the the term 'web search' instead of 'googling'. Show quoteHide quote "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:i599oq$jii$1@speranza.aioe.org... | | Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it is!). Google is the | new AntiChrist :-) | i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task in my system for
checking update. That's when I un-intall it. Show quoteHide quote "Abhishek" <abhishek0***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:i59jtj$2j4$1@speranza.aioe.org... > at the end of the day a for-profit company is a company. I was very pro-MS > until they messed up VB. now I am neutral. I don't like Google, given a > choice MS is a lot better than Google. > > I see Google desktop search, toolbar included with freeware like > irfanview. > if Google were so contributing towards the open source community then they > would have invested in improving Firefox than doing me-too and making > their > own browser. > > I avoid using Google, i use bing not becuase its a better search engine > but > becuase i dont want to be dependent on one provider. and i always use the > the term 'web search' instead of 'googling'. > > > "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message > news:i599oq$jii$1@speranza.aioe.org... > | > | Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it is!). Google is > the > | new AntiChrist :-) > | > > |i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task in my system for It's an epidemic:| checking update. That's when I un-intall it. | http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180272/Mozilla_plans_to_silently_update_Firefox "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message Yes, but at least Mozilla FireFox provides users with the option of turning news:i5a0pv$4kv$1@news.eternal-september.org... > |i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task > |in my system for checking update. > |That's when I un-intall it. > | > > It's an epidemic: > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180272/Mozilla_plans_to_silently_update_Firefox off silent background updating, something which Google do not. Google force it upon their users. Google is the new AntiChrist. Mike Mike Williams was thinking very hard :
> "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message Actually, there is an option to turn off Auto Updates in the Google > news:i5a0pv$4kv$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> |i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task >> |in my system for checking update. >> |That's when I un-intall it. >> | >> >> It's an epidemic: >> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180272/Mozilla_plans_to_silently_update_Firefox > > Yes, but at least Mozilla FireFox provides users with the option of turning > off silent background updating, something which Google do not. Google force > it upon their users. Google is the new AntiChrist. Update app. HTH! ;-) Actually I don't mind it to update, I can trust it that much. It's just that
it can use my password to set up thing to run bother me a little, Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote in message news:i5orc9$587$1@news.eternal-september.org... > Mike Williams was thinking very hard : >> "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message >> news:i5a0pv$4kv$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> |i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task >>> |in my system for checking update. >>> |That's when I un-intall it. >>> | >>> >>> It's an epidemic: >>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180272/Mozilla_plans_to_silently_update_Firefox >> >> Yes, but at least Mozilla FireFox provides users with the option of >> turning off silent background updating, something which Google do not. >> Google force it upon their users. Google is the new AntiChrist. > > Actually, there is an option to turn off Auto Updates in the Google Update > app. HTH! ;-) > > -- > .NET: It's About Trust! > http://vfred.mvps.org > > Phil Hunt explained :
> Actually I don't mind it to update, I can trust it that much. I'm okay with it, too, because I really like the apps it's updating. (Google Earth, in particular.) > It's just that I don't think it can do that. It's just running in your user context, > it can use my password to set up thing to run bother me a little, *when* you're already logged in, isn't it? yea, I was running as admin already
So it does not really know the password ? Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote in message news:i5osnv$bs4$1@news.eternal-september.org... > Phil Hunt explained : >> Actually I don't mind it to update, I can trust it that much. > > I'm okay with it, too, because I really like the apps it's updating. > (Google Earth, in particular.) > >> It's just that it can use my password to set up thing to run bother me a >> little, > > I don't think it can do that. It's just running in your user context, > *when* you're already logged in, isn't it? > > -- > .NET: It's About Trust! > http://vfred.mvps.org > > Phil Hunt presented the following explanation :
> yea, I was running as admin already No way.> > So it does not really know the password ? "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote in message Well, I've got to agree with you on that specific point Karl. Despite Google news:i5osnv$bs4$1@news.eternal-september.org... > I'm okay with it, too, because I really like the > apps it's updating. (Google Earth, in particular.) being the Anti Christ, they've got the Earth well and truly stitched up. What an amazing application. Micro$oft, being "followers and stealers" rather than innovators, just haven't got a chance against them. I almost could not believe it when I first saw Google Earth. Would have been an impossible dream in my day, total science fiction ;-) Mike Mike Williams explained :
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote... Yeah, their "terms and conditions" and all whatnot can seem really > >> I'm okay with it, too, because I really like the >> apps it's updating. (Google Earth, in particular.) > > Well, I've got to agree with you on that specific point Karl. Despite Google > being the Anti Christ, they've got the Earth well and truly stitched up. What > an amazing application. Micro$oft, being "followers and stealers" rather than > innovators, just haven't got a chance against them. I almost could not > believe it when I first saw Google Earth. Would have been an impossible dream > in my day, total science fiction ;-) bizarre, but damned if they don't *deliver* on the goods, huh!? :-) "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote in message They certainly do. They work on some amazing ideas, and they put an amazing news:i5p1lq$34q$1@news.eternal-september.org... > Yeah, their "terms and conditions" and all whatnot can > seem really bizarre, but damned if they don't *deliver* > on the goods, huh!? :-) amount of money and effort into bringing them to fruition. The original Google Earth was amazing enough, but their added Street View stuff just takes it almost beyond science fiction! I have to laugh at this one, where even the fact that motor vehicles are prohibited did not stop them, at Stonehenge here in the UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO8l8hL0cuw Mike Mike Williams formulated on Thursday :
Show quoteHide quote > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@exmvps.org> wrote in message OMG! That's hilarious!!! Gotta share... :-)> news:i5p1lq$34q$1@news.eternal-september.org... > >> Yeah, their "terms and conditions" and all whatnot can >> seem really bizarre, but damned if they don't *deliver* >> on the goods, huh!? :-) > > They certainly do. They work on some amazing ideas, and they put an amazing > amount of money and effort into bringing them to fruition. The original > Google Earth was amazing enough, but their added Street View stuff just takes > it almost beyond science fiction! I have to laugh at this one, where even the > fact that motor vehicles are prohibited did not stop them, at Stonehenge here > in the UK: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO8l8hL0cuw "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message If you are using Firefox, then you need to read this, which lists "all" the news:i5a0pv$4kv$1@news.eternal-september.org... > |i intalled chrome, and it installs a scheduled task in my system for > | checking update. That's when I un-intall it. > | > > It's an epidemic: > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180272/Mozilla_plans_to_silently_update_Firefox > situations when it seems that it's making unknown connections, and how to turn them off: http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections | If you are using Firefox, then you need to read this, which lists "all" Nice find. Thanks. It occurs to me that I've adaptedthe | situations when it seems that it's making unknown connections, and how to | turn them off: | | http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections | a general rule to avoid updating most software on the assumption that the newer version is probably worse... more bloat, more spying, etc. ....A sad state of affairs. And even more so in the case of Firefox, which started out as somewhat of a crusade to cut out the junk and just provide a clean, simple browser. I generally use K-Meleon, which is closer to what Firefox used to be. But it lacks a handful of niceties, like a decent source code window and the option to remove or change page styles. "Abhishek" <abhishek0***@hotmail.com> wrote in message They all are the AntiChrist:news:i59jtj$2j4$1@speranza.aioe.org... > I avoid using Google, i use bing http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/6720-Microsoft_s_TV_Ads_That_Watch_You.php You can use Scroogle instead of Google, or Cuil: http://www.scroogle.org/ http://www.cuil.com/ Cuil was started by former Google employees who didn't like Google's privacy practices. It doesn't store users' searches, or IP activity per their policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil Nobody wrote:
> They all are the AntiChrist: Interesting is the fact the Wikipedia page for Scroogle has been *deleted*:> > <snipped> > > You can use Scroogle instead of Google, or Cuil: > > http://www.scroogle.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle However, the Spanish and Italian version of the pages are still up: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle Nando machte diesen Vorschlag :
Show quoteHide quote > Nobody wrote: The German version ist still up, too:> >> <snipped> >> >> You can use Scroogle instead of Google, or Cuil: >> >> http://www.scroogle.org/ > > Interesting is the fact the Wikipedia page for Scroogle has been *deleted*: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle > > However, the Spanish and Italian version of the pages are still up: > > http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle Helmut. Hi all,
You people seem to lose the objective eye. Google chrome is a nuisance alright. But does that justify preferring bing over Google search? I was pro-google for the search engine. I had even promoted Chrome for its rendering of the pages. (its interface I didnt like any, and Download thingy I hated) but it is its off-stage activities that made me curse and throw it out. Every one or two minutes it attempts to update, even when I am not connected to net, I had to click off my Zone-alarm hundreds of times a day. In frustration I clicked the 'remember this setting' on zone alarm to make zone alarm block google updater without asking me. All hell broke. Chrome threw tantrums and refused to work. in the process it killed IE as well. I had to do lot of tweakings over two weeks to get IE back (Firefox? I cannot tolerate it for a minute). I am living with IE and one of my own custom browser(made in vb6; On-Topic, Ha, ha!) happily thereafter. Hit hard Chrome, but NOT Google Search. (I am gradually removing the Chrome-promotion things from my projects) "Sneha Menon" <spiderang***@gmail.com> wrote in message What do you mean by "You people"? Do you not consider yourself to be a news:751d0634-bf3e-48be-a898-3875fe6a0d9b@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Hi all, > You people seem to lose the objective eye. member of the "people" tribe? If not, then what are you? Mike "Sneha Menon" <spiderang***@gmail.com> wrote in message IE Tab 2 (FF 3.6+) Add-ons for Firefoxnews:751d0634-bf3e-48be-a898-3875fe6a0d9b@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > (Firefox? I cannot tolerate it for a minute). https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/92382/ PlainOldFavorites: Use Internet Explorer Favorites directly from Firefox. No need to import, export or synchronize - the same Favorites appear... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/668/ YouTube Auto Replay Add-ons for Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11636/ and do anyone of you know TPM software is included with Windows 7?
do a file search in system32 for tpm* there are lots of files. Abhishek explained on 8/28/2010 :
> and do anyone of you know TPM software is included with Windows 7? I wonder if I have a different Chrome browser. I have it installed for > > do a file search in system32 for tpm* there are lots of files. testing of my file clean program and it does not update automatically. I have to go to tools, About, and tell it to update, when a new version is listed. Norm Forget one thing, Google's arrogance. they love you blacklist you.
I remember a couple of years ago cnet published an internal news about and goggle responded that they will blacklist cnet and wont give them any interview for 1 year. and in my case, I applied for ad-sense for my site and after 1 week I was told that they detected fraudulent clicking and they disabled my account and blacklisted my site. now after almost more than 3 years and multiple reporting and multiple joining requests. they just deny it. Google orkut's - many in the west may not know that Google have its own facebook like social networking site. it was a Brazilian startup that they purchased. its full of spammers, scams, bad-privacy and there has been some murder and kidnapping through it. When Google set up a schedual task, it need a password. I happened to be
running as admin when I intalled Chromw. Does it mean Google know my admin password, or it peronates me (is that the right word). How does this work ? It seems like a security breach to me. Show quoteHide quote "Abhishek" <u***@server.com> wrote in message news:i5ftus$ok$1@speranza.aioe.org... > Forget one thing, Google's arrogance. they love you blacklist you. > > I remember a couple of years ago cnet published an internal news about > and goggle responded that they will blacklist cnet and wont give them any > interview for 1 year. > > and in my case, I applied for ad-sense for my site and after 1 week I was > told that they detected fraudulent clicking and they disabled my account > and > blacklisted my site. now after almost more than 3 years and multiple > reporting and multiple joining requests. they just deny it. > > Google orkut's - many in the west may not know that Google have its own > facebook like social networking site. it was a Brazilian startup that they > purchased. its full of spammers, scams, bad-privacy and there has been > some > murder and kidnapping through it. > > | When Google set up a schedual task, it need a password. I happened to be If you just set a scheduled task that has nothing| running as admin when I intalled Chromw. Does it mean Google know my admin | password, or it peronates me (is that the right word). How does this work ? | It seems like a security breach to me. | to do with Google directly. But if you're concerned... why on earth did you agree to have a browser program set to be started on a regular basis, specifically so that it can go online for reasons not related to your use of it?! And why did you install Chrome in the first place? By installing Chrome you're helping Google to spy on your every move more easily. Google is an advertising/services company now. That's the whole point of Chrome. Update mania started with a kernel of validity, but it's mainly just a thinly veiled movement to redefine software as a service -- even when you buy it and install it locally. Constant updates help to acclimate the public to the idea that it's normal for software to operate independently of the person using it. Regular updates *used to* be known as "beta software". :) There was an article front-page on the NYT today about online tracking and Google. Typical of the NYT, they tried to report the news while twisting the truth, so as not to offend advertisers. They presented the story in such a way as to define online tracking as unnerving, but nothing to really worry about when one understands how it works -- which is very misleading. Google *is* Doubleclick. Doubleclick has web bugs/ads on most commercial pages. Google analytics also bugs a large number of pages. In other words, if you don't block those domains through your HOSTS file then Google knows just about everything *except* your admin password. Given the options between cookies, "super cookies", logging your IP, and using web bugs, there's no other way to prevent Google from watching nearly every move you make online. (And Microsoft/Aquantive is probably not far behind. But from what I've seen of webpage source code, Google seems to have a monopoly.) I did not agree, it never asked me.
I unintalled it almost immedidate after I saw the scheduled task. Do you know how the intall program know my password. That's my question. Can you answer that. Show quoteHide quote "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:i5g9ut$96c$1@news.eternal-september.org... > > | When Google set up a schedual task, it need a password. I happened to be > | running as admin when I intalled Chromw. Does it mean Google know my > admin > | password, or it peronates me (is that the right word). How does this > work > ? > | It seems like a security breach to me. > | > > If you just set a scheduled task that has nothing > to do with Google directly. But if you're concerned... > why on earth did you agree to have a browser program > set to be started on a regular basis, specifically so > that it can go online for reasons not related to your > use of it?! And why did you install Chrome in the > first place? By installing Chrome you're helping Google > to spy on your every move more easily. Google is an > advertising/services company now. That's the whole point > of Chrome. > > Update mania started with a kernel of validity, but > it's mainly just a thinly veiled movement to redefine > software as a service -- even when you buy it and install > it locally. Constant updates help to acclimate the public > to the idea that it's normal for software to operate > independently of the person using it. Regular updates > *used to* be known as "beta software". :) > > There was an article front-page on the NYT today > about online tracking and Google. Typical of the NYT, > they tried to report the news while twisting the truth, > so as not to offend advertisers. They presented > the story in such a way as to define online tracking as > unnerving, but nothing to really worry about when one > understands how it works -- which is very misleading. > Google *is* Doubleclick. Doubleclick has web bugs/ads > on most commercial pages. Google analytics also bugs > a large number of pages. In other words, if you don't > block those domains through your HOSTS file then Google > knows just about everything *except* your admin password. > Given the options between cookies, "super cookies", > logging your IP, and using web bugs, there's no other way > to prevent Google from watching nearly every move you > make online. (And Microsoft/Aquantive is probably not far > behind. But from what I've seen of webpage source code, > Google seems to have a monopoly.) > > > > |I did not agree, it never asked me. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that| I unintalled it almost immedidate after I saw the scheduled task. | you gave it your password and now wondered whether that was risky. | Do you know how the intall program know my password. That's my question. I'd guess that it wasn't necessary since theCan | you answer that. | installer was running as admin, but I really don't know how that works. I never even allow the task scheduler service to be enabled, partly because I have no use for it, and partly because I've seen it abused by other software -- like AV -- that will set a scheduled task without asking. On 30/08/2010 13:17, phil hunt wrote:
> When Google set up a schedual task, it need a password. I happened to be No, it either runs as system (you gave it admin access to allow this) or > running as admin when I intalled Chromw. Does it mean Google know my admin > password, or it peronates me (is that the right word). How does this work ? > It seems like a security breach to me. as your user ONLY when logged in so the password is not needed. -- Dee Earley (dee.ear***@icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.) On 27/08/2010 22:13, Mike Williams wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > As with any app that changes associations, there isn't really anything > Come back Micro$oft. All is forgiven (well, some of it is!). Google is > the new AntiChrist :-) > > Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on topic!) I > installed Google Chrome web browser. I did not like it and so I > uninstalled it, and upon doing so I discovered that all web page links > (hyperlinks or whatever you call them) in MS Word and MS Publisher and > various other applications failed to work, popping up a message to the > effect that the operation had been cancelled due to restrictions in > effect on this computer and that I should contact my Administrator. So, > I took the advice of the error message and I contacted my administrator > (me!) but I'm afraid I drew a blank! > > Anyway, it turns out that Google Chrome had not only left behind > numerous unwanted registry entries (which the MS uninstaller failed to > catch but which Revo Uninstaller got rid of) but it also seems to have > left behind many "changed registry entries" that are actually required > but that in fact are left pointing to something that no longer exists. > There was so much crap that it was almost impossible to get rid of. > > As it turned out, the solution was to install the Mozilla FireFox web > browser, which apparently corrected all those damaged entries, and then > all the links in MS Word and various other programs started working > again, and they continued to work even after I had uninstalled FireFox. it can do to reliably "restore" previous values. Whatever it does will be wrong in some situations so it does the most reliable thing of nothing. After all, most browsers check on startup if they are the default and offer to reset things to itself. Did you try using the "Default programs" feature of Windows to reassign URL handling back to IE or another browser? -- Dee Earley (dee.ear***@icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Dee Earley" <dee.ear***@icode.co.uk> wrote in message Well as far as I recall no other web browser I have ever installed has news:OgLJACpSLHA.5388@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> [Mike Williams wrote:] >> Whilst developing a VB6 program (just to keep this on >> topic!) I installed Google Chrome web browser. I did >> not like it and so I uninstalled it, and upon doing so I >> discovered that all web page links (hyperlinks or whatever >> you call them) in MS Word and MS Publisher and various >> other applications failed to work > > As with any app that changes associations, there isn't really > anything it can do to reliably "restore" previous values. > Whatever it does will be wrong in some situations so it > does the most reliable thing of nothing. resulted in MS document links failing to work after I had uninstalled it and after I had set up a different browser as the new default browser. Only Google Chrome has ever done that to me. Mike 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
