Chris's Profile

Member since January 6, 2001

  • Name

    Chris Dadej

Favorite Files

Recent Posts

  1. Review - Nero

    5.5.9.0 (Jul 3, 2002)

    Best burning program without a doubt and Nero Express is perfect for new users.
    jinno - FYI - The CORE keygenerator generates both 'normal' and 'express' keys, if you happened to put in a key and you have 'express' popping up, generate a new key until u have 'normal' nero coming up. You can then run express whenever you like with the command line switch.

  2. Review - Sonique 2

    Alpha (6/6/02) (Jun 8, 2002)

    Sonique 2 is coming along quite well.
    Sunstar: Hate to tell you but no Sonique does not have better 'sound quality'. And that has been shown numerous times by showing the output produced by sonique and winamp (unlike the less scientific approach undertaken by you where you determine the better sound by gods knows what method). It's a bit like all those people still claiming that vinyl sounds 'better' than digital.

  3. Review - Netscape Navigator for Windows

    6.2.3 (May 15, 2002)

    Reasonable browser, unfortunately it's still based on an old Mozilla build. Cannot think of a single reason why one would use this over Mozilla however!

    p0rt1s - "only Mozilla and Netscape conform FULLY. And i am a web designer for Fortune 100 companies, I should know." Yes you *SHOULD* know but obviously your knowledge of Netscape/Mozilla is on par with your vocabulary (i.e. 'loadsa', 'yer', 'luvers'). No Mozilla and Netscape are NOT fully compliant.

  4. Review - Easy CD & DVD Creator Platinum Update

    5.02c Update (Dec 8, 2001)

    Great update - finally everyone who whinged like a little school girl about it patching a dll can stop whinging.

  5. Review - Direct Connect Hub

    1.0.23 (Nov 22, 2001)

    This is the first version I've played with and I'm impressed. Very nicely done indeed, and especially perfect for novice users. Still a few small quirks to be worked out, but overall this is a great achievement.

  6. Comment - Opinion: Norton AntiVirus 2004 - Worth the Upgrade?

    1.0.23 (Jul 21, 2003 - 6:58 AM)

    "Do you think all NAV customers have plenty money like you do?"
    What part of "RAM is absolutely dirt cheap" did you not comprehend? 128Meg of RAM costs what... $15US? 256Meg costs $30US. Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that the Norton customers who paid (and therefore could afford) $50US for Norton (or $70US for the Professional version) can't afford an additional $15-$30US to benefit their whole computer? Sorry I don't buy it. The whole "it uses too much ram" line is nothing more than a whinge. If you can't afford some more ram then don't perform a full scan of your system whilst running every other application on your computer at the same time rather than whinging about a few meg of ram being used for a few minutes.

    "and tell me here that you argue that KAV does not scan compressed or zipped files"
    I said "maybe". I don't know if it does or not, but if the time is significantly different then you can be sure that either one is more optimized than the other or it's not performing as deep a scan! I don't have anything bad to say about KAV, I like it, but I just prefer Norton and have done so for many many years as it has consistently come through as being the one anti-virus that can not only scan well but then fix the files as well.

    "I just realised that you are supporting BLOATware and full of sh**it software just like AOL."
    Keep your "deep thoughts" to yourself. If you don't like Norton that's fine. If you have no particular reasons for not liking it, that's fine too. But don't start spreading FUD about it being bloatware because you don't have more than 32Meg of RAM on your system!

  7. Comment - Opinion: Norton AntiVirus 2004 - Worth the Upgrade?

    1.0.23 (Jul 17, 2003 - 6:17 AM)

    "More system resources being used and longer scans."
    Get more RAM and stop whinging - RAM is absolutely dirt cheap so if you're worried about a couple of meg being used whilst a scan is in process, get some more! As for the longer scans, have you ever given thought that maybe it's scanning your files more thoroughly? No?

    "System scans are short"
    Maybe that's because it misses half your files, maybe that's because it doesn't scan inside your compressed files - either way it's either not scanning as much or as thoroughly.

    "EZ does what a AV program should do, catch viruses."
    I'm afraid that AV are meant to do a lot more than simply catch viruses. If you just want something to catch viruses get McAffee - it'll catch almost anything, good luck when it comes to it then being able to clean the virus without having to delete your infected files! NAV can at least clean the majority of the viruses it finds.

  8. Comment - Microsoft: Longhorn to Ship in 2005

    1.0.23 (May 17, 2003 - 11:54 PM)

    Did you read all of those reviews or are you just going on what the rest of the amd fanboys are saying? Honestly, repeating the same untruth is not going to convince anyone otherwise. The real world truth is this:

    1) If you only play games and run office applications then amd is good enough. Below 3000 it's definetely the one to go with not only based on performance but also on price. With the 3000 and 3200 the choice isn't as clear anymore with the introduction of Canterwood and the 800Mhz FSB.

    2) If you do things other than play games, mainly in the domain of audio/video encoding, 3d rendering, anything like that, then you are shooting yourself in the foot getting an amd. P4's rule these sorts of applications regardless of your amd fanboy FUD.

    So keep your fanboy'ism to the AMD forums where it might be appreciated.

  9. Comment - Microsoft: Longhorn to Ship in 2005

    1.0.23 (May 14, 2003 - 7:52 PM)

    "which is nearly half and still faster."

    It's not faster and nearly half of what? Nearly half the Mhz? What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China on a warm sunny day? You can't compare two completely different architectures... the Mhz rating is irrelevant, meaningless! So it's not nearly half of anything, it just is 1.4Mhz. You can't even compare two identical architectures on Mhz alone (e.g. AMD and Intel).

    The 'best'? tests that have been done to date is to compare application's such as Adobe's running on the Mac vs running on a PC. Whilst these tests aren't in anyway perfect since the code base isn't the same it gives you a better view of how the mac runs compared to a pc doing the same thing.

  10. Comment - Microsoft: Longhorn to Ship in 2005

    1.0.23 (May 14, 2003 - 10:47 AM)

    "Because I think the AMD is faster then the P4...I'm a fanboy?"

    No, that just makes you wrong. Your comment in regards to the AMD 3200+ "blowing away" the P4 3G is what makes you a fanboy as only a fan boy would come out with such FUD. Both CPU's excel in different areas, e.g. I would put a AMD cpu into a system if you want to do any video encoding for instance.

    Look through the rest of the benchmarks on the link you gave me, and look through several other sites to get a more accurate overall picture:

    http://www.tomshardware....cpu/20030513/index.html
    http://www.hothardware.c...CAM/amd_axp_3200+.shtml
    http://www.bit-tech.net/review/213/
    http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=550
    http://www.tech-report.c...lonxp-3200/index.x?pg=1
    http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_xp3200new/
    http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=379

    Let's be honest here, the 3200+ label is pushing it a LITTLE bit! Most reviews reach the same conclusion that the 3200+ is what the 3000+ should have been.