Favorite Files

1. K-Lite Codec Pack Update

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - Mozilla Firefox (v3.5) for Windows

   3.5.5 (Nov 6, 2009)

   So far I haven't seen the usual obnoxious Opera fanboys who basically come here just to rate down Firefox provide a SINGLE piece of evidence that shows Opera is faster and/or more resource efficient. None. They haven't even bothered to make up the usual sort of travesty of a weighted benchmark. They must be getting desperate.
   
   You guys know that you CAN prefer one browser and still admit that another is good, right? These are web browsers, not football teams.
   
   Anyway, actual benchmarks performed by neutral parties have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Firefox's resource usage is on par with all of the other major browsers, even though this wasn't always the case; Firefox version 2.x was a PIG. They have also shown that it's about in the middle of the pack as far as performance - below Safari and Chrome but ahead of Opera and Internet Exploder. I'm not just talking about Betanews' own browser benchmarks, I'm talking about pretty much EVERYBODY'S benchmarks. You can dismiss people who actually, you know, recognize reality all you want, but it won't change the facts, especially when you provide no evidence at all other then your personal convictions to bash this browser.
   
   I use Chrome, IE8, and Opera (under Unix) on a daily basis, but Firefox is and will probably remain for the foreseeable future my mainline browser simply because I have more control over its capabilities and because it is so widely supported by software and internet services. While I like these other browsers (yes, even IE8), I find myself missing features/add-ons of Firefox when using them and switching between one of them and FF out of convenience or frustration.
   
   But really, I don't even feel I need to convince anyone. The fact is that it's pretty darned easy to distinguish between the usual sort of measured reviews mixed with constructive criticism and the spittle-flecked rantings of single-browser fundamentalists who seem far, far less interested in actually reviewing software than they are in territorial urinating.

2. 
   Review - Mozilla Firefox (v3.6 Namoroka) for Windows

   3.6 Beta 1 (Nov 1, 2009)

   For whatever reason, the actual Firefox interface (in Windows, at least) in version 3.5 - window and tab management and the responsiveness of buttons, etc. - always seemed a lot slower than 3.0 even if the underlying rendering engines were faster. This was true on every machine I tried it on be it a slightly aged Athlon X2 Windows XP system, an obsolete Pentium 4 system, or a brand new quad-core beast running Win7 x64.
   
   This 3.6 Beta seems to have not only fixed that, but to have improved the responsiveness notably even over version 3 and the older 2.x versions AND the rendering engines have been improved. Sure, it still starts up slower than the competition, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for the extra features I rely on. It's more than fast enough on my modern machines, and resource usage is comparable to the most highly-regarded competition, now.
   
   Some of my add-ons have been updated, most haven't. But that was easily fixed by just installing the Nightly Tester Tools add-on and clicking on "Override all compatibility" to disable the version check. Update: Mozilla has released their own extension called "Add-on Compatibility Reporter" that offers this same functionality (enabling extensions that haven't been updated for new versions) along with automating the problem reporting process for individual add-ons. Great idea, and it seems to work fine.
   
   The interface improvements they added for Windows 7 will be nice when complete, but they still need a little work before 3.6 is ready for a final release. For instance: most of the time the thumbnails of the tabs that are supposed to pop up from the Windows 7 taskbar when hovering over the Firefox icon degenerate into blank placeholders after a few minutes of activity, and Firefox has to be restarted to get the true thumbnails of your open tabs back. The ctrl-tab tab switching mechanism seems to work flawlessly when enabled in about:config, though.
   
   Also, the new mechanism for updating the user about out-of-date plugins (rather than just add-ons) is something that has been sorely needed, and something that the other major browsers need to get on top of. Mozilla's back end for this functionality is going to take some time to develop, though. There's a lot of popular plugins that they don't track yet.

3. 
   Review - TrueCrypt

   6.3 (Oct 21, 2009)

   No, faulting TrueCrypt for being "vulnerable" to a keylogger or hardware attack IS foolish. It was never designed nor has anyone in authority ever claimed that this sort of encryption is immune to a keylogger attack simply because that's not the sort of attack that it's designed to thwart.
   
   Let me put this perfectly clearly: if you can boot into a software environment (doesn't even have to be an OS) that accepts input - be it from the network or from physical I/O ports on the machine - you are vulnerable to a keylogger attack. Period.
   
   The purpose of encrypted volumes is to disallow access to those who might STEAL your laptop or those who might try to access your data if you misplace your laptop, not those that have repeated physical access to it. For those that have repeated access, all it does is make data theft more difficult.
   
   In fact, this sort of attack ("evil maid"/"janitor" attack) is EXACTLY why even security amateurs know that it's best to put your laptop in your room safe if you're at a hotel if you're going to leave it in your room. And this is why you never leave your laptop on your desk when you go home if you work in an office.
   
   The rule is "treat your laptop as if it were a stack of cash". Because it's every bit as valuable and vulnerable to someone who knows what they're doing. That idiom remains true regardless of whether or not your hard drives are encrypted.
   
   Edit: now, there are ways to mitigate this vulnerability. Anyone worried about such attacks should ALWAYS implement some sort of multi-factor authentication. Requiring a strong password and, say, a USB key with a long, random authentication key on it BOTH required to boot into a volume is one way. Biometrics, although less reliable and less consistent, is another. But you will never be 100% safe from this sort of attack.
   
   My only complaint about this new version of TrueCrypt is that it won't even install on the Windows 7 RC. Bummer. No big deal, though; the last version seems to work fine for me with some very light tweaking.

4. 
   Review - µTorrent for Windows

   2.1 Build 16932 Beta (Oct 16, 2009)

   Yeah, this is actually an alpha version, and they state that it's not yet feature complete.
   
   2.0 is the beta
   
   1.8.4 is the stable at the moment
   
   Betanews really needs to start separating these versions. It's just confusing. People will review the betas here and then a stable update will come out, and that will be reviewed, and then the beta version of 2.0 will be updated and that will be reviewed. And now the ALPHA version is being reviewed, all in the same space! It just doesn't work.
   
   Anyway, has anyone even tried the latest 2.0 betas? How are they coming along?
   
   The stable version's great as always.

5. 
   Review - Microsoft Security Essentials

   1.0.1611.0 (Sep 29, 2009)

   Pretty good so far, but I'd like to see an objective review of its detection and false positive rates sometime soon.
   
   Only thing I'd refute form other reviews is the claim that it's "light" on resource use. Maybe the 32-bit version is different (tho I doubt it), but the 64-bit version of the MsMpEng.exe service employed by the software uses a constant 130MB of PHYSICAL memory! That's a heck of a lot more than AVG or Avira used on this system; almost double. The front end for the software only uses about 4MB, but the background service is pretty big.
   
   Now, that's not to say that Security Essentials is somehow slowing down my system. I have 4GB of RAM and so far I haven't noticed major slowdowns, but the same could be said for Avira or AVG. I was just surprised by the sheer amount of physical RAM it was using after having read the glowing (p)reviews.
   
   But it's free and, unlike AVG and Avira, there are no nag screens. And MS is taking a bit more responsibility for the security of its own software. These are good things.

6. Comment - Danger signs: Now how secure does the cloud look?

   1.0.1611.0 (Oct 12, 2009 - 11:46 PM)

   Yes, the end user always bears the ultimate responsibility, but that in NO WAY excuses what happened with the Sidekicks.
   
   I'm sorry, but there is simply no excuse for an enterprise-level service provider not keeping multiple redundant backups of data their customers are PAYING them to keep safe. None whatsoever. No attempts to share/s*** blame onto the end user changes that.
   
   They are going to get sued for this, and they deserve to lose.
   
   Good point about these services needing to be more pro-active in training their users to make personal backups, though. But this probably opens up headaches the marketing departments don't want to deal with. Basically, the company would be trying to convince customers to trust them LESS. To most of us, that sounds like a good thing. To marketing executives and company lawyers, that sounds like an invitation for trouble.
   
   Edit: why is the comment system editing out the word "sh1ft"? As in "to sh1ft gears". Guess it's close enough to that other word... Weird.

7. Comment - Q: How essential is Microsoft Security Essentials? A: Does your door have a lock?

   1.0.1611.0 (Sep 30, 2009 - 12:49 AM)

   Actually, only the FRONT END of the software uses 4-6MB of RAM. The background service (MsMpEng.exe/MsMpSvc), which was used previously for Windows Defender and is now used for Security Essentials, takes roughly 130MB of physical memory! Avira and Avast used about 80MB total (both background services and front-end applications) and AVG used around 40MB total.
   
   So far, I'm not yet willing to switch back to Avira, but if it comes out that the detection and false positive rates are significantly worse, I'll be switching back.
   
   Still, it integrates nicely with Windows 7. That alone is worth some credit.

8. Comment - Windows 7: Obviously I've struck a nerve

   1.0.1611.0 (Aug 25, 2009 - 11:09 PM)

   "I'd love to see your research."
   
   Says the guy who didn't provide a SINGLE footnote for an article containing numerous unsourced claims to a guy posting a couple of sentences in a comments thread...
   
   Not saying every article has to have a bibliography, just that those living in glass houses...

9. Comment - Windows 7: Obviously I've struck a nerve

   1.0.1611.0 (Aug 25, 2009 - 12:20 AM)

   I really didn't feel strongly enough about the first article to comment on it, but I've found that those who react to criticism with the "I guess I struck a nerve" line in reality usually mean "I screwed up but I don't want to admit it so I'll blame my audience".
   
   Lame...

10. Comment - Google Chrome to sync with Google accounts

    1.0.1611.0 (Aug 4, 2009 - 12:15 AM)

    So it's like Mozilla Weave for Firefox without the features, the extensibility, and the privacy?
    
    Greeeeaaaat...