Activity for November 10

Review - cFosSpeed
4.53 Build 1537 Beta (Aug 26, 2009)

this program does not encourage illegal downloading, bittorrent is used for many legal purposes,

I'm surprised such a comment would be left by the moderators, under no circumstances do the developers of this software support criminal activity,

not much to say really on the program itself,
very unstable i find, always being fixed, always in beta stage, and always at a point which is not for mainstream release,

be nice to once reach a point in time where this program isn't having something fixed. because from my perspective, there always bug fixing, always!!! reminds me of "Outpost Firewall" LOL
Review - Avi2Dvd
0.5 (Aug 21, 2009)

a brilliant program, been around for a while, not updated as much as i wished it was, but there you go,

this program is solid, and more importantly works with a high quality Encoder (HCEnc) and of course supports old versions of CCE (although HCEnc is preferred for low bit rate conversions)

don't get me wrong, ConvertXToDVD is good, but it is a trans-coder (FFMpeg and libavcodec) like many, so quality would never for the forseable future come close to what HCEnc can produce, (i don't feel that trans-coding would ever be as clean, crisp and sharp as a full fledged high quality encoder (CCE, HCEnc, Tmpgenc)

Avi2Dvd interface i agree is very messy now, go back to when it first came out it was acceptable to the current standards, but not anymore, the flags are way to cheesy now, and the whole GUI in general looks very cartoony,
because of the old and quite unuser friendly GUI I'm only giving 4 points not the full 5, however it still has it where it counts, if only the horrible GUI didn't hinder the program so much.

my eye at the moment is on "AVStoDVD", this program is quite good aswell, and again utilizes the wonderful HCEncoder, not as resilient as Avi2DVD, but definitely won't be long considering the excellent support it's getting, and the GUI is of course up to the current standards with some nice soft colors,

but for quality, i choose AVStoDVD, but i always have Avi2DVD on standby just in case i need it,
Review - UltraVNC
1.0.6.4 (Jul 10, 2009)

it's got some powerful features, but this software like many like it should only be used if you don't mind reading through the documentation, and even then you will still be left with many confused aspects,

The biggest confusion that I still read about in forum's, is the concept

"Server" and "Viewer"

A bit like remote desktop, Host & Client,

For the beginners it's quite amazing how these concepts are hard to grasp,
And like wise, the same issues can be seen in programs like "RealVNC" & "UltraVNC",

For the absolute beginner "TeamViewer" is the way to go,

Hopefully, Programs like "UltraVNC" will eventually go though a revolutionary GUI Rewrite,

Because there all based on the same theme, one can see so many similarities between them,

What they need is a new novice interface, or perhaps a driven wizard that guides the new user through the complex interface options that are given to the user,

Which is what "TeamViewer" has done, they have rewritten the entire GUI interface from scratch, and made it 21st century worthy,

"UltraVNC" and even "RealVNC" is still based on the old concepts, even the look, and the thinking behind the interface is till the old way's,

Programs like "TeamViewer", and "LogMeIn"
are the way forward, the complexities are still there, but hidden from the user, having a box open with 20 different settings is enough to put most people of, and the thing is, efficiency is the new way of thinking now, streamlining is the 21st century motto,

Programs like “UltraVNC” are so old looking, and require a huge amount of reading from the user to understand all of its options that are thrown into the users laps,

Don’t get me wrong, "UltraVNC" is a great program, and like many like it, gets the job done extremely well,

The problem is, with programs like “TeamViewer” showing what can be done, and makes "UltraVNC" look obsolete,

I feel like many does, that "RealVNC", and programs alike, really need to throw away there old thinking GUI concepts, and design a whole new GUI from scratch with streamline and efficiency being the prominent way of thinking,

But concepts aside, "UltraVNC" get's the job done well, and for its use, then max score had to be given,

but my advice, try "TeamViewer" 1st, if that doesn't do what your after, then and only then, try programs like "RealVNC" or "UltraVNC",
Review - KCleaner
0.17.0.26 (Jun 11, 2009)

it has to be said, why would one want to use a substandard tool,
there are so many applications that are available that do what this program does, and far more advance,

the number one program has to be,
http://www.ccleaner.com/

with ccleaner around, there is just no room for any new software to really be any kind of competition,

perhaps in time, this KCleaner will develop, but the name says it all in my opinion,

CCleaner
KCleaner

come on, who is the developer trying to kid, personally i feel this is some kind of attack against CCleaner, or maybe trying to steel some credit by playing with the name, either way, it shows dishonor, and a clear case of bad ethics.

as for the software in question, well given the nature of it's early development, what can be said, it's another cleaner, that does a terrible and unreiliable job at present because of it's early state of development,
perhaps in time it will become another good cleaner, but there are so many cleaner's at the moment, the question is, is there room for another one,

a bit like applications like "Tuneup Utilities", there are so many of these types of program's now, one doesn't no where to begin, although this is off topic......
Review - Nero
9.0.9.4b (Sep 29, 2008)

BLOATWARE!!!

nero seriously have lost there way, for people like many who wants to choose there individual applications for there task at hand, nero steps on that right,

yes one could argue that you can select what components you want to install, but that's not enough, behind the scenes nero still install huge amounts of files which taxes any system it installs to, further more it also installs applications that run on startup of the sytem aswell as services that also run in the background which can't be turned off unless a user knows advance windows functions, for example bringing up services manager and turning them off that way.

nero has taken on far to much, and they have destroyed what was once a great peice of software, the install takes forever, there installer is far from smart, if anything it barely does the job (i miss the days when NERO was installed using WinRAR installer.

for people that wants a all in one package, then nero is still not the right choice, it just asks to much from even the most powerful system on the market today, and the speed of loading most of these programs are terrible, for example there photo viewer, it takes over 4 seconds to load, irfanview loads in 0.2 seconds on my system, why, because nero has thousand's of files that make it function and they all have to be loaded, which leads onto the next issue, because of the many files that nero requires, it takes up massive amounts of space on any hard drive, gone are the days when nero only took 350+mb for full install, now your looking at over 1GB of data, if not more on any system.

and last but not least, is the very terrible update system, nero still downloads far more then it needs to, you would think that if only some of the programs needs updating, then nero would just download those files it needs, but no, nero will download a big massive update package that actually contains loads of files that are already on your system, so in fact, over half of the update package is not actually needed, as only a few of nero's applications needs updating, the rest of the files gets installed even though there only overwritting files that are actually the same versions. the reason why is because there is not much difference from a update package to a demo package.

nero has really lost there way, and like someone else has said, it started going wrong for them with the birth of nero 7, although i was still a nero user at that time, but when nero 8 came along with there new Index system (why o why do we need a index system when windows xp and above comes with it's own one, which is far easier, and a lot more efficient due to the fact that it's integrated with windows itself) things just got so bad, i finely had enough, the resources that nero package puts on one's system, and the amount of options in the installer applications that has to be adjusted is to much for any half decent computer user to have to put up with any more.

1 is not low enough, i give NERO a big fat 0 (ZERO),

nero has lost there way, and i don't think they are finding there true path any time soon.

although i am amazed, from a great product that was rated as the best burning suite, has gone to the worse package one could ever conceive, how the mighty has fallen.
Comment - Early sales figures for Windows 7 nicely high, but do we know why?
9.0.9.4b (Nov 10, 2009 - 6:15 AM)

yes, but the reviews usually are backed up with some kind of benchmark numbers, as was the case with the original reviews with Vista, only many intendant studies, and casual benchmarks the average consumer was doing could not replicate the same results as these big review companies.

for the record though, i am not saying all reviews websites were bias,
in fact, the point i was trying to make was more to do with how the review sites were going back completely on what they has said originally, with out any explanation what so ever,

which unfortunately leads most intelligent people to think that those review sites were influenced in some way, which says a lot for there future standard of integrity,

if one makes a mistake, then one should apologize and explain how the mistake occured,
did some searching, and already I'm starting to see some review sites saying that Windows 7 is just as fast as windows XP, yet some small review sites are saying that windows 7 is on par with Windows XP in a few areas, but over all Windows XP is still faster,

i can't believe how it's happening again,
for the record, i have determined the same as what those independent benchmarks has shown,
over all windows XP is faster overall, but in a few areas (IDE ATA/ATAPI Controller too name one) is faster then Windows XP, however surprisingly Windows 7 has had a significant development overhaul in the graphics department (that's twice now including Vista) and yet Windows XP graphics system is far superior in performance over windows 7,

i guess we will see as time goes on as what will the final (majority) vote will be on windows 7,
i just hope we don't get that crap from people concerning windows 7 being a new operating system (it's not, it's the final polished version of Vista). so we should not have to wait for updates,
in fact windows 7 has a significant advantage over windows XP now, Vista (3 years development) Win7 (3 years development), XP only had 4 years development,

one thing that will make XP users upgrade though, DirectX 11,
DirectX 11 is going to be a big revolutionary improvement,
i just wished Windows 7 could utilize the graphics system as effective as windows XP could,
i guess the nice desktop does come at a high cost, something i can not ignore,
Comment - Early sales figures for Windows 7 nicely high, but do we know why?
9.0.9.4b (Nov 9, 2009 - 7:08 AM)

for a lot of people, windows 7 is very much like the controversial debate most of the world had when "Windows 98 Second Edition" was released,

Win98 SE fixed all the flaws and downfalls of the original release of "Win98"

Here we are again, with Windows 7 fixing all the flaws and downfalls of Vista,

But one can't blame or judge a company when they take consumers for granted,
after all, we're not children, we have no excuse for being gullible, the reviews of Vista in general was in fact the cause why consumers were fooled into thinking Vista was a great product, worthy of replacing windows XP, even though independent reviews slated Vista from word go, this wasn't the case with all the big review sites out there, as on first release of Vista many big review companies released reviews saying on record that Vista was a great product and a faster performer than Windows XP,
however surprisingly 15 months later after Vista's release, those same review websites were suddenly saying the opposite, and was actually now agreeing with the independent reviews that were done originally, in my opinion it was these review sites that were directly responsible for Vista's massive success in the consumer market , because unlike businesses and professional technicians alike, consumers were dooped into thinking that Vista was indeed a better product then windows XP, the fact is even though small independent review websites were saying Vista was a disaster from the get go, most consumers are going to listen to the big Review companies, as they are the PR Spin doctors, and the kind of people consumers listen too.
Fortunately on a whole, Vista was a flop, and did not sell nowhere near as many as MS would have like, as was the case with Windows 98 (SE). Because this time, businesses and sceptical people alike did not listen to the big review sites spinning the PR crap, but rather listened to the smaller review sites, the sites that have no fear of telling the truth, and damn the consequences attitude, big review websites do not want to be targeted by companies like Microsoft, where as smaller individual couldn’t be arsed either way.

Fortunately people in general did not take much stock in these big review companies this time round, so as a whole MS was unable to sway as many people as they had done previously with the winodws 98 (SE) situations.
But under no circumstances can MS be responsible for people being stupid, or negligent in their decision making,
As long as no laws are being broken, then if consumers buy the product, without doing the relevant research before hand, than that fault lays at the feet of the consumer, not the company.

it's surprising how many times consumers will assume that the newest product is always the best product, Microsoft will happily (as any company around the world would) sell their product on the basis of that assumption, it is not the responsibility of any company to correct their customers in their way of thinking.
No company on this earth is entirely for the people.
We are all responsible for our decisions, but its human nature to complain after the fact because what we thought a product would be is not,

I feel that all those websites that were saying Vista was great on 1st reviews, then had the cheek, the audacity to change their entire views 15 months later after the fact, in my opinion they’re the ones who should be in the firing lines, they’re the ones who were directly responsible for spreading such false views of a product when reviewing it originally to the general unknowing public,
And yet know one has complained about their atrocities,
How can a review site release a review of a product, but then do a 180 turn on their stance of view 15 months later, and get away with it.
I’m shocked that a lot of people were mislead by false and inaccurate reviews on the original release of Vista, and yet are taken their frustration out on Microsoft.
What a bizarre world we live in at the moment, how sites create reviews of products, then change their mind, and yet are blameless by their readers?
Comment - Is AES encryption crackable?
9.0.9.4b (Nov 6, 2009 - 8:52 AM)

just in case anyone was wondering if there is a very powerful encrypter,

unfortunately i couldn't find one that was entirely free,
hopefully someone else could perhaps offer a free solution,

anyway this is one that is very cheap, and offers some very advance features,
https://www.cryptit.org/index.php?controller=home
Comment - Is AES encryption crackable?
9.0.9.4b (Nov 6, 2009 - 8:05 AM)

the one thing that's fascinating is how the U.S. government chose a less secured algorithm

"Serpent is a symmetric key block cipher which was a finalist in the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) contest, where it came second to "Rijndael. Serpent was designed by Ross Anderson, Eli Biham, and Lars Knudsen."

"Serpent was widely viewed as taking a more conservative approach to security than the other AES finalists, opting for a larger security margin: the designers deemed 16 rounds to be sufficient against known types of attack, but specified 32 rounds as insurance against future discoveries in cryptanalysis."

"Serpent" was designed for maximum possible security,
"Rijndael" was designed for a compromise between speed and security,

on average day computers "Serpent" should be the better choice (CPU resources is in abundant)
but on independent hardware, like small silicon microprocessor's that go in small electronic devices like security doors, and electronic key card readers would Opt for "Rijndael" because it requires a lot less CPU resources whilst still providing a high level of encryption, (small microprocessors are limited on RAW speed)

of course the government has to way in all the options when choosing the winner,
but everyone should remember that even though "Rijndael" was chosen by the U.S.,
the U.S. does not speak for other countries, many other countries would choose security over performance somewhat, and likewise others would choose performance over security.

so remember, when people tell you that "Rijndael" is the strongest AES method, there WRONG!,
"Serpent" is in fact the strongest with 32 Rounds as opposed to only 14 that "Rijndael" offers,
"Rijndael" is the best method when also taken in to account performance,
"Rijndael" is fast because it's only 14 Rounds MAX,
but when you consider that 9 rounds has been cracked, the 10th round is on the verge of being cracked, 14 rounds doesn't seem that far away......
perhaps choosing "Rijndael" may of been an unwise choice by the U.S.
unless of course...... this was there plan all along ........ conspiracy theory ..... lets stop there shall we.

if you really want to protect something that is top top secret, then "Rijndael" is fine, and holds up quite well, but to make full use of the 256bit Key, you MUST use a password that is about 30 Characters long, the biggest flaw in any encryption method is in fact the user, passwords that are too short brings out the fundamental flaws in all advance encryption systems, not sure why, something to-do with the mathematics i recall correctly.
Comment - Is AES encryption crackable?
9.0.9.4b (Nov 5, 2009 - 11:30 AM)

oh my word, this whole document is based on what if this and what if that,

can't stand theorists, all talk, no actual facts,

AES is crackable, i don't ever recall any government agency saying it wasn't?
if human made it, then human can break it, we have all heard this saying, question is, how long will it last up against technology that is now moving so fast forward

Hardware and software is becoming very powerful, it's difficult for an open source encryption method to be strong enough to be around for a couple of decades,
i can see some day, military encryption methods passing down to the public sector (military and top secret agencies have there own in-house developed encryption systems)

open source just doesn't attract the very best minds the world has in this particular field, the very best minds will want to commercialize it, and no government or people for that matter would go for it, part of the reason why JPEG2000 never really kicked off (to many license issue's)

AES has become so much in the lime light, it's got to the stage where the general public maybe safer using a different encryption method, one that isn't getting so much attention by would be attackers,
AES on it's own is becoming a concern, Multiple encryption is the way, 3 different algorithms running one after each other, now that would be strong, few technical issues, but definitely strong.