Hannibal

Are you sure you didn't alter the compression field? It should be in the lower left hand corner of the "Add..." dialog.

Also better than using the BIOS. However, this doesn't generate reports, nor is it useful when upgrading the RAM (for example), or if you want to determine if you need another video card / upgraded drivers

Well, in general you want to have a processor cooler too, right? :) Sometimes those come with the processor, I'm not sure if that's the case here. If not, I'd add one or your first run of that rig might well be its last :P Ah, and as for case fans... you've got a fairly high-end system, so extra case fans wouldn't hurt, I think (usually the box comes with 1, 2 if you're very lucky.)

More RAM would help your computer, running XP at 256MB is a bare minimum. This might also be why it fails at precaching resources - there's no memory left, so it has to use the disk cache, which is probably too slow. It's weird though, my computer is far inferior to yours, and I'm able to play CS without any problem (even though connecting is slow since validating + precaching resources takes very long)

Or you can just use AIDA32 or Belarc Adviser, instead of trying to mess with your BIOS (Which isn't under F2 on all comps, fwiw)

Errm, it may just be me, but I think you need cooling stuff? It's not mentioned to be included with the processor (and I can't find out where I could check if it really is/isn't included)

Happy birthday :)

Pity Mac OS runs an atrocious threading model. Aqua's cool though :-).

Sure. My first idea is that you should at least tell us: [*:2dkimf1u]What version of Firefox you're trying to install. [*:2dkimf1u]Where you downloaded that version from. [*:2dkimf1u]Exactly what are you doing in the setup program which causes this to happen? How far are you (ie, haven't even seen anything, just does this whenever I try to start it, or maybe after selecting a custom setup or.... ?) [*:2dkimf1u]Whether you've tried redownloading it, to see if the problem repeats. You may simply have a corrupted download :-). [*:2dkimf1u]Whether you're sure you don't have virii or spyware on your computer. My second idea is that you might just want to use the zip version instead of the installer.

I think you may have a similar problem to that described here: http://www.rsinn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2026 Check your windows error logs, and see what turns up. Maybe scandisk fixes it, maybe you need something else. Might want to ask Purecheese what program was eventually used to fix this.

Blaming communism for blatant human mistakes when building that reactor is a bit off... What happened at Chernobyl was caused by a number of security measures not being stuck to. An experiment was scheduled, was executed with too small a number of scientists, the control staves (I hope that's the correct English word in this case) were too big for the mediator, so the controlled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear reactor) turned into an uncontrolled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear bomb), and to top it all, the concrete roof came off in an explosion, blowing millions of heavily radioactive particles up to two kilometers into the sky. The fallout affected most of Europe, and even today radiation levels at the Chernobyl site are way above average and the effects of the fallout still contribute about 200 microSievert to the amount of radiation European citizens yearly suffer.

mm. Religiously. So religiously that I, for the first time in the life of this OS on my machine, managed to crash part of Windows, right after getting a security update. Oh, the irony...

Your argument falls apart when it is noted that ie can also block popups and with some work become nearly as safe as firefox (albeit it requires a ton of work but that's the price you pay to use IE). That's not true at all. Your argument falls apart when you realize your statement is only correct on Windows XP SP2, and for users who are already cautious about their security (others really aren't going to put in the work to secure their browser). That's going to be, what, maybe 5-10% of the forum members? I'm running Windows 2000, and IE does not have a popup blocker (and never will have). The fact that I'm paranoid and set all my activeX and script warnings to 'ask' doesn't mean the average user should (to tell the truth, it's a pita this way because I usually get 5-10 of these dialogs for nearly every site I visit). Heck, I'm fairly sure the average user (a) does not know what ActiveX is and (B) does not know how to disable / secure it. I'm objecting to the idea 'well, if they just put in some work, they'll be fine', because most people don't know how to do that, and adding all the security measures prevent them from having a good browsing experience. The security of a site is the responsability of the site owners, not its visitors. What would you say if your bank had popups all over the place? "Oh well, people should just use a good browser instead of IE."? That's nonsense, and you know it.

While I agree that it's stupid to call mods and regulars 'morons', I also think that saying 'people should just use a safe browser' is not a solution to the problem. You don't like it if people making sites in MS FrontPage telling you 'it works fine here' when you complain Opera/Firefox/Mozilla/Safari/Camino/Conqueror doesn't render it properly. Neither should we ignore people who are still using IE and have trouble visiting sites that may be easier on people who use an alternative browser.

Couple of things first: [*:3gdtioij]This 'feature' is present in just about every Windows browser you can find. That includes IE, Opera and everything else that may be out there. [*:3gdtioij]You can't turn it off normally (using preferences or whatever) [*:3gdtioij]You *can* turn it off by messing with some of the javascript code, if I I'm pretty sure I explained something like this before, actually... Try and search the boards for it :P

I think most people in Holland are able to do that without a lot of problems (riding a bike is normal here, for all ages and environments). So, yes, I can ride a bike without hands. Problem is, the bike I currently have has a bit of a twist in both weels. It's very minor, so you can still ride it without problems, but when you don't steer using your hands, the forewheel will go off to the left, causing you to fall to the right, which means that if I bike without hands, I have to lean to one side very far in order not to fall. This makes me look like an idiot, so I don't do it very often anymore ;).

Yes, I'm aware of that. Ironically, IE for Mac beats WinIE on standards compliance hands down ;).

Most sane companies realise full-well what's lacking in their application, which parts suck and which parts don't. They're also (usually) honest to themselves as to what extent competitor's applications suck. I've never heard a Mozilla developer say Opera sucks, or vice versa. They do seem to have this thing about IE, though (hey, they've got good reasons for that one ;) ). Thinking the competition sucks just because they're competition makes you unrealistic and naÃÆÃâÃâïve, and will lose you market share. Microsoft takes Apple serious because they make a decent operating system. They wouldn't do so if it was, a home made 3-month-old hobby project, which crashed every other boot.

Didn't I just answer that ? To observe the competition. Every company out there knows what their direct competitors are making and buys their products to study them. It's common practice. It was meant to be a rhetorical question. I guess we disagree about it then, because I feel that companies will not run software they think sucks, and the users think sucks, and offers no real competition to them. Looking into the market share, Macs are no real competition for Windows-based computers, especially because switching is so expensive. So, if you were to say macs suck, there would be no reason at all for MS to use them. After all, they'd suck, be of no threat to MS at all etc. etc.

http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/profile#new Instead of creating a new profile, select your old one, make sure 'Don't ask at startup' is checked, and hit the 'Start Firefox' button. Now everything should be back to normal :)

Why would they run anything that their competition makes when it sucks? They hold at least 90% of the market, they have absolutely no reason to do so. Neither Windows nor Mac OS suck by definition, which is why people keep them around. Heck, Microsoft ran Linux on one of their webservers once (they corrected that pretty soon when people found out though, haha. Bad publicity. Same reason why the employee who posted pics of iMac's being delivered to MS headquarters was fired that same week). I'm sure Apple and MS are smart enough to steal eachother's good things, which is why they keep those machines around.

I have no idea how much this will affect the actual market, but I must disagree with some of the original post to some extent. Windows will probably still not run on a mac, correct. However, you did claim that programs running on Windows could now be ported to Mac OS more easily. I don't think that's true: while the underlying processor architecture is going to be similar, the interfaces you have with the architecture, which are provided by the OS, will still be incredibly different (unless Apple will announce they'll start supporting the Win32 API, but I can't really see that happening). You also mentioned that old apps will run on an emulation layer. While that's true, apps can also simply be ported to the new architecture - something which doesn't even require all that much work. Apple is currently spreading development kits with Macs running dual P4's, for $999. Do note, the developers will have to return the comp in 1 year or so ;) (it's a lease) (As for the people going 'Macs suck', please shut up and know what you're talking about first... Microsoft wouldn't secretly be running Macs in some of their offices if they sucked that much.)

I am. X was basically meant to be interpreted as (C(++), J++, Basic, and whatever else MS has out there)

Try reinstalling 1.0.4? (I do hope you didn't try Deer park 1 out... :| )

But Mac OS isn't based on either KDE or GNOME. And the KHTML developers hate the work Apple has done for Safari, and don't want to integrate it back in to their code because they say code quality sucks :). And err, 'professional programs' - what are those? If we're talking about development tools, I'd say that Windows (MS's Visual X tools are really good, whatever you say, and then there's Borland and a couple of others) and Linux (GCC 4.0 is out, weeeeee) definitely are nice platforms. They don't really deserve the marks they got there :P As for Graphic design, Linux has GTK 2, GIMP, 3d modeling software. Windows has Bryce, 3dMax, Photoshop / Paint shop pro... I think neither are that bad in Graphic design (though I agree Mac are better at that, in general). Last but not least, virus protection isn't something inherent to an OS, and I'd say Windows currently does best in having 3rd party applications available for that purpose. (I've never heard of Mac virus scanners, though I'm sure some will exist - not a great many though)