*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info

FREE
MyUninstaller v1.36 - Alternative to the standard add / remove control panel module
Copyright (c) 2003 - 2007 Nir Sofer

Description
MyUninstaller is an alternative utility to the standard Add/Remove applet of Windows operating system. It displays the list of all installed application, and allows you to uninstall an application, delete an uninstall entry, and save the list of all installed applications into a text file or HTML file.
MyUninstaller also provides additional information for most installed applications that the standard Add/Remove applet doesn't display: product name, company, version, uninstall string, installation folder and more.

Important Notice
When you uninstall a software, MyUninstaller utility is not directly responsible to the uninstall process. MyUninstaller simply run the uninstall module provided by the software that you want to uninstall. So, if from some reason the uninstall process fails, you should contact the author of the software that you want to uninstall, not to the author of MyUninstaller.




License
This utility is released as freeware. You are allowed to freely distribute this utility via floppy disk, CD-ROM, Internet, or in any other way, as long as you don't charge anything for this. If you distribute this utility, you must include all files in the distribution package, without any modification !

Disclaimer
The software is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The author will not be liable for any special, incidental, consequential or indirect damages due to loss of data or any other reason.

Using MyUninstaller
The MyUninstaller utility is a standalone executable. It doesn't require any installation process or additional DLL's. Just copy the executable file to any folder you want, and run it.
After your run it, MyUninstaller loads the list of the installed applications from the Registry, and gathers information about each installation item. The loading and analyzing process might take between 5 and 15 seconds and even more, depending on your hardware, operating system, and the quantity of the installed application on your computer.
After the analyzing process is finished, MyUninstaller displays the details of all installed applications on your computer. Be aware that some columns, like version, product name, company and others, are displayed for most installed applications, but not for all of them. In rare cases, It's also possible that wrong information about an installed application will be displayed.
The following table provides basic information about each available column:

Uninstalling an application
In order to uninstall an application, select the desired entry, and from the File menu (or from the pop-up menu) select "Uninstall Selected Software". The uninstall applet of the selected application will be launched instantly

Removing an uninstall entry
In some circumstances, an application is not removed properly and the uninstall entry remains on your system. If you find an obsolete uninstall entry of an application that is no longer installed on your computer, you can remove the entry from the installed applications list. In order to remove an uninstall entry, select the item that you want to remove, and from the File menu (or from the pop-up menu), select "Delete Selected Entry".

Quick Mode
By default, each time that you run MyUninstaller utility, it automatically scans and analyzes the installed applications on your computer. On computer with dozens of installed applications, this loading process may be quite slow. If you want to load MyUninstaller in much faster way, turn on the quick mode option. When quick mode is enabled, the information gathered by MyUninstaller is saved into a special INI file under your 'Application Data' folder, and in the next time you run MyUninstaller, the installed applications information will be loaded from that INI file, instead of reanalyzing your system. However, if you have installed new software since the last time you ran MyUninstaller, you have to refresh the software list by pressing F5 key.

In order to enable or disable the quick mode, select the 'Quick Mode' option from the View menu.

Advanced Mode
When Advanced Mode is turned on, you are allowed to select multiple items, and then delete or uninstall them at once. This option is turned off by default, and you should not turn it on, unless you're really a power user.

link to all info and download
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/myuninst.html

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/myuninst.zip

 

QuickTime Alternative 1.90
Author: Codecpackquide.com
Date: 2007-09-14
Size: 11.4 Mb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win All
Downloaded: 134356 Times

QuickTime Alternative will allow you to play QuickTime files (.mov, .qt and other extensions) without having to install QuickTime Player from Apple. It also supports QuickTime content that is embedded in webpages. The very user-friendly installation is fully customizable, which means that you can install only those components that you want.

Features of QuickTime Alternative:
* Media Player Classic 6.4.9.0 is a full-featured player which has decoding support for QuickTime content.
* QuickTime codecs 7.1.5.120 (QuickTime Alternative 1.80) or 6.5.2.10 (QuickTime Alternative 1.56) are required for playing QuickTime movies and audio.
* QuickTime DirectShow filter allows you to play QuickTime content in all DirectShow enabled players. Without this filter QuickTime content can only be played in Media Player Classic.
* QuickTime plugins are required for viewing some special formats that are sometimes used on webpages. The QuickTime plugins include iPIX and QuickTimeVR.
* QuickTime Control Panel is required for configuring some QuickTime settings.
* QuickTime Browser plugin 7.1.5.120 (QuickTime Alternative 1.80) or 6.5.2.10 (QuickTime Alternative 1.56) allows you to view QuickTime content that is embedded in a webpage. The QuickTime Browser plugin supports Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape and Opera.

QuickTime Alternative Lite is QuickTime Alternative without Media Player Classic.

LINK
http://www.majorgeeks.com/QuickTime_Alternative_d5610.html

 

Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT) 2008.0.1.18
Author: Symantec
Date: 2007-09-13
Size: 977 Kb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win 2K/03/XP/Vista

The Norton Removal Tool uninstalls all Norton 2007/2006/2005/2004/2003 products from your computer. Before you continue, make sure that you have the installation CDs or downloaded installation files for any Norton products that you want to reinstall. Also, if you use ACT! or WinFAX, back up those databases and uninstall those products.

Windows 98 and ME users should download this version.

LINK
http://www.majorgeeks.com/Norton_Removal_Tool_SymNRT_d4749.html

 

NTFS Undelete 0.93
Author: A-FF Labs
Date: 2007-09-13
Size: 1.78 Mb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win 2K/03/XP/Vista

NTFS Undelete is free software that allows you to recover deleted files. It recovers files directly from hard drive, and it will work even if you empty Recycle Bin.

Before downloading NTFS Undelete, please consider the following:
When you delete a file, its content physically remains intact on the media, but the occupied space becomes marked as free. Next file saved to the disk may overwrite the contents of the deleted file.

It is very important to make sure that no application writes to the drive or partition where deleted file is located since every new file (even a small one) may overwrite the deleted file.


Also available as an ISO image.

LINK
http://www.majorgeeks.com/NTFS_Undelete_d5532.html

 

WinPatrol 12.0.2007.6
Author: BillP Studios
Date: 2007-09-13
Size: 670 Kb
License: Freeware
Requires: Win All

Scotty the Windows Watch Dog sniffs out malicious "mysteryware" and parasites that may assault your computer. WinPatrol puts you back in control of your computer so you'll know what programs are and should be running at all times.

- Increase Your Speed & System Performance.
- Detect & Neutralize Spyware. Detect & Neutralize ADware.
- Detect & Neutralize Viral infections. Detect & Neutralize Unwanted IE Add-Ons.
- Detect & Restore File Type Changes Automatically Filter Unwanted Cookies.
- Avoid Start Page Hijacking. Detect HOSTS file changes.
- Kill Multiple Tasks that replicate each other, in a single step!
- Stop programs that repeatedly add themselves to your Startup List!
- Delete and Remove the most Stubborn Infections



A plus version is available for $29.95 offering more features.

LINK
http://www.majorgeeks.com/WinPatrol_d3380.html

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13322
RIAA vs Catherine Njuguna

When you fish with a net, you sometimes are going to catch a few dolphin ~ Amy Weiss, former RIAA spokeswoman




p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Here’s a story to interest anyone who’s been following Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s fruitless attempts to use legal systems around the world to terrorise their own customers into once again becoming compliant, wholly subservient, ‘consumers,’ as the corporate world contemptuously calls the men, women and children around the world, who keep them rich.

This tale is set in America, in South Carolina, to be exact, with the Big 4’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) as the aggressor.

But it could have happened anywhere in the world with the initials RIAA substituted for BPI (British Phonographic Industry), say, or any of the hundreds of similar organisations the labels have set up in most developed countries.

Telling it are Charleston lawyers Jason Scott Luck and John P. Seibels, jr, representing Catherine Njuguna, another woman falsely accused by the RIAA of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.

She’s filed her opposition to the RIAA motion to dismiss counterclaims in Atlantic v Njuguna, says Recording Industry vs The People.

“Defendant tried to explain she listened to Christian contemporary music, not the music found in the Complaint, which included songs titled ‘Teenage Dirt Bag’ [sic], ‘She fuckin hates me’ [sic], ‘I touch myself’ [sic], ‘That Nigger’s Crazy’ [sic], and ‘fusk You Softly.’ [sic],” says the document, leading off with,

“This case is another skirmish in the RIAA’s four-year war to use the Federal Courts to shore up the American recording industry’s failing business model.”

And as in so many other cases Sharman Network’s Kazaa P2P file sharing application plays a central role.

Both it and the RIAA are themselves the subjects of class action applications.

Luck and Seibels go on >>>

In the late nineties, various websites, FTP2 servers, and the infamous Napster software changed the face of music forever. MPEG layer 3 audio files (”mp3s”), a compressed sound file format, made it possible to transfer music via computer files quickly and with little loss in sound quality. These files allowed any music lover with a little Internet aptitude the ability to quickly discover new music and share their music with the entire world. Unfortunately, it also allowed an unprecedented level of unauthorized and illegal duplication of music in violation of the federal Copyright Act.

The wave of internet piracy of music, movies, books, and software has led to a frenzy of hand-wringing, hyperbole, and hysterics on the part of media companies. NBC Universal’s4 general counsel recently went as far as suggesting America wastes entirely too much money policing crimes like burglary, fraud, and bank robbery when it should be doing something about piracy instead. This hysteria is not unprecedented. In 1982, MPAA6 president Jack Valenti said to congress ‘I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.’ The VCR did not ’strangle’ the film industry, which now makes very healthy profit from video sales and rentals. In the 1980s, British record companies believed copying albums on equipment like twin cassette decks would put them out of business and launched a ‘Home Taping is Killing Music’ campaign. While a number of unfortunate mix tapes were made by teenagers, home taping didn’t kill the music.

What is different from these previous ‘crises’ is the massive, organized campaign of litigation intended to punish pirates and deter piracy. Since 2003, thousands of lawsuits have been filed across the United States against a wide variety of defendants. These defendants include actual pirates, copying and distributing music for profit without paying royalties, and lazy teenagers that just didn’t feel like they had to pay $15 for a CD to get the one decent song it contained. These defendants have violated the law and the plaintiffs are within their rights to pursue them.

However, the Plaintiffs, and other RIAA-affiliated companies, have also sued dead people, children, the disabled, people who do not own computers, or simply sued the wrong person.

These scattershot tactics have created considerable enmity for the RIAA from the public, and the RIAA’s subsequent treatment of innocent defendants has further tarnished its reputation, leading to a growing number of defendants asserting counterclaims, and one potential nationwide class action.

The Defendant in this action, Catherine Njuguna, is one of the ‘dolphin’ so flippantly described by the RIAA.

Defendant received a letter from Time Warner Cable in January of 2006 informing her that her personal information had been disclosed pursuant to a subpoena issued in an ex parte ‘John Doe’ action filed against several IP addresses in 2005.16 This letter provided her a number to call with any questions. This number was for the ‘record companies’ representatives’ and included the email of info@SettlementInformationLine.com.

These lines of communication connected the Defendant to Settlement Support Center, LLC, (”SSC”) a company employed by the Plaintiffs to negotiate settlements with persons accused by the Plaintiffs of copyright infringement. Defendant called the Settlement Support Center and spoke with a representative, who informed her that they had evidence that a computer with IP address 67.9.63.16, which had been identified as Defendant’s, had shared over 450 music files via KaZaA file-sharing software on October 30, 2005 at 3:22 am. This accusation was troubling to the Defendant, as she did not know what file-sharing was, did not know how to download music, did not have any file-sharing software installed on her computer, and did not have the alleged music files on her computer. She was also in Oklahoma City that night, and her computer was turned off. The Settlement Support Center offered to settle the claims against her for $3750.00, or slightly more if she wished to pay over time. Over the next two months, Defendant attempted to prove her innocence to the Plaintiffs, through Settlement Support Center. She repeatedly argued that the issue must be a case of mistaken identity.

Defendant tried to explain she listened to Christian contemporary music, not the music found in the Complaint, which included songs titled ‘Teenage Dirt Bag’ [sic], ‘She fuckin hates me’ [sic], ‘I touch myself’ [sic], ‘That Nigger’s Crazy’ [sic], and ‘fusk You Softly.’ [sic]

Defendant, with the assistance of an employee of SSC she had on the phone, searched her computer for the alleged software and music; they found none. She offered to have her computer inspected; her offer was not accepted. SSC continued to threaten to file suit if she did not pay the $3750.00. When Defendant asked how she, a person of limited means, could afford the settlement,the SSC representative suggested she get a credit card.

Plaintiffs filed suit on August 22, 2006, against a ‘Cathryn Njuguna,’ a name the Defendant has never used before and has never seen before. The SSC informed the Defendant that the yes will ever lookwill ever look, no promisessettlement demand was $4500.00, or $4750.00 paid over time.

In March, Defendant began to correspond directly with the Plaintiffs’ counsel. At this point, she was told that another incident of file sharing they attributed to her had taken place in May of 2006. Plaintiffs’ counsel discovered that this incident was a mistake in their records, and in a commendable show of professionalism, informed Defendant of the mistake, but apparently did not inform SSC.

In March of 2007, the Defendant decided the cost to litigate and be exonerated was too high and called the SSC to profess her innocence one final time and settle the case.19 The representative was rude, telling Defendant there was no way she could have not shared music via KaZaA, as they now had evidence of two incidents. Defendant attempted to explain that the second incident was a mistake on the Plaintiffs’ part, but said explanation fell on deaf ears. The representative became progressively ruder, and eventually told Defendant that she would face criminal prosecution should her infringement continue. After this conversation, Defendant boxed up her old computer and purchased a new one; she then retained counsel.

Click here for the full document.

And meanwhile, stay tuned.

.SlashdotSlashdot it! Add to Technorati Favorites

Also See:
another woman falsely accused - Marie Lindor, RIAA copyright crook, September 14, 2007
Recording Industry vs The People - Defendant fights back in Charleston, South Carolina, in Atlantic v. Njuguna, Defends her Counterclaims, September 12, 2007
class actions - RIAA named in first class action, August 16, 2007

 

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13323

To the RIAA: F**K YOU!

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- J13P, 31, lives in Chicago, and he has an interesting post on MySpace.

It’s based on Ray Beckerman’s “I recommend that defendants’ lawyers consider making motions to dismiss complaint or motions for judgment on pleading.”

Says J13P >>>

As a musician, I sometimes have mixed feelings about this. On some occasions I think, wow I shouldn’t be downloading music for free. Then my my mind wanders to all those times I bought a record, brought it home and found out it was a total pile of shit. I have no problems supporting music.

Also, This is the industry that removed its cheaper products from the shelves (cd /tape singles, ect.) so if you wanted to hear your bands fav radio hit, you had to buy the whole record. So of course, smart ppl found another way to get their hands on them. CD burners came out, and they were doing back flips. They thought they had a media that couldn’t be fucked with. Wrong Again.

So all in all, they come down to the last tactics that sometimes works.

FEAR.

Yes, they decided to sue 13 year old kids and adults alike. The only industry that has ever sued their customers as far as I know(if you take all my money, how will I afford your products?)

The RIAA put together a boilerplate law suite, that they could file, on large groups of people, and win.

BUT NOT ANYMORE! The rules have changed Im happy to report. So fu@k you RIAA here is the skinny below.

“The decision many lawyers had been expecting - that the RIAA’s ‘boilerplate’ complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the Copyright Act - has indeed come down, but from an unlikely source. While the legal community has been looking towards a Manhattan case (Elektra v. Barker) for guidance, the decision instead came from Senior District Court Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The decision handed down denied a default judgment (i.e. the defendant had not even appeared in the action). Judge Brewster not only denied the default judgment motion but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Echoing the words of Judge Karas at the oral argument in Barker , Judge Brewster held (pdf) that ‘Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation.’”

SO fu@k you RIAA! Either get on the bus, or get off the fu@king street.

J13P

[I didn’t bothered to ** the expletives. What’s the difference between fu@k and f**k anyway? - Jon]
I DID,

.SlashdotSlashdot it! Add to Technorati Favorites

Also See:
Ray Beckerman - How to thwart the RIAA, September 12, 2007
J13P - RIAA is on the ropes, September 14, 2007

 

RIAA Loses in Precedent-setting Case

The RIAA loses a precedent-setting case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, in Southern California.

A judge is Southern California, made no friends in the RIAA, when she handed down a precedent-setting verdict that cleared the plantiff of all charges in the case Interscope v. Rodriguez.

Since the early days of p2p file-sharing the RIAA has made a questionable name for itself as a legal bulldog, issuing thousands of lawsuits against individuals each year.

Typically the RIAA accused these individuals of downloading, distribuing and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works. These statements often were followed by little evidence, and sometimes came against people that had no apparent access to a computer.

One such case occured in 2005 when the RIAA took up a case against 83-year-old deceased great-grandmother in West Virginia. The RIAA was unaware that the woman had passed away in December, 2004. Ironically, her daugher Robin testified that her mother did not ever own a computer, and had no access to one.

After the case gained national attention the RIAA issued a foot-in-mouth reply, "Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago. We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

Since then the RIAA has continued to take individuals to court, many of whom settled out of court privately, for thousands of dollars.

The Interscope v. Rodriguez was considered a typical RIAA case “boilerplate” complaint. The RIAA accused the plantiff of downloading, distribuing and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, but did not offer any specific evidence or proof of its claims. It sought monetary damages from the plantiff.

As the plantiff did not present himself in court, a default judgement ruling was held. The presiding judge, Judge Brewster, shocked the RIAA by not only denying to make a default monetary judgement, but also completing dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.

Judge Brewster is on record as stating:

"Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant.

However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate this allegation is anything more than speculation.

The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant.

The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted."

If you don't read legal-speak, then the translation is this -- the RIAA was ruled against for not presenting sufficient evidence.
This is a landmark ruling, as new defendants will now have a legal precedent and successful framework to challenge the RIAA in court.

The RIAA has made a name for itself by continually coming up with creative new ways of trying to make money of music listeners, via litigation and marketing gimmicks. It has tried everything from lawsuits, to "ringles" its new ringtone-single campaign, to make up for falling record sales.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8884

 

Microsoft to force Messenger users to upgrade

Microsoft instant-messaging users who aren’t yet running version 8.1 (or higher) of Windows Live Messenger, take note: Your days are numbered.

As reported by LiveSide.net, some time in the next few weeks, Microsoft is going to require all Messenger users to upgrade, in the name of security. Security product manager “Anand” blogged:

“We will soon configure the service such that any user on Windows XP or later system has to use Windows Live Messenger 8.1. When a user using an older version of Messenger tries to login, the client will help the user with a mandatory upgrade to Messenger 8.1.

“Some of you might feel this inconvenient, but in order to protect you and protect the health of the network we have chosen to take this step.”

Anand cited a security vulnerability affecting MSN Messenger 6.2, 7.0 and 7.5, as well as Windows Live Messenger 8.0 as proof that users would be best served by upgrading. That vulnerability is detailed in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS07-054, which Microsoft published on September 11.

Messenger users are seemingly none too happy with Microsoft’s decision, as comments posted to the “Inside Windows Live Messenger” blog indicate. One anonymous poster wondered whether Microsoft would make exceptions for corporate or advanced users:

“(I)s there any option for corporate or advanced users who have other IM security controls in place to continue running version 7.0 on windows XP? 8.1 has many protocol differences from the older clients. Is there any documentation available describing the external websites/ports the 8.1 client requires for access? This has changed quite a bit from the older versions…”

Windows Live Messenger 8.1 is the currently available version of Microsoft’s consumer IM client, but select testers also are dabbling with Live Messenger 8.5.

Being a long-time holdout myself (much preferring the streamlined, simple MSN Messenger look and feel to Windows Live Messenger’s more cluttered interface), I, too, wish there was some way to keep the MSN Messenger UI. How about a “classic” view for Windows Live Messenger, Microsoft?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=714

 

Running the numbers on Vista (it's not looking good)
Sep 14, 2007 - 1:35 PM - by Digital Dave
XP is STILL the OS of choice for the Windows crowd.

Sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista continue to significantly trail those of Windows XP during its early days, according to a soon-to-be-released report.

Standalone unit sales of Vista at U.S. retail stores were down 59.7 percent compared with Windows XP, during each product's first six months on store shelves, according to NPD Group. In terms of revenue, sales are also down, but the drop has been less steep, at 41.5 percent. The findings largely mirror the sales pattern NPD saw for Vista during its first week on the market in January.

news.com

Running the numbers on Vista
Over its first six months, the latest Windows version can't hold a candle to XP. But, Office sales rock, according to NPD report.
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 11, 2007, 12:25 PM PDT
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBackE-mail this story to a friendE-mailView this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this

Sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista continue to significantly trail those of Windows XP during its early days, according to a soon-to-be-released report.

Standalone unit sales of Vista at U.S. retail stores were down 59.7 percent compared with Windows XP, during each product's first six months on store shelves, according to NPD Group. In terms of revenue, sales are also down, but the drop has been less steep, at 41.5 percent. The findings largely mirror the sales pattern NPD saw for Vista during its first week on the market in January.

"It's just not doing well," NPD analyst Chris Swenson said of Vista's performance at retail stores, though he added that most people get their operating system on new PCs, with only a minority of customers purchasing boxed copies. The report, titled "Windows Vista Still Underperforming in U.S. Retail," will be sent to clients Friday.

Microsoft also agreed that an analysis of boxed copy sales is not representative of Vista's momentum, noting the trend of people getting a new operating system with a new PC has further accelerated with Vista.

"While we can't comment on the findings of a report we haven't seen, we continue to be on track in all segments we follow," the company said in a statement to CNET News.com. "As of this summer, more than 60 million licenses have been sold."

Microsoft noted in a regulatory filing that more than 80 percent of its Windows revenue comes from computer makers that install the operating system on new machines, with boxed copies accounting for only a fraction of total sales. And the PC market is far larger than it was five years ago. According to research firm Gartner, roughly 239 million PCs were sold worldwide last year, compared with 128 million in 2001.

In many ways, sales of Vista are tied closely to the rate of PC sales. One of the big variables is how quickly businesses move to adopt Vista. Most businesses are not moving to the operating system in significant numbers yet, though Microsoft has begun to tout a few large deployments from corporations including Infosys, Citigroup, Charter Communications and Continental Airlines.

Ahead of Vista's release, the software maker said that it expected businesses to adopt the new operating system at twice the rate of XP during its first year on the market.

However, many businesses have said they are waiting until Microsoft releases the first update to Vista before considering deployments of the operating system. Microsoft is starting beta testing of its first service pack for Windows Vista, though that update won't be released in final form until next year.

News on the retail front is brighter for Office, which was released to stores the same day as Vista.

Retail sales of Office products from January through June were roughly double those of Office 2003 during its first six months on the market and up 59.6 percent from Office sales for the first six months of last year. (Sales of Office 2003 at retail continued to grow over the life of the product.)

While much of the sales were for the new Office 2007, Swenson said just over 20 percent of all boxed copies of Office were Office for Mac. Swenson credited the large number of people switching to Macs as part of the reason for the spike in Mac Office sales.

"If I buy a new PC I can reuse old Windows software," Swenson said. But, if someone is switching from a PC to a Mac and wants Office, he said, "you have to buy new software."

NPD's data comes from its monthly sales reports of software sold at major retailers including Best Buy, CompUSA, Target and Apple's retail stores. It also includes e-commerce sites such as Amazon.com, Buy.com and BestBuy.com.

As for why Vista sales are down, Swenson said it is probably because of a number of factors. More stringent hardware requirements mean that more buyers who want Vista decide to get a new PC, particularly as computer prices have come down so steeply compared with XP's early days. Also, he said, Microsoft has done less advertising than it did with XP.

"The problem is that there are a lot of complex new features in Vista, and you need to educate consumers about them," Swenson said. "Much like Apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the iPhone, or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the Mac OS in the Mac vs. PC commercials, Microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a heavy rotation of Vista in TV, radio and print ads. But the volume of ads has paled in comparison to the ads run for XP."

Just because boxed Vista sales are down doesn't mean they won't pick up, he added. He noted that XP sales peaked a few years after its 2001 launch.

"My hypothesis as to why is that there were a lot of people that bought PCs running 2000 or ME before the XP launch, and thus when they decided to upgrade they opted for the XP upgrade awhile after their initial purchase," Swenson said. "There is a possibility that we might see a similar trend with Vista."

But given the fact that only relatively new PCs can be upgraded to Vista, and with standalone sales not showing signs of improving, Swenson said, "it's looking less and less likely that this will happen."
http://www.news.com/Running+the+numbers+on+Vista/2100-1016_3-6207375.html

 

THIS IS WHO I DEAL WITH,and ye can get xp-poop installed.
http://www.microtelpc.com/

microtel pc

MCS1025 Intel Core2 Duo Processor

$799

Intel Core2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB) [add $64.00]

Microsoft Windows XP Professional [add $63.00]

http://www.microtelpc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=215

 

HOT,HOT AND HOT

Quicktime + Firefox + XP = Trouble
Sep 14, 2007 - 9:56 AM - by Digital Dave
It also states this exploit could affect iTunes.

A London security analyst working with the open source group GNUCitizen has discovered a potentially serious exploit that could affect users of the Firefox browser and Apple's QuickTime movie and music player - especially iTunes customers - on Windows XP-based machines. BetaNews tested and verified the severity of the exploit.

betanews.com


Exploit Discovered Impacting QuickTime, Firefox on Windows XP
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
September 13, 2007, 12:09 PM

A London security analyst working with the open source group GNUCitizen has discovered a potentially serious exploit that could affect users of the Firefox browser and Apple's QuickTime movie and music player - especially iTunes customers - on Windows XP-based machines. BetaNews tested and verified the severity of the exploit.

As early as one year ago, as Petko D. Petkov wrote yesterday, he discovered that JavaScript code appearing in the <EMBED> tag of an HTML file could launch a new Web browser instance, feeding it any kind of default code that isn't checked before being executed.

Unfortunately, the exploit is so simple in concept that the most general description of how it works may give some clues as to how to try it; but of course, Petkov gives a more complete explanation for the benefit of anyone interested in trying to put a stop to it.

On an XP-based system where Firefox is the default browser, when an <EMBED> tag references a file whose type is handled by QuickTime, it then passes the name of that file to QuickTime in trying to launch it, even if the file doesn't really exist. For the exploit to work, the file should not exist.

In launching QuickTime, the browser then can pass JavaScript code to the plug-in using what are called chrome privileges. This is a privilege class that was created with special elevation in order to allow either the plug-in or third parties to attach code to enable skins or special settings, so that the plug-in appears and behaves according to user's preferences. That code is apparently not checked beforehand, so it's possible to embed JavaScript code within it that creates and launches another instance of Firefox. That instance may then be passed another swatch of JavaScript code, which is also apparently not checked.

It's that code which could conceivably do just about anything, as Petkov demonstrates in a handful of non-malicious experiments posted on GNUCitizen.

BetaNews used portions of Petkov's proof-of-concept code, and also tried our own variations on his theme to test for severity. We discovered on two Windows XP-based systems that the exploit can be made to launch unauthorized code through the code-generated instance of Firefox, in cases where QuickTime handled the file type of the false embedded file in question.

The exploit works only when Firefox is the default browser. It does not work when Internet Explorer 7 is the default browser. However, when Firefox is the default, the exploit does work anyway even if IE7 contains the embedded link. So you could still be seeing an IE7 Web page, click on the link to the false file, have it pull up QuickTime, and watch helplessly as QuickTime instantiates a copy of Firefox, from which the havoc may then take place. If IE7 is the default browser, we discovered, QuickTime will instantiate a new IE7 window, but it will not execute the second swatch of embedded code. This is on XP systems with the latest Microsoft security updates for Windows and IE7.

Also, the exploit does not work when Windows Media Player is the handler for the false file, whether the embedded link is viewed through Firefox or IE7.

In BetaNews tests of the exploit in Windows Vista, the exploit failed even when Firefox was set to be the default browser. In all cases, Vista generated an error message saying it could not locate the element in question, and then revealed the content of that element - the potentially malicious code.

This is far from the first exploit discovered involving the triggering of malicious code from Firefox by means of unchallenged chrome privileges given to a plug-in. BetaNews found examples of other exploits in US-CERT's database of past warnings, including this item from 2005.

One member of GNUCitizen reports a test of the exploit being successful in Mac OS X, where Firefox and not Safari is set as the default browser.

Late yesterday, Mozilla acknowledged the severity of the exploit itself, posting a notice on its Security Blog saying, "Petkov provided proof of concept code that may be easily converted into an exploit, so users should consider this a very serious issue."

 

Vista Made Easy: 50 Tips And Tricks
Sep 14, 2007 - 7:01 AM - by Digital Dave
Extreme Tech has the list. Some you know... some you don't.

Like driving a new car, adjusting to a new operating system takes time. Discovering new features and functions (so that's how you adjust the steering wheel!) helps to shorten the acclimatization period, letting you turn a mass-market product into one customized for you. Do you prefer bigger, better-looking icons? Is increased security worth a few extra clicks, in your eyes? Would you like to link all your gadgets to the new system the right way—the first time? Then we've got the guide for you.

extremetech.com

Vista Made Easy: 50 Tips And Tricks

Like driving a new car, adjusting to a new operating system takes time. Discovering new features and functions (so that's how you adjust the steering wheel!) helps to shorten the acclimatization period, letting you turn a mass-market product into one customized for you. Do you prefer bigger, better-looking icons? Is increased security worth a few extra clicks, in your eyes? Would you like to link all your gadgets to the new system the right way—the first time? Then we've got the guide for you.

We'll walk you through Vista's many neat features and more than 50 tips on installing Vista optimally, configuring it for you and your family, improving system speed, and turning up its coolness. When we're through, you'll have made the new OS uniquely yours. — next: Tips 1 through 10


START HERE FOR ALL THE TIPS
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2181865,00.asp

 

Process Explorer 11.02
Posted by Mihai Asmanow on 14 September 2007 - 21:11 · 1 comment & 159 views
Ever wondered which program has a particular file or directory open? Now you can find out. Process Explorer shows you information about which handles and DLLs processes have opened or loaded. The Process Explorer display consists of two sub-windows. The top window always shows a list of the currently active processes, including the names of their owning accounts, whereas the information displayed in the bottom window depends on the mode that Process Explorer is in: if it is in handle mode you'll see the handles that the process selected in the top window has opened; if Process Explorer is in DLL mode you'll see the DLLs and memory-mapped files that the process has loaded. Process Explorer also has a powerful search capability that will quickly show you which processes have particular handles opened or DLLs loaded. The unique capabilities of Process Explorer make it useful for tracking down DLL-version problems or handle leaks, and provide insight into the way Windows and applications work. Process Explorer works on Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Server 2003, and 64-bit versions of Windows for x64 and IA64 processors, and Windows Vista.

What's new in Version 11.02:

This update fixes bugs in column set and NT 4 TCP/IP tab functionality.

Download: Process Explorer 11.02 freeware
http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip
Link: Home Page
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/processexplorer.mspx

 

Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal

Advertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001.

Tomorrow's legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts surveyed this week by CNET News.com to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed.

If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues, "I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area," said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Firefox's Adblock plug-in is probably the most prominent way to configure Web browsers not to display advertisements. It lets people block ads from individual Web sites such as Doubleclick.net or through configurable directories, like "/banner". Similar plug-ins are available for Opera, Safari and Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau, the lobbying arm for the online ad industry, says it isn't preparing a legal offensive at this point. Mike Zaneis, the organization's vice president of public policy, said he wants to work with software developers and consumers to come up with a middle ground on what he describes as an "issue that is just now ripening."

"We don't want to go down a route that would seem adversarial at all," Zaneis said. "People are free to ignore ads, and they often do that, but when you have a third party blocking those ads, that's the real problem." He said the IAB is "looking at all the options."

Ad-blocking tools have been around for years, of course, albeit not without controversy. Nearly a decade ago, a Web software firm called ClearWay Technologies released a beta version of its AdScreen blocking software to threats of boycott from Macintosh-oriented publishers that feared the product would kill their ad-supported Web sites. The company responded by killing the project. Before that, security firm PGP Corp. discontinued an ad-blocking program called Internet Fast Forward because its creator said he had been threatened with copyright lawsuits for modifying publishers' pages without their permission.

Ad-blocking recently hit the spotlight again when an obscure blogger named Danny Carlton--who expounds fringe political views such as AIDS being a "mythical disease" invented by the U.S. government--banned Firefox users from his Web site. Claiming that Firefox creator Mozilla Corp. has endorsed the Adblock plug-in, Carlton redirected Firefox browsers to Whyfirefoxisblocked.com.

The New York Times wrote about the Whyfirefoxisblocked.com kerfuffle last week, and the CNET Blog Network expanded on the topic from a technical perspective. On Wednesday, Carlton lifted the ban on all Firefox users, saying he found a way to identify only Firefox browsers outfitted with Adblock Plus.

MySpace, LiveJournal: Don't block our ads
Many Web sites prohibit any kind of ad-blocking in their terms of service agreements. MySpace.com prohibits "covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page, or any MySpace.com page via HTML/CSS or any other means." Six Apart's LiveJournal uses similar language, as do some news organizations including the Chicago Sun-Times and Fox TV's Houston affiliate. CNET News.com does not.

Any lawsuit would likely invoke two arguments--that copyright infringements are taking place (through derivative works), and that the Web site's terms of service agreement is being violated.

"From a pure legal point of view, a Web site can do anything it wants, so to speak," said Michael Krieger, an intellectual property and business lawyer with the firm Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb in Los Angeles. "That's a little overstating it, obviously, but suppose to get into Google, you first have to click 'I agree, I'm not blocking ads.' I think it's perfectly within their rights to do that."

In the past, entertainment companies have threatened commercial-skipping products on the grounds that they violate copyrights. ReplayTV, which sells digital video recorders, eventually dropped in 2003 a feature called Automatic Commercial Advance after facing a lawsuit from major TV networks and movie studios over that and other issues. (A judge dismissed the suit the following year.)

It's not clear whose side the courts would take, if asked. In the famous lawsuit over the VCR from nearly 30 years ago, the movie studios claimed that Betamax users would fast-forward through commercials.

They lost, of course. The 1979 district court opinion estimated that only 25 percent of VCR owners fast-forward through commercials. But it was based on the technology available at the time: what if it was easier and 95 percent of TV viewers did it? (The judge said: "To avoid commercials during playback, the viewer must fast-forward and, for the most part, guess as to when the commercial has passed. For most recordings, either practice may be too tedious.")

A more recent hint about legality comes from a 2003 appeals court decision related to a copyright dispute over the file-sharing service Aimster.

In that opinion, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded that, based on earlier court rulings, commercial-skipping creates "an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since 'free' television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers." By "derivative work," he was referring to a concept from copyright law that says it's generally unlawful to make a new work out of an existing copyrighted one without permission.

The second argument claims that a Web site's terms of service are a "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreement that are legally binding. To apply, the notice must be "conspicuous enough to the visitor, so they they're aware that their visit is governed by these terms," said Cydney Tune, a lawyer who heads copyright practice at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in San Francisco. (A "clickwrap" license that requires a visitor's agreement to proceed is more likely to be enforceable, however.)

Still, just because a Web site's terms of service prohibits ad-blocking doesn't mean that lawsuits will necessarily ensue. "This is a conversation that comes up a lot," said Anil Dash, chief evangelist for SixApart, which owns LiveJournal. "We're not going to chase (them) down. If a kid wants to install a browser and a plug-in on a browser to control their experience, we're not going to fight them doing that."

"The truth of it is, very, very few people run ad-blocking software," Dash said. "Some of them are very vocal about it, but we do respect that."

A Fox Interactive Media representative declined to comment about MySpace.com's terms of service.

While statistics for ad-blocking tools are hard to come by, an estimated 2.5 million users worldwide currently run Adblock Plus, and an even greater number have downloaded the utility, Adblock Plus lead developer Wladimir Palant said in an e-mail interview. He estimated the product is attracting 300,000 new users each month after an initial spike in adoption attributed to people switching over from Adblock, a related utility with a development path that has diverged.

Palant said he believes Adblock Plus is in "no way illegal" and suggested that suing companies like his "out of business" won't do anyone any good. He added that no one to his knowledge makes money, directly or indirectly, off the software.

In addition, because the source code is publicly available, development would likely continue in another nation with different copyright laws. "The software that I am making is open source, even if I stop working on it--each Adblock Plus user has a copy, and any of them could develop it further," Palant said. "If the advertisers have a problem, they will not be able to solve it in the legal way. As long as people want to block ads, they will be able to do this."

(Publisher's disclosure: CNET Networks, publisher of News.com, is one of hundreds of members of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which was mentioned in this article.)
http://www.news.com/Web+ad+blocking...+page+2/2100-1030_3-6207936-2.html?tag=st.num

 

XP Codec Pack 2.1.0

Size: 5.88MB

Publisher: Visit Website
http://www.xpcodecpack.com/

Release Date: 2007-09-14

Submit Date: 2007-09-14

OS: Win 9x/ME/NT/2K/XP/2K3


XP Codec Pack is one of the most complete codec pack which helps you to play all major audio and video formats.
And... to complete your multimedia experience, instead of 3 or 4 different players you get one, simple integrated player that plays almost all audio and video files: Media Player Classic.

XP Codec Pack is spyware / adware free!
http://www.xpcodecpack.com/cgi-bin/download.pl?file=XP-Codec-Pack-2.1.0.exe

 

Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked
Posted by Zonk on Saturday September 15, @04:24PM
from the i-believe-this-is-called-comeuppance dept.
Security Communications The Internet
qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."

The Biggest Ever BitTorrent Leak: MediaDefender Internal Emails Go Public

When TorrentFreak reported that Media Defender (MD) was behind the video site MiiVi, they cast doubt on us. Now, in what is surely the biggest BitTorrent leak ever, nearly 700mb of MD’s emails have gone public. When MD’s Randy Saaf found out we rumbled MiiVi he said, “This is really f@@ked.” This is too, but much more so.

When we reported in July that an Anti-Piracy Gang Launches their own Video Download Site to Trap People and that the company was called Media Defender and, as anyone who aims to be a credible news resource would, we checked and double checked our sources. We said, with some confidence:

Media Defender, a notorious anti piracy gang working for the MPAA, RIAA and several independent media production companies, just launched their very own video upload service called “miivi.com”. The sole purpose of the site is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so.

However, in comments made to Ars technica, Media Defender’s Randy Saaf chose to rubbish our claims, calling it an ‘accidentally un-secured internal project’.

From the emails we cannot be sure that it’s an entrapment site or that it is related to the MPAA (perhaps it’s a legit a P2P video client?), but it does look suspicious.

Unfortunately for Media Defender - a company dedicated to mitigating the effects of internet leaks - they can do nothing about being the subject of the biggest BitTorrent leak of all time. Over 700mb of their own internal emails, dating back over 6 months have been leaked to the internet in what will be a devastating blow to the company. Many are very recent, having September 2007 dates and the majority involve the most senior people in the company. Apparently this is not the first time that a MediaDefender email leaked onto the Internet.

According to the .nfo file posted with the Mbox file the emails were obtained by a group called “MediaDefender-Defenders”. It states: “By releasing these emails we hope to secure the privacy and personal integrity of all peer-to-peer users. The emails contains information about the various tactics and technical solutions for tracking p2p users, and disrupt p2p services,” and “A special thanks to Jay Maris, for circumventing there entire email-security by forwarding all your emails to your gmail account”

Note: The mbox formatted file is circulating publicly on BitTorrent, completely unedited. However, for publication here we have removed the username and password logins for Media Defender’s servers, and replaced them with asterisks and avoided publishing emails of a personal nature, e.g pay negotiations etc. We believe that the emails are the real deal and all the info posted here serves the public interest.

At first we couldn’t believe that it was real, but after we scanned through the e-mails it became clear that it was indeed the real deal. Hundreds of IPs and logins to their servers, lists of their decoy/entrapment trackers, decoy strategies, the effectiveness of their fake torrents (in many cases with a breakdown of success, title specific), high and low priority sites, .torrent watchlists, information on their monitoring of competitors, pictures of their weekend trips and even the anti-piracy strategy for dealing with The Simpsons Movie leak:

GO HERE TO READ THE TOTAL ARTICLE AND E-MAILS

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-emails-leaked-070915/

 

Are You Being Cheated by Digital Cable?
Posted by Zonk on Saturday September 15, @11:22PM
from the every-bill dept.
Television Businesses Technology
Lauren Weinstein writes "Even though your cable company may claim that a channel is in a digital tier that you're paying for, they may be sending it to you in analog form, with associated negative effects. Surprise! Are You Being Cheated by Digital Cable? 'You're paying for digital, you should get digital. Outside of the lower video and audio quality that can be present on many analog feeds, third-party devices (like cableCARD TiVos) which could otherwise record a digital signal directly, will be forced to re-digitize an analog signal, with inevitable quality loss in the process. But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received?'"

September 15, 2007
Are You Being Cheated by Digital Cable?

Greetings. If you pay for digital cable television tiers, is the service as "digital" as it's supposed to be? Don't be too sure. As it turns out, cable companies can easily cut corners and "cheat" on some aspects of digital tiers in many cases, and you may be none the wiser -- but still negatively affected.

I'm not talking about the perennial controversies regarding the bandwidth cable companies provide on digital channels, vs. audio and video quality -- that's a story unto itself. Rather, let's talk about how you may be paying for digital channels and actually be receiving analog ones instead.

While there is an increasing trend toward all-digital systems, most cable companies these days still provide a mix of analog and digital channels. For example, a typical channel layout may have analog transmissions from channels 2-99, containing local broadcasts and "basic" cable channels like CNN, History Channel, C-SPAN, and the like. These are all channels that can be received without a cable company "converter" box (these days they are usually far more than simple converters), e.g. by "cable-ready" televisions.

Most other channels are in digital tiers, and require either a cable company box, or a third-party device like a TiVo HD, with installed cableCARDs, to handle available digital channels. (As I've reported previously, "switched video" systems may even prevent cableCARDs from viewing some channels.)

Frequently, some or all of the analog basic cable channels are simulcast in higher quality on digital tiers -- sometimes on completely different channel numbers, other times via "mapping" of digital channels onto what would otherwise be channels numbers in the analog tier under, say, channel 100. In the latter case, a digital subscriber tuning to channel 2 would get the digital version of broadcast channel 2, while an analog subscriber would get the analog rendition of broadcast 2.

In general, most cable companies want you to use their boxes (which of course you have to pay for by the month) rather than third-party equipment like TiVos with cableCARDs (even though you still must usually pay the cable company each month for the cableCARDs).

As implied above, just as cable companies can control the particular channels that you receive, a key aspect of modern digital cable system boxes and cableCARDs is that they have the capability to arbitrarily map channel numbers. That is, you may be tuned to channel 100, but actually be receiving a completely different channel. In fact, it's often possible for different subscribers or various classes of subscribers to have completely different mappings, depending on the particular technology in use.

So a cable firm can decide, for example, that users of their own boxes will get particular channels in digital, and they can also declare that third-party cableCARD device owners receive a completely different lineup of enabled analog and digital channels.

Now we get to the fun part. How can you tell if a channel that you're paying for as part of a digital tier is actually being delivered to you as an analog channel instead, and should you care?

Answering the latter question first, of course you should care! You're paying for digital, you should get digital. Outside of the lower video and audio quality that can be present on many analog feeds, third-party devices (like cableCARD TiVos) which could otherwise record a digital signal directly, will be forced to re-digitize an analog signal, with inevitable quality loss in the process.

But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received? Without access to the diagnostic pages of cable company boxes, this can be tough. However, some third-party devices will reveal the truth very quickly. I've heard examples of these situations from various areas, but here's a case that I'm dealing with myself right now.

The TiVo HD has easily accessible diagnostic modes which clearly spill all the beans relating to these issues. Here in the West Valley (Los Angeles) system of Time Warner Cable, I can clearly see that, at the moment, virtually all basic cable channels in the digital tiers that have simulcast analog (under channel 100) equivalents, are actually being delivered as analog channels, at least to my cableCARDs.

Example: When I tune to History Channel on channel 212 in a digital tier, the main channel displays all do say 212, but diagnostics tell me that I'm actually tuned to analog channel 39 -- the analog version of History Channel -- explaining the lower quality image and resulting recording issues on the TiVo. This is in fact the case for essentially the entire set of channels that exist in both digital and analog tiers on this system right now.

On the other hand, if I tune to channel 213 (History International) which exists only in a digital tier, it is received in digital form, naturally enough.

Why are so many channels being paid for as digital actually being received as analog? Cable company representatives of course attempt to blame the TiVo or the cableCARDs (they hate dealing with either), but the kind of deterministic channel mapping that is occurring cannot be the result of a failure or breakdown at subscriber equipment -- it has to be programmed that way via the cable company headend.

And whether this situation is the result of purposeful planning or cable company confusion isn't really terribly interesting either. If you're unable to get anyone in authority to admit that such channel switcheroos are going on, and can't get them resolved, you're simply not getting what you're paying for, and (to quote "Plan 9 From Outer Space"): "Somebody's responsible!"

So if it seems like your digital channels just aren't up to snuff, or your TiVo is treating digital channels as if they were analog -- well, you may actually be a victim of a cable company channel shell game, and you might want to let your cable company (and perhaps the FCC if your cable firm plays hard to get) know exactly how you feel about it.

When so-called digital channels are really analog, you're being cheated, plain and simple.

--Lauren--
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000291.html

 

instead of using MSCONFIG,try this

I USE IT FOR ALL MY COMPUTERS..

DO NOT FORGET WIN-2000 DOES NOT HAVE MSCONFIG,USE THIS...

and use this instead



Startup Control Panel

Startup Control Panel is a nifty control panel applet that allows you to easily configure which programs run when your computer starts. It's simple to use and, like all my programs, it's very small and won't burden your system. A valuable tool for system administrators!
Startup Control Panel is compatible with all modern versions of Windows through Windows XP. Windows Vista, after all these years, finally has a very good startup manager built-in; go to Control Panel > Performance Information and Tools, and then click on Manage Startup Programs on the left.

link
http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml

 

RegToy 0.5.4.0
Author: Ky Nam
Date: 2007-09-16
Size: 1.2 Mb
License: Freeware

RegToy is a useful program that was designed for WindowsXP , is used to Tweak WindowsXP , and some utilities like a renamer to change the filenames and a wallpaper changer. With RegToy you can optimize the performance of your computer and customize your system to suit your needs.

Editors Note:: The original language of this program is in Vietnamese, you can select English after you first run the application.


LINK
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4997.html