Favorite Files

1. Picasa for Windows
2. Process Explorer
3. Programmers Notepad
4. PuTTY
5. SpeedFan
6. Vista Codec Package

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - Vista Codec Package

   5.3.4 (Jul 14, 2009)

   alexander_mundy: you're information is just plain false. I've been using this codec pack for well over a year now and it's been nothing but awesome. There are no trojans or viruses whatsoever. If you happened to get one, you probably downloaded it from 3rd party repackager.

2. 
   Review - Outlook on the Desktop

   1.4.5 (Aug 25, 2008)

   dhry, what exactly is wrong with the execution? .NET is not a language btw, it's a platform. The language it's written in is C#.

3. 
   Review - Outlook on the Desktop

   1.3.3 (Oct 18, 2007)

   Nikkita, Of course this can't be an Outlook replacement if it's called "Outlook on the Desktop" .. it piggyback's on Outlook. However, you are correct in that it may load an extra instance. I've made significant changes to reuse the existing instance if one exists and added a few features. I will release soon, but in case anyone wants to test it it's available here: http://www.michaelscrivo...okdesktop/setupbeta.exe

4. 
   Review - Outlook on the Desktop

   1.3.1 (Feb 19, 2007)

   boswpb, you have to read the requirements. It requires Office 2000 SR-1a at the very least.

5. 
   Review - Outlook on the Desktop

   1.3 (Feb 18, 2007)

   Aegir, go to the project home page and get 1.3.1, the error is fixed in that one. Fileforum has not updated it yet. Sorry for the Inconvenience.

6. Comment - ATI, NVIDIA to Back 'Corona' in New Chipsets

   1.3 (Apr 29, 2002 - 12:32 AM)

   Sure thing, Nvidia's GeForce line of cards and ATI's Radeon (R200 specifically) line of cards. Both of which have per-pixel shader's built into them and which are part of the DirectX 8.1 specification. Granted, Nvidia developed this techonology, and I believe licensed it to MS to be added to DirectX, but nevertheless, if the card does not have this functionality built-in it CANNOT be fully DirectX 8.1 compliant and thus proving my point that hardware is created to specifically support DirectX (and vice versa). Usually the manufacturers also add their own extensions to OpenGL to support these new features, and so us non-Windows users don't have much to complain about.
   
   Now, ideally you would want MS to provide the corona codec to all, but this isn't an ideal world, and as someone stated above, you cannot bash MS for this type of decision. Almost all companies do this type of thing, its just a bandwagon type of thing to bash MS. For example, Nvidia would have probably kept pixel shaders to themselves if they thought it would make them more money, but it was in their best interest to give it to MS to put in DirectX. DirectX is the dominant 3D graphics API and making it harder for developers to develop for their cards by not having their functionality easily accessible would be shooting themselves in the foot.

7. Comment - ATI, NVIDIA to Back 'Corona' in New Chipsets

   1.3 (Apr 28, 2002 - 6:38 PM)

   fewt, I'm sorry .. but you are an idiot. DirectX support is built into the hardware. And yes, corona is just another addition to it.

8. Comment - Napster Subscription Service This Summer

   1.3 (Jan 29, 2001 - 11:58 PM)

   Wow, Satellite is awesome! Great service
   
   and best of all, every download I've tried so far has worked! There doesn't seem to be any firewall conflicts like Napster and other P2P software.

9. Comment - Intel Ramping Pentium 4 Production

   1.3 (Jan 16, 2001 - 10:14 PM)

   Giving you the benefit of the doubt, can you show me a resource which states that the Athlon/Duron platform is less reliable, stable (which are the same thing really) or less compatible than Intel chips? Perhaps show me some instance where the AMD doesn't run a piece of code properly whereas Intel chips do? As far as platforms go, the VIA KT133/KT133A are extremely stable platforms, I've had absolutely no problems with them.
   
   The only thing I can think of which Intel chips have and AMD's don't is a built in temperature sensor and the ability to shutdown when it gets too hot. AMD should really add this, but other than that, there really isn't anything else.

10. Comment - Intel Ramping Pentium 4 Production

    1.3 (Jan 16, 2001 - 6:25 PM)

    you really are a fool, you know?
    
    Looks like Intel has done a great job brainwashing you into believing that they will always be the ones with the fastest processors and that they can charge you anything they want for it. The P3's are great, but I'm sorry, the Athlon's beat it in every category you mentioned, and cost half the price. So as great as the P3's are, the Athlons are just that much better... it's too bad you're too pigheaded to even want to do any research before you talk.
    
    As far as the P4 goes, it definitely is a great architecture, after reading many articles, but I think they cut out way too much stuff which they originally planned to keep in there. And right now, they are not worth the buy.