Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - Google Chrome for Windows

   4.0.245.0 Beta (Nov 16, 2009)

   @CyberDoc999 "Fire fox 3.6 is faster than chrome"
   
   Thanks for the laugh!

2. 
   Review - Opera for Windows

   10.01 Build 1844 Final (Oct 27, 2009)

   10.01 Build 1844 final? Is that the final one as in "we give up with this buggy piece of crap"? One can only hope!
   
   Go with the proven FireFox or Chrome and save yourself some headaches.

3. 
   Review - Mozilla Firefox (v3.5) for Windows

   3.5.4 (Oct 27, 2009)

   @hedley...wow way to nitpick!
   
   Opera certainly has a LOT more issues than you can shake a stick at...
   
   As usual stable, fast and all the add-ons you'll ever need. Can't wait for version 3.6.

4. 
   Review - Opera for Windows (Beta)

   10.10 Build 1833 Beta 1 (Oct 14, 2009)

   There you have it...Betanew's own browser tests show that Opera is getting slower and buggier. I wonder what the Opera fanbois will have to say now?
   
   Please use a real browser like FF or Chrome that continually improves things without slowing everything down.
   
   (Those who say Opera is the fastest in rendering please enlighten me with actual proof, not fanboyism)

5. 
   Review - Opera for Windows (Beta)

   10.10 Build 1830 Beta (Oct 9, 2009)

   "@ bittermann - lulz ? Firefox releases hourly nightly same like Chrome... xP"
   
   @ virtual_mamapl - lulz ? ....yes they are called nightly, developer, hourly builds etc,, not beta builds that spew out weekly just to increase build count.
   
   OK, I've tried this build and it just keeps getting buggier and less stable. I think the beta build count is increasing because it designates the number of bugs they keep finding?
   
   Please use FF or Chrome as they are much safer, faster and more stable? And to the person that said Opera is the fastest browser...I say WTF?

6. Comment - Disgruntled IT guy fells blogging site

   10.10 Build 1830 Beta (Jan 7, 2009 - 10:41 AM)

   "You prove my point".
   
   HUH?
   
   You can have backup and still lose everything. Rare, but it happens. My POINT was putting the blame on someone other than the person who deliberately destroying someone else's data. More than likely the data would never have been lost and hopefully the next person coming in would back it up right. Another great example of blame the victim....blaahh

7. Comment - Disgruntled IT guy fells blogging site

   10.10 Build 1830 Beta (Jan 6, 2009 - 2:58 PM)

   "The owners should share much blame since they had no process in place to monitor internal employees in case of sabotage. A basic audit of backups should be part of any businesses process".
   
   JUST WOW...stupidity not with-standing, NO they should not share "much blame" for what someone else did illegally to their servers.
   
   And far as the other poster, if you want to talk raid that is fine fine but you and the article writer missed the whole point of losing your files/website to a person that probably deserved firing. There are plenty of ways to lose your entire data without it being a raid issue....

8. Comment - Disgruntled IT guy fells blogging site

   10.10 Build 1830 Beta (Jan 6, 2009 - 11:31 AM)

   What does Raid failures have to do with anything about this article? This guy broke into a server illegally and destroyed data that wasn't his. It may make the owners stupid but that is not the point. I guess we should blame the victims instead of the law breakers. "I'm sorry sir but if you didn't have nice things in your house you wouldn't get robbed!" jeeezzz...

9. Comment - Yahoo's CEO: So sad to see you go, in all lower-case

   10.10 Build 1830 Beta (Dec 11, 2008 - 11:32 AM)

   What a tool! It makes him look like he didn't want to be bothered enough to take the time and write a proper email. Very unprofessional...