General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2181415

    Direct From TechProGuild

    Locked

    by j sheesley ·

    blog root

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3176498

      Hey! What happened to the TPG Tracks?!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Since its inception, TechProGuild has broken topic areas
      down into tracks such as Windows Server, NetWare, Linux, and so forth to make
      it easy to find information related to the problems you’re facing. As you can
      tell in the TechProGuild Resources box and in the subnav at the top of the
      page, those track names have changed.

      We’ve decided to add a track to cover application software
      such as Microsoft Office and a management track to cover more strategic
      problems subscribers may face. We also decided to consolidate the Netware,
      Linux and Windows Server tracks into one large Server OS track. No, we’re not
      abandoning NetWare and Linux. It just made more sense to group those together.
      We’ll also include some Solaris and MacOS server content there as well. The
      Client OS track will focus on client aspects of Linux and MacOS as well as
      Windows.

      Existing content will be mapped as follows:

      • Windows
        Server, NetWare and Linux/Unix -> Server OS
      • Windows
        Client -> Client OS
      • Infrastructure
        -> Networking
      • Troubleshooting
        -> Hardware
      • The
        Applications track is new.
      • The
        Management track is new.

      You?ll also notice we?ve made some changes in the
      TechProGuild Resources box. The TPG Blog has returned – this time connected to my personal
      profile
      on TechRepublic. The TPG Tour is also back on the home page for
      people who are new to TechProGuild. Finally, the TechBooks link has moved to
      the left resource list.

      We?re hoping that the expanded and reorganized
      coverage in TechProGuild will make it easier for you to find solutions for the
      IT problems you face.

    • #3190341

      Back to the Future?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Going to lunch today, I passed one of those trendy little furniture stores in the shopping center where the restaurant was. In the display window, they had a very nice, and I presume very expensive, computer desk ensemble. You’ve seen the type – a corner unit complete with printer stand, overhead drawers, rolling chair, under desk storage – The Works.

      And what did they have sitting on the computer desk to illustrate the modernity and stylishness of the furniture?  A TRS-80 Model 4.  For those of you under the age of 30, that was one of THE hottest computers on the market back around the first term of the Reagan Administration. But there it was. Integrated keyboard. Dual full height floppy drive – 5 1/4 inch, of course. 24×80 black and white video display. 128K of RAM.

      It was actually kind of funny. Here they were trying to show off this elegant computer workstation set and they had sitting on it a computer that was probably older than some of the clerks in the store. The icing on the cake was the fact that they had a modern Hewlett-Packard Deskjet sitting on the printer stand next to it. Kind of like having a set of mag wheels on a horse drawn buggy.

      Of course, I could be wrong. They say that everything old is new again. And I cant think of many platforms that are more resistant to spyware and viruses than a TRS-80. Maybe it’s time for businesses to rethink Windows Server 2003 and take another look at TRSDOS.

       

       

      • #3194999

        Back to the Future?

        by octopuseize ·

        In reply to Back to the Future?

        TRSDOS might be the best OS ever. It can be the most correct variant of
        OS around. Have no comment on its programming capabilities though. This
        is when secured UNIX-like OS OpenBSD is not yet in. TRSDOS’ capability
        has limitation to handling network services (couldn’t find if TRS has
        support to these) e.g. DNS, mail, web, file unlike OpenBSD. I cannot
        say more about OpenBSD’s security features. I’ve tested it. Lets go and
        inform them of these new OS. Cheers!

      • #3097091

        Back to the Future?

        by tomgarza9 ·

        In reply to Back to the Future?

        I had a friend run his auto repair accounting on his TRS-80 Model 4 until Windows 95 was released. I cut my teeth on a TRS-80, with a data cassette recorder and learned BASIC, in high school.? ??

    • #3188312

      OS/2 is Dead. Again. Really. We mean it this time.

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      It’s been a long time since OS/2 has been in the news. This morning I noticed an article on News.com stating that IBM has finally decided to stop selling OS/2. So yet again, when OS/2 makes the news it’s yet another declaration of its death.

      When I worked at the Jefferson County Police Department, I became a big
      fan of OS/2 3.0. We had deployed it on our computer aided dispatching
      workstations because it was the only multitasking operating system that
      worked on desktops and could still run all of the applications we
      needed to run without crashing every 15 minutes.

      IBM billed OS/2 3.0 and 4.0 as being a “Better DOS than DOS and a
      better Windows than Windows”. It certainly beat the daylights
      technically out of Windows 3.1 which was its initial main competitor.
      Warp, the moniker for OS/2 4.0, was even better than Windows 95, and
      arguably Windows 98. Microsoft kept making Windows better and by the
      time Windows 2000
      Professional shipped, OS/2’s technical advantages were mostly
      overshadowed.

      The problem was IBM couldn’t market OS/2 to save its life and never
      could overcome Microsoft’s license arrangements with hardware vendors.
      As such, OS/2 whithered on the vine. IBM tried to save it several
      times, but to no avail. And most of the time when you saw OS/2
      mentioned in the news, it was in some reference to OS/2’s Death being
      imminent.

      It’s a shame. I still run Warp on a computer at home. It still works
      really well. Like the TRS-80 I mentioned in the last blog post, it’s
      resistant to spyware and viruses.  Sadly now, it looks like it’s
      equally obsolete.  

      • #3188707

        OS/2 is Dead. Again. Really. We mean it this time.

        by rasilon ·

        In reply to OS/2 is Dead. Again. Really. We mean it this time.

        A moment of silence, please…..   🙁

        It’s really sad…… OS/2 at the end was better than Windows 95/98 and
        even 2000 ever was. OS/2 Lan Server was leagues ahead of NT server. It
        was only when XP and Windows 2000 Server came out that, IMNSHO, MS
        *started* to catch up….. While peopel still harp on the marketing
        aspects of it, the war was lost in the pre-install battle. Reality is
        that almost no one other than techies ever (and I mean *EVER*)
        update/replace their OS. Once MS was able to intimidate OEMs into
        exclusive contracts, it was over…. Losing access to the Windows
        source code was really just shooting a corpse…..

        Personally, I still have my Warp 4 CD’s as a piece of nostalgia….

        Hank Arnold

      • #3196762

        OS/2 is Dead. Again. Really. We mean it this time.

        by petedude ·

        In reply to OS/2 is Dead. Again. Really. We mean it this time.

        I used OS/2 at home for a long time before installing Windows9x in a multiboot setup, and briefly administered one OS/2 Warp Server at work.

        If it hadn’t been for OS/2, I’d have taken forever to get used to right-clicking and context menus– something IBM had going long before Windows or even my beloved Macs have.

        Interestingly enough, there are still large numbers of banks overseas I’m told that use OS/2 on their ATMs.  It was the first OS to provide that high a degree of uptime on standard hardware.

        There was also one book from the OS/2 development staff that covered all of the design that went into the Workplace Shell. . . incredible how much thought they put into their GUI.

        I miss OS/2 occasionally, but I’m glad I have my Macs.

    • #3196117

      Is it Firefox or FireFIX?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I’ve been a big fan of the Firefox brower. I’ve used it on Windows,
      Linux, and OS/2 since back when it was called Firebird. Even at version
      .6, it had features that Microsoft has yet to add to Internet Explorer.
      I probably use Firefox more than IE on a daily basis if I stopped to
      think about it.  This post is actually being written in Firefox.

      I must admit I’m starting to get a little bit irritated however. In the
      past few months, Mozilla.org has been releasing update after update to
      Firefox. Just this past week, Mozilla.org – in almost Microsoft
      Tradition – had to release a fix that fixed a fix.

      In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing. It’s great that they’re
      keeping up with security threats and fixing problems as soon as they’re
      encountered. And face it, no matter what you think about Open Source
      software, anything that’s designed by humans is going to have problems
      – no matter how talented and philanthropic they may be by devoting to
      their talents to such a project.

      What’s really irksome about the process is, there’s no easy way to
      update the browser when there’s a fix. If you want to get the latest
      update, no matter how small, you’ve got to download and reinstall the
      entire browser. Oh sure, there’s a little bit of help with the Update
      feature, but even so, it’s a complete reinstall.

      For most IT Professionals on their own machines, that’s not a big deal.
      But what do you do when you have dozens or hundreds of workstations
      that you need to keep updated?  Pushing out an entire new browser
      every week wastes time, bandwidth, and simply is not a solution. 
      Not to mention, reinstalling the entire browser can sometimes result in
      conflicts with add-ons or bookmarks. In a corporate environment, IT
      just doesn’t have time to put out all of these additional fires.

      Firefox 1.1 is due
      sometime this month with 1.5 at some point in the future. Software
      updates are supposed to be part of that release. Here’s hoping it works
      correctly when it finally ships. Of course, when the new version ships,
      that also means doing a complete reinstall again.

      • #3189170

        Is it Firefox or FireFIX?

        by stress junkie ·

        In reply to Is it Firefox or FireFIX?

        That’s why I prefer Mozilla browser. It’s not perfect. Update =
        reinstall, just like Firefox. But there are fewer “updates” over a
        given period of time.

        I tried Firefox. I tried the first three production versions. I didn’t
        like them because they didn’t have the same granularity in
        configuration that I was accustomed to having in Mozilla.

        I tried Opera 8. I even paid for a license. Imagine that! I found that
        there were more problems with Opera than with Mozilla so I went back to
        Mozilla. I’m currently using v1.7.8.

        So for the moment it’s Mozilla for me.

      • #3195759

        Is it Firefox or FireFIX?

        by wawadave ·

        In reply to Is it Firefox or FireFIX?

        Well it does bump up the d/l count in firefox. but for all the minor
        problems in firefox i have been nail in ie far far worse. ever hear of
        CWS 180SEARCH??? amany 100,s more!!!!

    • #3185749

      Vista?! What were they thinking?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ok. I can’t help but pile on with my reaction to Longhorn’s new name. Peter Spande and Rex Baldazo
      already chimed in with their takes on the name, so I
      thought I should as well – as I’m sure are millions of other people.

      In a word – Ick.

      What were they thinking? Two things popped into my mind. The first thing was the old Plymouth Colt Vista.
      This was a little car that was part-car, part-minivan. It tried to be
      everything to everyone. It got good mileage, but had no get up and go.
      It could carry lots of stuff, but beyond a bunch of kids and some
      groceries, it was too small for much else. In the end, it didn’t really
      do anything very well. Hmmm…

      The second thing I thought of was the Visa Card. Micrsoft’s old slogan
      was “Where do you want to go today?”. Visa International’s is
      “Everywhere you want to be.” So combining the two – Windows
      Vis(t)a – kind of completes the circle, doesn’t it?

      Anyway, I don’t get it. I guess I’ll wind up getting used to it.
      Windows XP sounded kind of clunky too at first. Now everyone just calls
      it XP. I’m sure that Windows Vista will wind up just being called
      Vista. When the beta ships, it will be interesting to see if the view
      is going to be good or not.

    • #3196280

      New Features on TechProGuild

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      TechProGuild already offers unique technical articles, downloads found
      nowhere else, and over 250 IT books that you can read and search
      online. What’s next? Articles and downloads work well for providing
      solutions to technical problems, but there are sometimes other ways of
      providing answers. To provide a richer experience, we’ve started
      experimenting with different kinds of content types.

      You’ll find some of these new experiments on the new TechProGuild Media Center
      page. On this page you’ll find our new Screen By Screens, which show
      you exactly what you’ll encounter when doing things like configuring
      DNS on Windows Server 2003. You’ll also find the TPG Podcast. This
      podcast, hosted by former TechProGuild Track Editor Michael Jackman,
      features news and commentary about tech issues as well as solutions for
      problems you face. Finally you’ll also find links to online tech videos
      from TechRepublic’s sister sites, ZDNet and CNET.

      The Media Center is part of the TechProGuild’s ongoing effort to
      provide unique and innovative IT solutions. Going forward, we’ll keep
      trying more things to make your TPG subscription even more valuable. If
      you have any suggestions, feel free to drop us a line anytime.

    • #3051994

      Well. That didn’t take long.

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Microsoft is placing a huge emphasis on security on Windows Vista. With
      all of the problems that IT professionals have with spyware and
      viruses, Microsoft knew that it had to do more to make the next version
      of Windows secure.

      Having just released the first beta for Vista, CNET News.com reports that there are already viruses
      in existence that can affect Vista. Four days. I don’t think that’s a
      record for a security problem to appear, but it sure didn’t take too
      long.

      Microsoft points out that the vulnerability so far only theoretical and
      only affects the Monad feature in Vista. Monad is the new command
      shell that Microsoft is using to replace the creaky Command Prompt with
      its echoes of DOS circa 1985. Along with the WinFS feature, Monad is a
      Vista feature that Microsoft tossed over the side in an effort to get
      Vista shipping on time.

      Microsoft says Monad will probably appear by the time that Exchange 12
      ships next year. Microsoft has also talked about creating a version of
      Monad that will run on earlier versions of Windows, but it will be hard
      to see how they’ll get that to work.

      In any case, there’s plenty of time for them to plug the hole before
      real viruses appear. Even so, it’s clear that just because Microsoft
      says that the next version of Windows is going to emphasize security,
      it doesn’t mean that hackers aren’t going to try to poke holes in it.

    • #3068090

      Happy 10th Bday, Windows 95!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ten years ago today, Microsoft shipped Windows 95. At the time I
      remember it was greeted like a new Harry Potter book. People were lined
      up for blocks at midnight to be the first ones to buy Microsoft’s new
      OS. Even the Rolling Stones got into the act as Bill bought the rights
      to “Start Me Up” as part of Win95’s promotional campaign.

      Windows 95 basically signalled the beginning of the end for OS/2.
      From a technical standpoint, OS/2 still blew away Windows 95 for
      stabilty and the ability to multitask programs. IBM unfortunately
      had no idea how to market it, and Microsoft gained the upper hand with
      its relationships with hardware manufacturers who were already
      licensing Windows 3.1. Even IBM’s own PC Division wouldn’t risk
      unfavorable licensing terms with Microsoft by shipping OS/2 instead of
      Windows 95.

      As an OS, Windows 95 was half-baked. The OS really wasn’t all that
      until Microsoft shipped Windows 95b the following year. Windows
      98 and Windows 98SE were the first really tolerable versions of Win9x.
      Of course then Microsoft seemingly intentionally killed the buzz by
      shipping Windows Me, which was a bloated pig of an OS that made
      everyone beg and plead for the rapid release of Windows 2000.

      What always amazes me is the way Microsoft markets its operating
      systems. In essence it does so by trashing the existing OS and then
      saying how the OS you really want is the next one.
      Microsoft acknowledged and trashed the instability of Windows 3.1 when
      it shipped Windows 95. Microsoft acknowledged and trashed the
      instability of Windows 9x when it shipped Windows 2000. Windows 2000
      suddenly became noxious when Windows XP/2003 shipped. And now
      that Windows Vista is on the horizon, we suddenly hear about all of the
      wonderful features coming in Windows Vista that will make us want to
      flee from Windows XP. Instead of stability this time however, the
      bugaboo is Security.

      It’s a lot like Ford saying “Boy… that Ford Pinto was a really crappy
      car. What were we thinking? What you REALLY want is the Ford Escort.” 
      And then people by the millions would trade in their Pintos for
      Escorts, only to be told that they should be waiting for the new Focus.

      Of course, Microsoft’s in a touchy position. It doesn’t want to talk
      about Linux too much for fear that people will actually give it some
      serious attention. It can’t trash the Mac for fear of getting the
      Justice Department’s attention again. Therefore, about the only
      marketing it can do is by doing a Mea Culpa about its current products.

      Like it or not, Windows 95 changed the world. Every time you click
      the Start button on your Windows workstation or its equivalent on MacOS
      X or Linux, you have Windows 95 to thank. Happy Bday, Windows 95!

    • #3065477

      Here we go again!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ever since my colleague Erik Eckel declared his semi-independence
      from Windows by buying an iBook, I’ve been getting the itch to once
      again start using something other than Windows. I’m not quite ready to
      make the investment that jumping to Mac OS X would require, but I’ve
      been toying with Linux off and on now for several years. So once again,
      I decided to give it another shot.

      This time, it’s SuSe Professional 9.3.
      Why SuSe and not RedHat, Fedora, or some other flavor of Linux? Quite
      simply, being a long time NetWare user, I’ve always been drawn to
      Novell’s version of Linux. I’ve installed, or rather fought with,
      various versions of RedHat before, but we’ve never been able to get
      along.  Plus, SuSe Professional 9.3 comes with everything but the
      kitchen sink. Enough applications come in the box that you almost don’t
      need to look elsewhere in order to get working as soon as the
      installation is done.

      Every installation I’ve done of SuSe has been fairly easy. Not as
      mindnumbingly easy as a WIndows installation, but not too painful at
      all. SuSe’s YaST installer is a snap and KDE 3.4 is a great UI.

      SuSe Professional 10.0 is shipping next month. I’m looking forward to that version to see just what changes Novell has in store.

      So far I’m still not 100% sure that Linux is a complete replacement for
      Windows on the desktop. XP is still good enough for most tasks. 
      Plus there’s that learning curve when moving to Linux/Unix after
      working with DOS/Windows for so long. Even so, after trying to escape
      Microsoft’s clutches by using OS/2 and NetWare, I’m willing to try it
      again by giving Linux another shot.

      • #3061374
        Avatar photo

        Here we go again!

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Here we go again!

        Once you go Mac, you never go back!

      • #3063150

        Here we go again!

        by carlos55 ·

        In reply to Here we go again!

        John,

        Like you, I also purchased the SUSE 9.3 desktop to see if it was ready for prime time yet.  I am a long time Windows (only) user who had looked at RH 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, and 9.0 as well.  I definitley do not believe it can be a general replacement for Windows right now, as you would need to ask users to give up some functionality.  I also noted that SUSE seems to run slower on the same machine as compared to Windows 2000.  Programs  take 5-10 seconds to start consistently.  Not sure what that is since one of Linux’s claims is that it runs faster.  The Linux desktop may not be bad in a 100% IT controlled environment where the user cannot do anything but run designated applications.  As desirable as that may be, I’m not sure many companies can or will do that.

        For SUSE (Linux) to be a viable desktop, I think MS would need to port Office over to it.  No one should hold their breath waiting for that…

    • #3061376

      Remembering Bob

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      When the news of Bob Artner’s passing was announced to us here at TechRepublic, we were all shocked.  Bob was an ever present force at this company. He put his fingerprint on just about everything on the site. He affected both employees and TechRepublic members.

      I’ve known Bob for almost 9 years, originally working with him at The Cobb Group. We never worked closely really until I came to TechRepublic. Two years ago, at the company Christmas party, I was engaged in a game of chess with a co-worker, Jim Wells.  Bob walked into the room we were playing in and announced “I got the Winner.”   Not wanting to face Bob, I promptly resigned the game, but Jim would have none of it. I eventually beat Jim and had to face Bob.

      I had never played Bob before. I didn’t even know that he did play nor how well. They say you’re never supposed to Beat The Boss, but Bob would see right through me throwing a game even if he didn’t play well. So I was conflicted. We played. After a very tough game, I won. I shouldn’t have worried about having to throw the game. He came quite near to beating me clean.

      We talked about the game for a few minutes and then rejoined the rest of our co-workers. Everyone wanted to know the outcome. I sheepishly smiled.  Bob announced loudly with a big grin: “You all remember John Sheesley who used to work here, right?”

      From then, we played almost weekly.  In the beginning it was back and forth. We’d split 50-50 on the games. Often times it came down to who made a mistake first. You could never make a mistake against Bob in a chess game. You would pay very quickly.

      Bob thought every move out carefully. You could see him build intricate attacks and strategies. I knew never to take a trade he offered, because he never traded unless he clearly came out ahead in the end. My game is usually very Tactical. His was almost always deeply Strategic.

      Bob was always magnanimous in victory and never scornful in defeat. Every game ended the same way. In victory or defeat, he sat back, crossed his arms, and had the satisfied smile of a connoisseur who had just finished a fine wine. He said simply, “That was fun. Thanks.”

      We hadn’t had the opportunity to play a couple of months. With vacations, busy summers, and company business, the matches just weren’t happening.  Earlier this week, I saw Bob talking to my co-worker Erik Eckel. I thought to myself: “I need to email Bob and get a game in this week.” The next day, we got the news of his passing.

      In the end, what can I say? Bob was a great leader. Bob was a great friend.

      That was fun. Thanks.

      • #3061373
        Avatar photo

        Remembering Bob

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Remembering Bob

        Very well spoken, John.

        I always meant to get around to challenging Bob at chess, but I figured I needed to elevate my game to the point where I could at least beat you first! And we know that’s only happened in those games in which you give me a move back.

        I quickly learned that, if I was going to challenge Bob, it was best to stick to subjective arguments. He could have easily taught logic and debate classes, and he would have taught them well.

      • #3229501

        Remembering Bob

        by regular_joe ·

        In reply to Remembering Bob

        First, a confession. It’s been a LONG time since I’ve logged into TechRepublic! While going through some old docs, I came across a collection of Artner’s Laws and I wondered if there was a published collection. So, I googled “artner”, and came back to TechRepublic. The news of Bob’s passing was a shock, not that I ever met him but I always enjoyed his point of view, hence my collection of some of his Laws. Looking back on some of his comments (e.g. Law of Star Performers”), I’d forgotten how honest and lacking in the usual BS Bob’s observations were. Bob was the little kid standing on the street watching the Emperor parade by in the nude! His passing is everyone’s loss.

    • #3063394

      Testing out Lenovo’s Tablet PC

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Having long been a fan of IBM’s ThinkPak line,  I was a bit
      concerned when IBM sold the line to Lenovo.  Whenever changes
      happen like that you become concerned about product quality,
      consistency and things like that.  Attending TechEd 2005 in
      Orlando this year, I caught a glimpse of Lenovo’s first major product
      introduction during the keynote – the new Lenovo ThinkPad X41 Tablet PC.  That was the first indication that the ThinkPads were still going to be good.

      I finally got one from Lenovo the other day for a 90 day trial and
      review. Over the course of the next few months, you’ll find more
      articles and downloads in TechProGuild about Tablet PCs in general and
      the Lenovo Tablet in particular. Having kicked it around over the
      weekend, I thought this blog would be a great place to start.

      The first thing I noticed was that the letters IBM are still stamped on
      the cover. As part of the terms of the sale, Lenovo has the rights to
      use IBM on the machine, but they don’t have any further association
      with Lenovo. It’s a ThinkPad through and through.

      The Lenovo is light – lighter than the ViewSonic, HP, or Toshiba Tablet
      PCs that I’ve worked with before. The twist and layback screen isn’t
      anything new, but the picture is bright and clear. The keyboard has the
      solid feel that exemplifies the Tablet PC line.  My unit came with
      two batteries, the standard battery that came with the unit, along with
      Lenovo’s extended 8.5 hour battery. Although I haven’t timed it with a
      stop watch, the standard battery seems to hold for a good 3 hours under
      moderate use – easily beating my work-a-day HP notebook. I wasn’t able
      to run the bigger battery down, so chances are the 8.5 hour rating is
      close to reality. (Your mileage may vary, of course.)

      The pen hides nicely within the unit, popping into place in such a
      manner as you won’t easily lose it. It tracks very nicely, with little
      delay in writing or drawing. The Lenovo has some built-in buttons along
      the face of the screen for paging up and down, pressing [Esc] and
      [Enter] along with a few others. They’re all positioned well and feel
      solid.

      For security, there’s a built-in fingerprint reader and embedded
      security chip. I haven’t played with those yet, but when I do, I’ll put
      some articles up that describe how they work.

      So is it perfect? No. For one thing, it takes a long time to boot. Even
      with a 1.5Ghz Centrino processor and 512 MB of RAM, I’m disappointed at
      the amount of time it takes before you can actually use it from the
      time you turn it on. Maybe I’m just too eager because it’s such a cool
      machine to play with, but still.  Part of the problem, I believe,
      stems from the numerous utilities that load during boot time, and I
      haven’t taken the time to see what’s necessary and what’s not, so I’m
      not ready to hold that against the unit yet. Once I get it fine tuned,
      I’ll pass judgement on the actual and perceived speeds.

      So far, the Lenovo Tablet looks like a great machine. Once I get used
      to some of its quirks, I’m going to have a hard time putting it down.
      If you were concerned about the ThinkPad brand after IBM sold it, don’t
      be. If this machine is any indication, Lenovo’s going to make the
      ThinkPad line even better. We’ll see over the next few months if it the
      cool factor wears off or not.

    • #3062881

      Hand Writing A Blog Entry

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One Thing about using a Tablet Pc is that it requires you to get
      used to writing again. This entry is being entirely written by hand. As
      Such, it’s taking about 10 x as long as it normally would. It’s not
      that the Tablet does that Bad a Job, It’s Just that my writing
      is…..well… nearly illegible for humans, let alone a machine. So,
      I’m pretty darn impressed.

      I’ve erased most of the big mistakes, but still left in some of the
      minor Ones. Maybe it’s a good thing. Computers helped make my typing
      better, maybe they can help with my handwriting too.

    • #3071478

      A perfect 10.0?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      It’s been about 3 weeks now since I decided to dip my toe’s back into the Linux waters
      Three weeks is a long time in the world of IT. Since then, I’ve gotten
      my hands on a Lenovo Tablet PC which has taken most of my attention.
      Also since then, Novell has released SuSe Professional 10.0.

      Looking at the feature set, I don’t know if I’ll install it just yet.
      There looks to be some good stuff in it, but I’m still getting used to
      Linux in general.

      If there’s one thing that has always annoyed me about Linux, it’s the
      fact that SuSe, RedHat, Fedora, Debian, and crew seem to release a new
      version of Linux every 5 minutes, making it hard to keep up. Microsoft
      may take a lot of heat for taking forever to release operating systems,
      but in a business environment it at least gives you time to stabilize
      systems, get them rolled out, and everyone trained on them.

      After 10 releases has Novell finally gotten Linux perfect? Of course,
      not. If 9.3’s any indication so far however, it looks like SuSe
      Professional 10.0 might be worth looking at too.

    • #3066025

      What’s the matter with Tech Books???

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One of the coolest features in TechProGuild is the Tech Books Library.
      In it you’ll find the full text of over 250 computer books. Those
      aren’t simple book chapters nor offers for books to buy. It’s a fully
      searchable online library.

      We recently redesigned the Tech Books Library home page
      to feature books better and to give you a better idea about what you’ll
      find in Tech Books. Some people have had problems reading the books
      found in the collection.

      TPG’s Tech Books Library is powered by
      Books 24×7
      .
      Books 24×7 uses a cookie on your machine to verify that you’re a
      registered and paid member of TechProGuild before you can access the
      Tech Books Library. If this cookie isn’t synchronized properly, you
      can’t access the books. It can get out of whack fairly easily, such as
      if your TechRepublic cookie becomes erased, you log out, or you log
      into TechProGuild on another PC.

      If you’re having a problem accessing TechBooks, click the
      Last Book Visited link
      on the TechBooks. This will reset the Tech Books cookie on your
      workstation. If you’ve disabled cookies, you must enable them for
      techrepublic.com.com and techbooks.techproguild.com. If you log off of
      TechRepublic or use your TechProGuild account from another workstation,
      you’ll have to use that link to access TechBooks as well.

    • #3060111

      Everything you need to get started with Linux??

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      SuSe Professional 10.0
      just arrived this afternoon and I’ve just started the installation. A
      first things hit me when I first got the box was that on the front in
      friendly green letters it says “Everything You Need To Get Started With
      Linux.” That’s certainly a pretty hefty claim. But then I started
      the installation….

      It seems like Novell has put everything in the box except for an Open
      Source Kitchen Sink. The 5 CD/1 DVD installation set contains goodies
      like OpenOffice 2.0, FireFox, Beagle, Samba, Novell iFolder, GiMP,
      Spam-Assassin, MySQL, Apache, Java 1.5, etc. etc. etc. The box claims
      to include 1000 Open Source programs, but who knows, I havent counted
      them. I chose to do a near-full install and when it’s said and
      done, it’s going to be a whopping 6GB install.

      That sounds like an awful lot, but once it’s done, there’s not much
      else I can think of that I’ll need to get some useful work done on the
      machine. It also includes both GNOME and KDE, so Im sure if I needed
      extra drive space, I could just make my mind up on one window manager
      and be done with it.

      The install is as clean as any other I’ve done with SuSe lately. So kudo’s there as well.

      It will be a while before I get everything installed and configured the
      way I like it. We’ll find out if SuSe does have everything and whether
      it’s a perfect 10.0 or not.

      • #3057869

        Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        by tdt ·

        In reply to Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        Hello I like to hear more so keep the blog going ! I installed 9.1 it fired right up.It seems tobe a good product let me knoe if youuse dial up or modem thats where I am not to smart about yet:( GBU and let us know how you like it thanks Otom

      • #3071162

        Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        by takeit2 ·

        In reply to Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        Yea, Im Doing SuSE 10.0 as well and most has been good so far.
        One difference, my set of disks from Novel has 5 CDs/1 DVD going to check on that…
        Package Management is really gotten better with little  heavy setup.

      • #3070976

        Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        by 3kl ·

        In reply to Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        I agree that Suse 10.0 is there best to date.  Perhaps it is the
        first time a release of their product has coincided with free time on
        my part, but it is certainly the first time I have been this pleased
        with the ability to get the system working with a limited amount of
        hassle.  As an admin for a 99.9% Windows server environment, it
        has always been a challenge to make Linux my workstation of
        choice.  For the first time ever I am so close I can almost taste
        it.

      • #3046110

        Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        by alvarocervantes ·

        In reply to Everything you need to get started with Linux??

        I have been using Linux as a desktop from around 6 years and I remember
        those days where video drivers was the big problem. Now days, I think
        the wireless territory is the problem. most of the Hardware companies
        do not build drivers for Linux and they are expecting the Open comunity
        to do it, of course they give money to maintain the developers
        enthusiatic. china is forcing most of the manufacturers to build thinks
        comparable with Linux, I like that. So, my best advice is to stick to
        manufacturers that follow standards, such as IBM, and ohers; in the
        software arena, Oracle, Sun, IBM, are some examples of companies that
        build software for Linux, and I don’t mind spending my money in them.
        Standards such as SCSI, Ethernet, USB, etc., are some of the best to
        follow. Fo instance, when buying a printer, check that it is Netwrok
        comparable (ethernet), and that it has a driver suported by the
        manufacturer (magicolor
        2430DL is a good example). Some manufacturers are making money from
        Linux (servers sales for example) but they fail to support their own
        hardware (I don’t want to say names), so watch out for those
        opportunistics. So the best thing for us to do is to buy from the
        manufacturers that uspport open standards and Linux specially.
        I have a system running Xandros 3.01, Mandriva 2006, Suse 10, MS Server
        2003, MS Windows Professional, and ubuntu once in while from the CD. I
        have 3 large Hard drives and I can do about anything I want, except
        games because I think it is a waste of my time. But, every distribution
        is better on on thing than others, so it is a good idea to play with
        all of them and find the one that will work for you. For instance, SUSE
        is good for genearal office work, internet, and  easy for managing
        your machine with Yast. But, for a developer Redhat, or Java Desktop
        from Sun (SUSE based) is better. Xandros is exellent for staying on top
        of the upgrades, it does everything automatically. Mandrake is provably
        the one that has the most drivers, but SUSE and Red Hat provably have
        the newest hardware drives; for example SUSE installs beatiful on IBM
        laptops, even the IBM special keys work. Xandros is the best choice for
        Linux new comers, it was Corel Linux before, which was the only
        distribution that I knew install by itself and make feel weird  5
        years ago, because it was impossible for any distribution not to have
        problems when installing. So, have fun with all of them and feel
        confortable, but be prepared to  learn some real computer
        knowledge (IDE, SCSI, USB, and other interfaces).
        One observation on SUSE 10, be carefull how you install your hard
        drives, if you have two or more, the connector makes a difference and
        BIOS play a role also; you have to know concepts like SLAVE/ MASTER
        relationship, Cable Select (which does not work as it shoud due to a
        problem with the flat cables). However, I just want to add that it took
        me two days to install MS server in a computer, most of the drivers
        were not in the discs; Linux normally takes me .5 hours and I can be
        productive right away. I install linux in my friends computers because
        I am tired of wasting my time fixing their Windows computers. So I
        think you will be really happy with your system and specially when your
        updates will be easy to do, and specially when you don’t have to
        reformat your hard drive for un upgrade or installation of a new
        version. I am listening radio with Real Audio 10, ripping ogg audio
        books, writing this message, cheking my email, looking at the local
        weather, and my kids and wife are logged into the same computer (using
        other keyboard, monitor and mice only) using whatever resources they
        want without the need of one computer for every one of them thanks to
        the power and openess of Linux; I saved 75% on hardware on this system.
        Have a great and productive time with Linux
        Alvaro

    • #3070885

      Linux: The Great Equalizer

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Grrrrr… Y’know I’m not a dummy when it comes to working with
      computers, but working with new technology sure does make you feel like
      one sometimes.  It can quickly make even an expert feel like a
      typical run of the mill ‘user’.

      Case-in-point – Linux. On my test machine, I decided to swap out the
      video card it was running. In WIndows that would be a simple enough
      task. Take one out, put another in. You might have to fumble around in
      VGA for a while until you got the right video driver, but that would be
      it.

      When I swapped out the video card in my SuSe 10 workstation, I was
      greeted with a friendly text console login prompt. X saw the new card
      and refused to start.  As a Linux Newbie, I went to Google for an
      answer about how to reconfigure it. After a bit of slogging about I
      came up with the xf86config command.

      xf86config makes anyone who came up learning DOS feel right at home. No
      fancy GUI, just a simple user-hostile set of menu choices poorly worded
      and properly confusing. Ok. It wasn’t that bad, but still.

      After about a dozen tries, I finally got the machine back up and
      working. The problem wasn’t getting the video card to work. The problem
      was getting the stupid MOUSE to work. I have the machine connected to a
      KVM switch, so any mouse choice I made either caused KDE to fail to
      load properly, or when it did, the pointer would run around insanely
      and refuse to respond properly.

      Google this time was no help at all. Finally, I hit on the right combination. During xf86config, you had to select Auto for the mouse protocol and then /dev/input/mice for the port. Now the KVM, mouse, and new video card all work together properly.

      I guess I can’t really blame Linux for the problem. It’s a case of
      shooting myself in the foot. I should have learned the lession OS/2
      taught me a long time ago – once you get a system up and running –
      Don’t Touch It!

      • #3046463

        Linux: The Great Equalizer

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Linux: The Great Equalizer

        I don’t know about SuSe, but many Linux distros autodetect new
        hardware.  In Red Hat and Fedora there is a nice little
        auto-detector called Kudzu.  Kudzu will automatically run on boot
        (if set to) or you can manually run it at the command line.  Not
        only will it detect new hardware, but it will setup X automagically!

      • #3046287

        Linux: The Great Equalizer

        by robert_m_knight ·

        In reply to Linux: The Great Equalizer

        I feel your pain. I am still so new to linux that when the same thing
        happen to me I just reinstalled the OS. Everything worked fine and I
        was less fustrated again. I am testing out Ubuntu and soon to be
        Kubuntu as well. I have a copy of SuSe, but no test machine to install
        it on.

      • #3046085

        Linux: The Great Equalizer

        by elijah_a ·

        In reply to Linux: The Great Equalizer

        Got the similar problem during my early years of using linux … when I
        still have redhat7 … slackware and debian … everything was a pain
        to setup.

        But now that we have newer versions of fedora, ubuntu, mandriva, etc
        … it’s never a problem for me anymore. At least during those first
        few years I learned a good deal on troubleshooting a penguin box.

      • #3045644

        Linux: The Great Equalizer

        by master3bs ·

        In reply to Linux: The Great Equalizer

        I try not to mess with systems too much when they work; but let’s face it.  As frustrating as it is (and I am growing increasingly frustrated with my inexperience in solving linux problems) you learn more and become a better system administrator by changing things and seeing what works.

      • #3118543

        Linux: The Great Equalizer

        by jwm.mckay ·

        In reply to Linux: The Great Equalizer

        I guess this is just the sort of learning we did back around 95..   the transition from Dos7/Win3.11 to Windows95.  For all the bad press it get’s, anyone but an expert would surely have to admit that Microsoft brought computing to the great masses. 

        I remember loading device drivers for disks etc, under Unix at that time and still bear the mental scars.  Drive letters and prompts that meant little; dissimilar devices having the same name bar 1 suffix, meant you’d no immediate idea which device you were supposed to be dealing with.  CPM style command structure with inverted source/destination (from MS Dos), different slashes etc, and the best bit was when you created a file that already existed…..   Destroyed without any warning.  What fun??? 

        I still couldn’t be bothered trying Linux now, with the Unix experience I’ve suffered in the past.  And this aspect of hardware detection just isn’t practical to the masses.  Personally I’m dissapointed that so many experts see these issues as ‘minor’ and can’t see that they’d be absolute disasters to many users.  I’m also disappointed that the Linux purists and developers appear not to have learnt from MS in this aspect…  effectively wasting 10 years.  I guess it’s a case of priorities and absolute needs, and that is perhaps part of the Linux problem…..  too dependent on experts,a nd not enough emphasis on actual end users!  I know you’ll all say it’s more secure, doesn’t get hit by virusses, etc but that’s no answer at all.  It’s a blinkered kop-out. 

        The idea that you just reload the OS is just insane.  We’ve all got data that we need, we back it up BUT there’s always something you forget.  I wouldn’t bother with a disk image either as I’ve 240 GB split over three partitions..  2 boots and a data.  I mirror to an ethernet disk, and back up to DLT but I’m still not going to reload until it’s REALLY, REALLY needed. 

        Most folk want something that works like the telly…   switch it on and watch.  We can do that with MS 95/98/2000/XP but are clearly some way off with Linux.  Please don’t tell me you can add this and that, and download xxx…  That’s masking the issue.  One product, one source, plug’n’play!  Until that happens Linux won’t interest the common user.

    • #3043666

      Reconfiguring new hardware with YaST

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      In my last entry,
      I mentioned how I was being frustrated with SuSe Linux’s inability to
      detect a changed video card and elegantly install the drivers for a new
      one, forcing me to fight with xf86config instead.  JMGARVIN
      commented that RedHat and a few other Linux distributions could
      autodetect new hardware using a tool called Kudzu.

      So, I went back and looked again. SuSe Professional doesn’t support
      Kudzu, but it does include YaST, which does the same thing.  When
      I ran YaST on the workstation before I tried xf86config, it didn’t
      work. YaST refused to detect the new card, so I didn’t think it was the
      proper tool.

      Trying the same routine on another workstation, YaST detected the video
      card change with no problem. I didn’t have to fight with xf86config at
      all.  It reconfigured KDE properly and everything worked
      fine. 

      So, it just goes to show there IS more than one way to skin a cat… or in this case, reskin a penguin.

      • #3046397

        Reconfiguring new hardware with YaST

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Reconfiguring new hardware with YaST

        the nice thing with linux, you can download the sources and compile any tool to see if you like it.
        even if it isn’t supported by your distro.
        Mandriva being the exception as they moved things around so much you need to rebuild the sources to get an app to work right

      • #3045643

        Reconfiguring new hardware with YaST

        by master3bs ·

        In reply to Reconfiguring new hardware with YaST

        reskin a penguin. heh!

    • #3114326

      Living with Lenovo

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ok? so we?re in Month
      2 now of the Lenovo Thinkpad X41 Tablet PC trial and I thought I?d get you up
      to speed about how it?s going. 
      Personally, when they first came out, I thought of Tablet PCs as being
      nothing but big gimmicks. I wasn?t convinced by what I read about them that
      they were usable, let alone worth the extra money you?d spend for one over a
      standard laptop. I can?t really say that any more.

      With the reversible
      lid, going between the pen and the keyboard is a snap. You don?t even
      need to
      rotate the on-screen image. As soon as you flip it around, the screen
      goes
      automatically from landscape to portrait and back again. The
      handwriting
      recognition is amazing. Sometimes, it even reads my writing when I
      can?t.  The  portrait  view on the Thinkpad  makes
      viewing  Web pages , Word  documents and everything  a
      lot easier.

      I initially had some
      speed problems with the unit. It?s still sluggish at times, but most of that I
      attribute to the Norton Anti-virus that came with the unit. It seems like
      Norton slows down every machine I?ve ever used, but it?s better than no virus
      protection at all.

      I use FireFox as my main  Web browser, and was
      surprised to discover that the Tablet Input Panel – the little 
      pop-up that appears to allow you to  handwrite  data rather
      than type it  in –  didn’t work properly.  
      Sometimes when you went to enter data into a field, it would pop-up,
      other times it wouldn’t.   This wasnt’t a problem with the
      ThinkPad at all though.  It’s a known issue of Firefox in a Tablet
      PC environment.   Doing a little bit of digging, I
      finally  found a solution.

      The Lenovo has now become
      my standard portable. I had a trusty HP Omnibook, but that?s now gathering dust
      ? well until I have to return the ThinkPad that is. I?ll keep you up to date on
      it.

      • #3117147

        Living with Lenovo

        by bshaw ·

        In reply to Living with Lenovo

        I’m looking at Lenovos too. Is it not possible to buy these things with
        the 8 cell battery? They come standard with a 4 cell battery and that
        is not sufficient. 

      • #3117031

        Living with Lenovo

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Living with Lenovo

        At Lenovo’s Tablet PC Website,
        you can order Tablet PCs online. If you choose the Customize And Buy
        option, I noticed at the bottom of the screen in the Power section, you
        can select the longer life battery to come with it. It’s currently
        listed as an upgrade for $143. 

    • #3116994

      Getting fed up with Firefox

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ok ? let?s start of
      by saying that I use Firefox every day. It?s my main Web browser when doing
      almost everything that doesn?t absolutely require Internet Explorer. I?ve been using Firefox way back since
      version 0.6 when it was still called Firebird. I?ve used it on Windows, OS/2 and
      Linux. The problem is, the more I use Firefox, the more irritated I?ve become
      with it.

      First, there?s the
      issue of updates. No software is perfect so patches are to be expected. And the
      Firefox folks do a great job of making updates available when problems crop up.
      Unfortunately, with Firefox that means that you have to reinstall the entire
      browser, not just simply apply a patch to fix the problem. In a business
      environment where you have to support dozens or hundreds of machines, I don?t
      see how that makes it a viable alternative to IE.

      Second, Firefox is
      slow. No matter what OS or computer I?ve used Firefox on, it?s slow. I
      wouldn?t
      quite go so far as to call it a bloated pig, but it?s slow. Way slower
      than IE. It?s slow to load.
      It?s slow to display menus. It?s slow to load Web pages. It?s slow on
      fast
      machines. It?s even slower on slow machines. I have a very old Compaq
      test
      machine ? a Compaq Presario 5712. With
      its blazing 450Mhz PII and 256Mb of RAM, Firefox can be painful. Most
      of the
      time, it?s easier to just load IE, get to the page you want, and be
      gone. Sometimes Firefox takes so long to load, I’ve thought the mouse
      click didn’t take, so I click it again only to wind up with multiple
      copies of Firefox running.

      Third, Firefox is
      buggy. I?m not a programmer and haven?t delved into the code, but you don?t
      have to be a programmer to be able to identify buggy code. IE has its share of
      problems as well, but Firefox is far from perfect. Case in point – there have
      been several times where I?ll have a few tabs open and suddenly the entire computer
      slows to a crawl. I?ll open up Task Manager, and find that Firefox has consumed
      several hundred megabytes of memory and is nailing the CPU at 80 ? 90% usage.
      It?s gotten to the point that when I?ve noticed the computer is running slow, I
      know to go to Task Manager and just kill firefox.exe – everything will be
      fine again. I could give other examples
      of Firefox bugs ? like how it inexplicably closes all of the active Firefox
      sessions (whether in tabs or separate windows) at once for no good reason, but I don’t want to belabor the point.

      Let?s face it ? just
      because software is open-source doesn?t mean it?s perfect. At the same time,
      just because software is created by Microsoft it doesn?t mean that it?s
      inherently evil. Firefox still has plenty of lumps in it, and hopefully the next version helps to
      iron some of them out. Even through all of that however, I still use Firefox
      (except on that old Compaq) because it still beats the pants
      off of IE most of the time.

      • #3116917

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by freddy.flores ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Quote:

        “Most of the time, it?s easier to just load IE, get to the page you want, and be gone.”

        I’ve installed Firefox several times only to have it unistalled a few hours later. Why? well you would think you are home free after installing it, not so fast, several plugins needs to be installed as well so you could more or less do all you do with IE and then you have to put up with the time it takes to load your pages.

        It is a great browser but still needs more work before I switch full time to it.

      • #3137727

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by starman77 ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        This is not an issue with Firefox 1.5 where you only have to download a small patch update and is installed when you restart Firefox.
        The issue abbout plugins, if you recall when you first install windows, even IE requires that you install flash and other media file plugins. So really that’s something one has to do only once. At least with Firefox, they make this as painless as possible.
        I have been using Firefox since it was firebird.

      • #3137726

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by steve ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        I’ve been using Firefox since 1.0 and with the exception of a few financial sites when setting up an account I have had no need to use IE.  Firefox has blocked more popups that have come up than IE has ever done.  I’ll be honest we don’t install on mass so we don’t hit the update problem.  Yes it is a bit of a niggle every time an update is issued but I can live with that compared to several IE patches every week or 2.  I’ve never had a machine run slow with Firefox on, so I guess I must be one of the lucky ones, but I have used a few of the tweaks to enhance the experience as it were.  Everyone has their own thoughts and preferences which is what makes this world so interesting.

      • #3137725

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by drobert ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Probably not many would agree, but personally, Netscape 8.0 is the best browser I’ve found yet.
        (Microsoft shudders when they see Netscape installed)
        You can choose either the FireFox or IE engine on a per site basis…it’s great.
        You can also customize your security settings for each site.
        A little slow, but I can live with it.
        Have used Netscape from its infancy and never understood why it died out;
        not many people seem to use it anymore.
        Might want to check it out.

      • #3137656

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by red_wolf9 ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox


        It’s sad that we as a culture are so fixated on instant gratification that we
        will use whatever product is fastest to provide us the afore mentioned
        gratification. Someone once told me “All good things come to those
        that wait”, I find it ironic that they never touched a PC (but I guess old
        rural farmers are set in their ways).

        “…when it was still called Firebird”
        I’ve been using it since it was call Phoenix (well before the Firebird naming
        fiasco), so the following comments are based on lengthy personal experience.

        “Unfortunately, with Firefox that means that you have to reinstall the
        entire browser, not just simply apply a patch to fix the problem.”
        Although this method is annoying, it does assure that the entire browser is
        refreshed. It does not change your configuration (from Documents and
        Settings) so it’s a minor inconvenience. If you are in a corporate
        environment and your not deploying software with a centrally managed solution
        you have bigger issues then running an install program and clicking OK a few
        times. No… wait, the Microsoft method is so much better ( http://techrepublic.com.com/2100-1009_11-5929689.html?tag=nl.e103 )

        “Second, Firefox is slow.”
        Granted it has gotten slower in the last two versions but comparing it to a
        browser that pre-loads portions of it’s code when your machine boots (even if
        you don’t use IE in that sitting) isn’t a fair comparison. There are
        trade offs here.. you want a browser that loads a few seconds slower and has a
        better security posture or a really fast loading spyware magnet. I
        promise you after browsing the Internet for a few hours with IE the magically acquired
        spyware will slow it’s loading to a crawl too.

        “Third, Firefox is buggy.”
        Did it occur to you that code on the page or the workings of an add-on (like
        Flash) might be to blame for this? There may be some issues with memory
        leaks, but after installing Adblock, FlashBlock and NoScript I have very few
        problems on the memory front and I don’t experience the any of the speed issues
        you give as examples. Perhaps you should try closing the last tab you
        opened and not the entire browser next time the processor gets hammered.

      • #3137603
        Avatar photo

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        I use Firefox’s Macintosh port almost every day. I’ve found that, while it takes a while to initially load, once it’s up it works better (loads pages properly formatted, supports embedded Java calls, enables proper use of Flash-heavy sites, etc.) than any other Apple-compatible browser I’ve tried (i.e., Safari and IE 5 for the Mac).

        That said, just last night I downloaded Opera. I need to spend some more time with it, as it looks very promising on the Mac. And, I noticed that, since downloading the most recent Firefox update this week, I can no longer post to the TechRepublic Blog (which uses the Jive platform) using Firefox on my Mac. That’s not what I call an update.

         

      • #3137594

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by keyguy13 ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        First, the updates are quicker to install than microsoft’s updates. Hands down. No comparison. So that’s just stupid.

        Second, no it isn’t slow. You’re doing something wrong. I’ve never had
        my machine slow down from running Firefox, nor have I had it cause
        memory leaks or any of the other things you say it did. Personally I
        think you are a microsoft shill and it isn’t going to work. So that’s
        stupid too.

        Third, no it isn’t buggy. I have no idea what you are talking about.
        I’ve never had a problem with the exception of pages written
        specifically out of the standards so they will run on IE. I’ve never
        had my machine slow to a crawl because of tabs open, nor have I ever
        seen firefox.exe taking up more than 35 MB in the task manager. And it
        is always using 00 percent too.

        Personally I think you’re either a moron or an M$ shill.

      • #3136239

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by josharghhhh ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Preach it brotha’ wolf!

      • #3136186

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Ahhh… poke at someone’s sacred cow and notice all of the reaction you get.

        First wolf,
        computers are meant to be fast. Computers are designed for
        instant gratification. They’re supposed to make us more efficient. By
        your logic, we should all be using PC XTs and be blissfully waiting for the C:\> prompt to appear.

        What
        good does it do to get faster hardware when poorly written applications
        and operating systems drag the system down? For that matter, I should
        point out I have a 20 year old Tandy 1000 at home that boots Windows
        2.03 faster than my 2.8Ghz Dell boots Windows XP. Where’s the progress
        in that? Firefox 1.07 is a good application. But it could stand to be a lot better. Maybe that will be Firefox 1.5, once they finally manage to get it finished.

        And as for keyguy13, if you
        want to find a Microsoft shill on this Web site, you’ll have to look
        elsewhere. As for the moron on this post, the clearly thought out, well
        written, and rational response you gave points out who that would be.

      • #3136159

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by sadisynn ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Firefox, for saving “web page, complete”. Does a neater job there than Opera.
        Opera…..for everything else. Much better download manager (“transfers”)and handier with the tabs, opening an new page while keeping the present one on a separate tab.
        Netscape? aaaaaaaaaaa, archives pages with .jpg renamed to .jfif and not so convenient to open the file with another app. Install and use ’em all, where they have their advantages. Heck, I even open two or more browsers and copy and paste URLs from one to the other if needing the best of both simultaneously. Nuthin’ to it!

      • #3136156

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by techotter9 ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        There’s an old joke about a guy who goes to the doctor and complains:

        “Doc, every time I wave my hand it hurts”.

        “Well, don’t wave your hand then”

        The bottom line is that we’re not left without options here.  IE
        is not the only browser out there, and neither is FireFox, and neither
        is Opera or Netscape or whatever.  If one solution irks you less
        than any other, and they will all you irk you in some way, then use
        that one that is least painful.  I suppose I could go a step
        further and say that the nice thing about FireFox is that we have some
        say, either through our comments or through proactive coding, in
        shaping the final product. 

        That’s the objective course of action.  My subjective perspective
        is that I’ve never had an issue with speed and FireFox, although my
        experience with it only dates back to 0.9.  That doesn’t mean
        someone else won’t have problems, only that our working methodologies
        and scenarios differ and that FireFox will be quicker than IE for me,
        and slower for you.  On any given midafternoon after I’ve been
        accumulating webpages all day, I’ll have 3 or 4 or 5 instances of
        FireFox open with a half-dozen tabs open in each.  I’ll have 3
        email clients running (OL, OLExpress, T-Bird) along with office apps
        and a couple of gizmos like GoToMeeting, etc.  This is on a plain
        jane DELL P4 with a quarter gig of RAM running XP.  It works
        fine.  It really does.  It is painful when I have to use IE
        because of ActiveEx components and I have to sit and watch it take
        forever to do anything.  And it gets real stale, real fast, when I
        have to open another instance of IE if I want to have both pages up at
        the same time.  If I used IE the way that I use FF, then I would
        have at least a dozen instances open at any given time.  Now THAT
        would slow the system down.  Maybe IE7 will be a wonder.  I
        will try it and give it an honest evaluation.  But for the moment,
        in my working experience, FF has not exhibited any of the speed
        problems you talk about, and very few of the other problems with
        bugs.   For the moment, I’m going to continue giving all of
        my users the option to use either when I build or rebuild a box for
        them.  Most of them seem to prefer FF for generic surfing without
        my influencing them.  TMMV and so does yours and mine.

        Otter

      • #3136015
        Avatar photo

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Keyguy13,

        John a Microsoft shill? OS/2 I could see, if given the chance, but not Windows.

        The guy’s got TechRepublic running Linux on more test systems than I can count. He still runs NetWare!

        He’s just looking for the easiest, most efficient way to get things done. Seeing as how he and I have both encountered significant Firefox issues this week, I’d have to say I understand his perspective.

        Firefox is bloated. It’s huge. Takes a long time to load, too. But I don’t usually complain because Firefox has provided me with simplified access to a lot of Web-based features (online chess, Flash-heavy fantasy sports sites, complicated Web sites, etc.) I’d otherwise have more difficulty accessing on my Mac. But when the most recent Firefox update precludes me from using Firefox on my Mac to post to my TechRepublic blog (and send messages using Yahoo Mail), I will complain. That’s not an update. That’s a pain in the posterior. Especially as these elements worked properly before the update.

        50 million people use Macs. I suspect a lot of those folks use Yahoo Mail, too. How hard would that interaction have been to test? This is probably why I still use IE almost exclusively on all my Windows systems: it just works.

      • #3135927

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by minnarky ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        OK, here is my two cents worth.
        I have switched, almost exclusively, to using Firefox.  I love the
        tabbed browsing, as well as the many plugins/extensions available to
        enhance the browsing experience.  It is a little slower to load,
        but as one of the other posts pointed out if IE didn’t already have
        much of its code loaded into memory with Windows it would probably take
        just as long or longer.  But once it is loaded, Firefox is much
        faster than IE (on my machine).
        I also like the added security of Firefox.  Yes, you can lock down
        IE to make it more secure than the default settings, but since
        switching to Firefox my spyware removal programs haven’t had anything
        to remove because Firefox simply doesn’t let them in.
        I have had no problems like what you describe as “buggy
        behavior”.  I suspect that the problem lies in the web pages
        you’re viewing.  They probably have proprietary code designed to
        run only in IE instead of sticking to the web standards.  As
        standards compliant browsers become more and more popular, we will see
        less and less of these MS only sites.
        One of my machines is an AMD K6 166Mhz with 64MB ram (a real dinosaur), running Mandrake Linux, and Firefox runs just fine.

      • #3136515

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by charles farley ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Most any version of Firefox I’ve ever had–on Linux or Windows–has run
        perfectly fine and wasn’t slow in the least.  If your computer is
        slow (or perhaps it’s just you who’s slow), that’s your problem,
        jackass.  Don’t blame a perfectly-good piece of software for your
        personal problems.

      • #3136435

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by lukcad ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        I WILL NEVER CHANGE THE IE ON ANY SUPER FF. BECAUSE FF IS APPLICATION WITH A LOT OF BUGS AND SILLY ALGHORITHM OF EATING THE HTML AND OBJECT CODES FROM PIPES TO BROWSER SCREEN.

        it is my opinion, you can have another.

        Bye, bye

      • #3136397

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by teseg ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Firefox is Not for Everyone – But it Could Be for Most People
        Extensions – not Firefox – are the cause of most system slowdowns and buggy responses. I’ve been toying with Firefox for about a year and now have 1.5rc installed. Firefox in it’s most basic form works well and is not buggy. When you change theme’s and add extensions you open up the door to potential problems. Most extensions work well with FF but some do not work well with each other. I have experienced slow load times using Adblock while others have not. When I’ve removed Adblock my page load time improves. If you like to toy around with things you’ll love Firefox. If you want a solid browser you’ll like Firefox. If you do not have a creatve curious bone in your body Internet Explorer is your best bet.

      • #3137373

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by prisms_inverted ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        i think at this time perhaps the only reason i had to log off from a website was the inability of firefox to display the rich editor sort of stuff … if i didn’t press on some wrong buttons …

      • #3137313

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by lukcad ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        My position is very strong to be opposit team of FF. They had a lot of issues that their alghorithm support all CSS1, CSS2. I don’t believe to it, because all programs for web has bug only regards FF poor executing of the requirements of W3 standarts about CSS. I never will forget their lie about that they have fully tested compatibility with CSS. It was not, it is not now and it will never will.  All that i can do for them to point about their errors and write letters to their support team. But i afraid they will forgot about dream time.

        Sincerely, LukCAD

      • #3137298

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by mikatrob ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        You don?t have to be a programmer or hacker to exploit IE.

        Not to be a shit, I use both at times dependent on task and customer code.

        We use test labs, systems with no patches (virtually none) manually secured by turning down services and manual disable of IE elements.


        We have noticed Win .x platforms with SP4 after implementation to boot about ? the time as before, certain patches break certain things.


        For networks that need to be ?updated? learn to write scripts and that solves the whole problem with having to install the entire browser.


        Or manually lock down IE and reg patch - again with scripts to the entire floor.


        Both have their advantages dependant on the needs for the task at hand, but while Firefox can close down and work funky at times, after closer inspection we have noticed at least ? patches to the floor create havoc with many 3 party apps ? meaning not MS software, When IE crashes the entire system is rebooted, when Firefox crashes the browser closes and the drive rattles.


        If you have to manually ?lay hands? on each computer, it is by far the admins dream browser, not having to fight silent installs wasting valuable time (and that?s what we are talking about ? Time and Money) on the same problem day in and day out wondering how many systems do you re-image today?

        Bit of a pickle it is, highly suggest learning to write scripts. ? do not need programmers knowledge to be at rest with a smile. We already have enough to do with all the work on those old beloved Compaq?s around.

      • #3137110

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by rodak ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        Yeah, it’s a bit slow to load the first time, but I’ve never noticed it
        to be slow after that.  I did have some problems with it maxing
        out the CPU, usually while I was downloading a lot things, but I found
        that by turning off the “Show Download Manager” option, that’s pretty
        much gone away (oddly enough, sometimes the blasted Download Manager
        still rears it’s ugly head, and things slow to a crawl, but just
        closing it fixes that).

        But aside from security (a WAY bigger issue than these other
        annoyances, imho), my absolute favorite reason to run Firefox is the
        AdBlock extension.  Now I don’t have to look at those annoying
        banner ads (like the one at the top of THIS page, which I just nuked –
        no idea what they were selling, but they’ll never sell one to me like
        that!)

      • #3135869

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        When you consider that Internet Explorer, is much sleeker and not top laden with rules and regulations, “Heck
        you can’t even decide the manner in which you would prefer to view your menus”, Internet Explorer is much
        easier to manipulate and far easier to control in just about every facet, why in the world would you want to
        change all that just to go to a program that by  definition “Must” have it’s own way, is not easily placated and a
        general Pain in the Royal Canadian. Why.?
        I’ll stick to my IE Explorer \ Outlook Express and consider it an  improvement as I don’t have to do battle with all
        the other so called Browsers out there and their trunk full of idiosyncrasies.
        It always amazes me that people are willing to just about kill themselves to learn a new program such as Firefox
        or whatever but won’t take two seconds to learn and get to know and understand what is under their very noses.
         
        In my opinion, nothing has come along yet to beat the IE Explorer and from what I’m reading now it doesn’t look
        like there are going to be any major changes anytime soon. Thisisn’t bashing, these are facts
        I would suggest developing a thorough and I mean thorough knowledge of what is right under our own noses
        and maybe, just maybe some of the problems will disappear.
        I hope.  🙂
        Regards
        Aaron 
      • #3135580

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by joweht ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        I read some of the critcicisms of Firefox posted here and I wonder if
        people are talking about the same browser I am using, or what benchmark
        is being used.

        Firefox slow ? Buggy?  I have a 3 mb bookmark file, three tool
        bars, extra’s like G mail notify and about 5 to 10 tabs open most of
        the day. I regularly run my other apps as well as a web server and
        Database server on the same machine , and I run Firefox on 4 machines
        just at home, and have experienced 1 crash over the 3 or so years I
        have been using Firefox. Is firefox being compared to other Browsers or
        to notepad?

        I don’t think IE is evil , and I do think that IE 5 deserved to win the
        browser wars, and everyone benefited from a defacto standard. But
        Tabbed browsing, Bookmark organisation ( MS Favourites is a complete
        POS for organising book marks) and the fact that I don’t have to switch
        gears for something as basic as web browsing when I move from a windows
        machine to a Linux machine would be advantages enough. I might even be
        prepared to weigh some disadvatages against those advantages, but I
        have not experienced them, and I have not experienced these problems
        through the few hundred computers where I have installed Firefox for
        Clients, (ususally to take care of some problem caused by IE’s affinity
        for Malware). I have not had anyone complain about performance or
        stability, and the very small number of people who moved back to MS IE
        full time did it because they were comfortable in that interface, or
        because one of their prime activities online was using a site that used
        IE only features such as Active X,, and not because they had
        experienced problems with Firefox in terms of stability or Performance.

      • #3119000

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by phazed_reality22 ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        there is no way that explorer is faster than firefox x.x on any machine. Ok, it may take a little longer to load up when initially executed…perhaps this is because IE partially loads components during windows startup (which, naturally slows the entire bootup process). If this nags you that bad, then maybe you should check out some of the the plug-ins mozilla has to offer, because when looking into this issue even the slightest bit you would notice that they have designed one just for this, along with many other features IE will never match until years later…claiming that it was their idea all along of course.

      • #3118931

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by kenfong ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        The reason for me to switch from IE to Mozilla or Firefox is not about performance or ease of use. It’s because many computers in our company are haunted by BHO worms, which could take a few hours to remove. The lack of tabbed browsing, pop-up killer, and a handful of extensions are other reasons I find IE lagging.
        I’ve experienced a few Firefox glitches too, but the fix as simple as killing the app from task manager, and I’ve only done that <10 times in the past year. If you have a problem with IE, you probably need to reboot or perhaps spend hours to search for a cure - obviously you can't uninstall IE and do a clean install.
        Patches is a good idea. But when installing a new computer requires 30 patches and 5 reboots (xp sp2 comes with IE6.0, which needs to be upgrade to 6.01 followed by a nunmber of patches for 6.01), I appreciate Firefox's full build simplicity.

      • #3118485

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by roho ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        As a web developer I use all available browsers I can get installed on
        my system. So I have seen my fair share of irks and breakdowns of each.
        Firefox remains my main browser, for several reasons. From a developer
        point of view it is the best W3C compliant rendering browser I have. As
        a web surfer I like it because of the many extensions available.
        So when someone gets fed up with my favorite browser I am getting interested. Not to flame him for being a moron, but to see why he is displeased.

        Some time ago there was discussion after Symantec cam up with a report stating Firefox had more security holes then Internet Explorer. Many thought this was not completely true, including me. Any bad news about Firefox is worth reading and commenting as we should learn from that to make Firefox better or just to spread the gospel.

        Now the points brought forward in this post are IMHO valid observations.

        • Updates.
          Updates can be somewhat cumbersome, but I think it is still a smoother
          process then Internet Explorer’s updating system. Still version 1.5
          should improve this. It hasn’t yet bothered me much.
        • Slow.
          Slow in initial loading. Yes, it is. But IE is an unseparable part of
          the OS and is already loaded when the Windows loads. So, comparison is
          a bit unfair.
          Slow in use. I have not reaaly had any problems with that. I have
          ususally about ten applications running at the same time: Outlook,
          SharpReader, Firefox, a couple of instances of Visual Studio, Firefox,
          Internet Explorer and more. I have not found that Firefox brings my
          system to a grinding halt it ususally is one of the others.
        • Buggy.
          I agree that most of the problems I have had in Firefox were related to
          Extensions and/or Themes. Although every now and then Firefox does
          crash, but not more often then IE.

        What I liked most about the post was that we have someone who uses
        Firefox everyday make some critical remarks about the product. His main
        point that Open Source is not per se the magical Silver Bullet, but
        just another piece of software and so is bound to have bugs. And since
        it is not written by yourself there are always things that you might
        wish it could do, like getting a cup of coffee.
        I have to do that myself, now. Well, all right.

      • #3118382

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by gymbutt ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        ‘Firefox’ is your main browser.  Maybe because it is much safer at
        this point in time.  I have to disagree however, with the CPU
        usage and your update issue.  I have a 3200+ AMD CPU and with
        ‘Firefox’ and ‘Thunderbird’ running my average CPU usage is 3%. 
        The memory usage does seems high, but I figure that software complexity
        will keep escalating and CPU manufacturers will continue to advance CPU
        capabilities to accomodate the demand.  Updating ‘Firefox’ has
        been streamlined.  I run the 1.0.7 version and by double-clicking
        the Icon next to the ‘Mozilla’ logo in the upper right hand corner;
        ‘Firefox’ automatically looks for and installs updates.  A list is
        provided when any addons can not be updated. 
        As for the need for speed, both ‘Firefox’ and ‘IE Explorer’ have their
        speedy and pokey personalities.   Also, when addressing ‘IE
        Explorer’ only sites,  installing an addon that allows the user to
        view a site via ‘IE Explorer’ solves the problem and you don’t have to
        exit ‘Firefox’.

        I use ‘Firefox’ for the following reasons:
            1.    More secure than IE Explorer. 
            2.    ‘Firefox’ can be customized
        extensively with a large selection of Exetensions, Themes and Plugins.
            3.    I can tweak and control
        ‘Firefox’ depending on the site visited and the potential for malware
        intrusion.
            4.    I have more trust that the
        ‘Mozilla Organization’ will address security and other issues faster
        and more honestly.

      • #3119687

        Getting fed up with Firefox

        by nonexistant ·

        In reply to Getting fed up with Firefox

        I first tried out Firefox around version 0.6 and innitially I was
        amazed by how fast it was compared to IE.  But then, after a few
        version upgrades and the addition of god only knows how many themes and
        extensions (all of which are from different, and unnofficial
        sources…and they demand periodically to be upgraded too…), Firefox
        started slowing to a crawl, hanging, maxing out the cpu and
        crashing.  I’m not an IT pro…just a home user running an old
        second-hand IBM with an 800Mhz P3 and 128Mb of RAM…I’m also not what
        most people would consider a “geek” either.  So it took a while
        and a lot of stumbling around trying to find the right search terms on
        Google before i found out what was wrong and in the meantime i took to
        using the Mozilla Suite instead – but after a while that started doing
        similar, especially if I tried using the Azureus P2P software at the
        same time.  Turns out it’s all the themes and extensions (which
        sort of seems to make sense at least to me – lots of addons from
        different sources, none of whom seem to co-opperate with each other
        seems to me to be a brilliant recipe for a creating a total mess of
        conflicting code.)  Small wonder Firefox and Mozilla slow down and
        freeze up really…

        (By the way, I still use Firefox, Mozilla and IE….and Netscape and
        Opera as well, but Mozilla is the browser that seems to get most use
        from me.)

    • #3136133

      Going from a Neon to a Viper

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I drive a Plymouth Neon to work every day. Not a Dodge Neon mind you,
      but a good old fashioned Plymouth Neon. Nothing fancy. It’s a nice
      little car. Gets great gas mileage. Runs nice. Peppy 2.0 liter 16 valve
      4 cylinder. Not fast mind you, but it gets the job done. Certainly not
      a Viper by any stretch of the imagination. But I like it. I wish
      it was faster sometimes, but I still like it and use it.
      That about sums up my experience so far with my Lenovo Tablet PC. Until now.

      It’s been a nice little unit. I use it every day. I like it, but
      I really had expected it to be faster than it was. I had
      mentioned the speed problems I’ve had with it in other blog entries.
      I originally thought it was because it was loaded down with too many
      services. Then after I removed the unnecessary stuff, it still was
      slow. Then I started suspecting Norton Antivirus which is notorious for
      slowing down machines. But not even Norton’s could make it as slow as
      it felt.

      Not any more. Now my Tablet PC is a Viper. It boots fast, opens
      programs fast. Everything’s zip, zip, zip. What was the difference?
      Power Management.

      Lenovo shipped me the unit with its Power Management settings
      configured to run the CPU at its slowest setting whether it was plugged
      in or on battery. Specifically, it was running at 243Mhz. Kind of like
      running a 10 cylinder Viper on 2 cylinders.

      With my HP Omnibook and Dell Inspiron, the Power Management settings
      were always configured to run at low speed on battery and high speed
      when plugged in. I didn’t initially think to check to see if the Lenovo
      was configured the same way, just rather made the assumption it was.

      Using IBM’s Power Manager, you’ve got about a dozen different choices
      for how the Tablet PC operates on AC and on battery. You can also set
      custom configurations. Mine came from Lenovo configured for Timers Off,
      which essentially set everythint to the slowes possible setting to
      maximize battery life and speed recharge times.

      The first thing I did was set it back to Thinkpad (Default). That made
      the Tablet work like my Dell and HP – faster on plug-in, slow on
      battery. The difference for the Thinkpad’s settign was how it handled
      the CPU when plugged in. On the default setting, the CPU is configured
      for Adaptive speed when plugged in. That means that the more you use
      it, the faster it goes. When you’re not using the computer as much, it
      throttles back the CPU. On battery, it still ran slow all the time.
      When I ran the tests with the CPU on Adaptive, the computer told me it
      was now 593Hmz. Closer, but not the fully advertised 1.5Ghz.

      So, I set the settings to Maximum Performance. That was Full Power all
      the time – battery or A/C. Immediately it registered at the full speed
      and the computer responded exactly the way I expected it to out of the
      box. Naturally however, the battery took a major hit. Running at full
      speed, IBM’s 6.5-hour battery now exhausts itself in about 2 hours. And
      because it’s running at full power when plugged in, the battery also
      charges slower. I wound up with the speed of a Dodge Viper, and
      mileage to match it.

      For now it’s back to what should have been the original default. Why
      Lenovo shipped it to me as it was, I can only speculate. Now it will go
      fast when docked and slow to preserve battery power when not. I
      may play with the Adaptive CPU speed to see how it affects battery
      life, but that will be for another blog entry or TPG Article.

    • #3117800

      Happy Birthday Firefox!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      After the last blog entry I made about FireFox
      and its accompanying torrent of responses, I was almost hesitant to
      write about Firefox again. But, yesterday marked Firefox’s 1st
      anniversary of public release, so I figured I had to at least offer
      congratulations. 

      Until last year the browser wars were basically considered over. Opera,
      Safari, Mozilla, and what was left of Netscape  buzzed around IE
      like mosquitos around an elephant. Now all the buzz is around Firefox.

      Firefox 1.5 is right around the corner. I just downloaded and installed Release Candidate 1.
      The installation went well with no big gotchas. As soon as I’ve kicked
      it around a while, I’ll give you my impressions – and try to find a
      fire extinguisher for  the responses.

    • #3131220

      First glitches with Firefox 1.5

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Here I was all ready to enter a new blog entry about Microsoft and how it was mulling creating free versions of some of its applications with advertising built-in.  So, I clicked Add A New Post and entered a title. Unfortunately I couldn’t enter in body of the blog. For some reason, the entry screen here doesn’t support Firefox 1.5.  Luckily, I was able to just fire up IE to enter this.

      I’ll have to check with the team that’s in charge of our blogs to see if it’s a Firefox issue or a Jive issue.  Even so, let’s hope it’s not a harbinger of what the next version of Firefox is going to bring.

      • #3131200

        First glitches with Firefox 1.5

        by steven warren ·

        In reply to First glitches with Firefox 1.5

        lol

      • #3129055

        First glitches with Firefox 1.5

        by alangeek ·

        In reply to First glitches with Firefox 1.5

        I won’t use IE at all, except as an absolute last resort. I mostly use Opera for everything, then Firefox if necessary, then anything else I have available (Konqueror or Netscape on Linux) before I’ll ever fire up IE.

        Unfortunately, TechRepublic just broke the “Next page” or “Forward” function for Opera in the discussions, so it now just goes to a Dice.com ad. I hope they fix this soon.

    • #3131866

      Microsoft Works ? Brought to you by TechProGuild?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Now that OpenOffice 2.0 has
      finally shipped
      and Microsoft has released Office 12 into
      beta
      , a lot of noise has cropped up around office suites. Even competitors
      you haven?t heard of in a long time such as the WordPerfect Office Suite are
      making news again. One of the more interesting articles I saw, was where
      Microsoft is embedding ads into certain of its office
      products such as Microsoft Works.

      Works, as you probably know, is Microsoft?s entry level
      office suite. Running an older version of Microsoft Word and some
      Works-specific spreadsheets and databases, Works is supposed to give people who
      buy computers some software to get basic work done after they buy a low-end
      machine. I don?t know of any small business that actually runs on Microsoft
      Works. It?s aimed purely at the entry-level home user.

      Even so, it?s interesting that Microsoft is considering
      embedding ads into the software. They?re still mulling about how it would work.
      I assume it would be something similar to the way that Opera used to do it on
      their web browser ? you?d have a banner at the top by the menu bar. But I?m
      sure Bill has something much more clever in mind.

      What’s kind of amazing in that article is the fact that Micrsoft
      only makes $2 on each copy of Works that it bundles with PCs. Of
      course, spread out over probably millions of machines that come with
      Works preinstalled, you’re talking real money. But even so Bill
      probably has that much loose change in his couch at home.

      For now, I guess enjoy that ?free? software that come with
      your computer. It?s possible that soon your office suite and your operating
      system itself could start popping ads up while you?re trying to work. It?s even
      possible that Microsoft software could be brought to you by TechProGuild
      someday!     

    • #3122295

      Happy 20th Bday Windows!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Yesterday (November 20) was the 20th birthday of everyone’s favorite
      operating system – Windows. Windows 1.0 shipped November 20,
      1985. Looking back at Windows 1.0 now is something of a joke. The old
      graphical DOS Shell that came with DOS 6.0 was more graphical than
      Windows 1.0. You could run a few programs in Windows 1.0, but it
      was mostly a file manager.

      Windows 2.0 was only slightly better. A few programs such as Excel
      actually debuted on this version of Windows. Later incarnations of 2.0
      such as Windows 286 and Windows 386 began to show the direction that
      Windows was starting to take.

      Windows 3.0 – and especially Windows 3.1 – was where Windows finally
      took off. As with most things Microsoft, the first couple of releases
      weren’t the ones you wanted. You had to wait until they started getting
      things closer to right, and that took, and still takes, about 3
      versions. Windows 3.0 was nice to look at, but a disaster to run.
      Especially if you wanted to multitask DOS programs. I used DesqView
      back then and it was much better for multitasking than 3.0. Windows
      3.0’s interface was better than 2.0, but still left much to be desired.
      It wasn’t until Windows 3.1 that Windows really took off.

      I still have a copy of Windows 2.03 running on a Tandy 1000 of mine at home. I fire it up every once in a while, mostly to play Balance Of Power.
      As I’ve pointed out before, it’s kind of funny that my 7Mhz
      286-accellerated Tandy 1000 running Windows 2.03 boots faster to the
      desktop than my 2.8Ghz P4 Dell boots Windows XP.

      Windows has survived the onslaughts of Mac, Linux, and OS/2 on the
      desktop. It’s conquered Unix, OS/2, and NetWare on the network. With
      Windows behind it, Microsoft Office destroyed Lotus 123, WordPerfect,
      and dBase. Internet Explorer crushed Netscape in just a few years.

      Will Windows remain #1 forever? It’s hard to tell. Chinks have appeared
      in the Microsoft armor, but as of yet it doesn’t look like it. We’ll
      see what the next 20 years hold. Noone would have guessed we are where
      we are today based on Windows 1.0 20 years ago.

      • #3122286

        Happy 20th Bday Windows!

        by rexworld ·

        In reply to Happy 20th Bday Windows!

        I think the next 20 years will see less, not more, innovation in
        software.  We’re at the point where there’s so much code in even
        the most pedestrian applications, it takes a while to add new
        functionality and features.  Look at the huge temporal gap between
        Windows XP and Windows Vista.

        That’s what’s in store for us, I suspect.  There will be
        innovations on the edges–iPod is a good example, DVR another. 
        But the Operating System is going to be a much slower upgrade path from
        here on out.  Which I think also means that Windows’ dominance is
        here to stay for a good long while.  With upgrade cycles this
        long, it’s going to be quite a while before anybody dislodges Microsoft
        from the top of the heap.

    • #3122127

      Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Now that the big Holiday Shopping Season is upon us, not to mention that time of year when you?re busy trying to finish spending what?s left of your IT Budget, you?re probably watching the flood of sale ads. As you?ve probably noticed in many sale ads, almost everything comes with a rebate nowadays.

      Rather than just lowering prices on items, retailers such as CompUSA, Best Buy, Office Depot, Staples, and so on team up with manufacturers to offer rebates to advertise ?lower? prices on items. Often an item will have two rebates tied to it. Sometimes there are as many as three or four.

      Why offer rebates and not just straight up lower prices? Because rebates work ? for sellers. They entice people into buying the product because of the lower price and then often the rebates aren?t ever processed or received by end users. A recent article in Business Week pointed out that 40% of advertised rebates never get redeemed. Retailers and vendors keep all the extra money and still get the original sale.

      Personally, I don’t like rebates. If I have to choose between two products, I’ll almost always go for the product which is truly ‘on sale’, even if the one with the rebate winds up being slightly cheaper in the end.

      You don?t have to worry about rebates when you?re a TechProGuild member. Original articles, downloads, and access to the 250-book TechBook library are all free. You can?t get any cheaper than that. Also, as a TechProGuild member, you get 20% off of all purchases from our online catalog, even on third-party books such as our O’Reilly Hacks-Pack bundles. That?s 20% off the top straight-up. No rebate forms to fill out, send in, and hope you ever get back.

      Want to see who’s next On the Soapbox? Find out in the Blog Roundup newsletter. Use this link to automatically subscribe and have it delivered directly to your Inbox every Wednesday.

      • #3122066
        Avatar photo

        Rebates: Savings or scams?

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Scams, absolutely scams.

        If a retailer or manufacturer truly wishes to promote a product, they’d simply reduce the price (as in, have a sale, not cut-the-UPC-from-the-box-then-remove-the-special-rebate-code-then-address-the-form and send two copies, originals only, to Sri Lanka).

      • #3121932

        Rebates: Savings or scams?

        by rexworld ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I’m actually going to agree with Erik on this one.  Every now and then he’s right.  🙂

        It’s so misleading to advertise a sale price in big bold print, and
        then put a little asterisk with tiny print that details the multiple
        rebate forms you have to submit to actually get that price.  The
        biggest scam is the taxes–the store may claim the “final price” is $20
        after the $40 rebate, but in fact you had to pay sales taxe on the full
        $60 purchase price.  You don’t get the taxes refunded, yet the
        store is allowed to claim the lower sales price in their ads.

      • #3127686

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by mill3502 ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Let’s face it, it’s very attractive to retailers because they show higheer profits and that is the name of the game.  They put it on the consumer to get their money and as you pointed out 40% of the time you don’t.  I’m still waiting for my rebate from a unnamed PC manufacturer and it’s been 3 months.  And last when you cut that UPC you give up your right to return the product for a refund because you have destroyed the packaging and the most you can claim is a swap again keeping profits up.

         

      • #3127474

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by mirrormirror ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        SCAM!  I have had my rebate rejected with the note that they need original documents sent to reconsider my rebate.  Well, DUH…I can’t send the originals ’cause I already sent them in the first place!!!  Now, I refuse to buy anything that I have to send something in for a rebate.  What get’s me is that the store will advertise their product at the price that it would be if you actually get the rebates.  I think the stores and manufacturers should have a lawsuit filed against them for complicity in nonpayment of rebates.  In advertising the price with the rebates, aren’t the stores implying that you will receive your rebate?  Where’s a lawyer when you need them?

      • #3127473

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by gsg ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Most people are too lazy to fill out the rebates.  They buy the product with the best of intentions but never get around to it.  On the other hand, if you do your research, and turn in the rebates, and bug them until you get your check, it can turn out OK.  That’s how I purchased a $1600 laptop for only $800.  Oh, and it was an open stock item.  If you purchase open stock items, then the “sticker price” is just a place to start.  Best Buy and Circuit City in particular will negotiate with you on their open stock items.

        So the short of it is, yes, they are a scam, but only because of basic human nature.  If you send those rebates in, and make sure you get them back, then you can get a good deal.

      • #3128691

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by jay ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I’ve only had 1 rebate rejected, since then I always send the mail
        certified, costs about $2.50 but worth the time and effort to get the
        money.  You have to read the instructions very carefully, if it
        says circle the sales price and you don’t, that means the form isn’t
        filled in right and it gets rejected.  Some are very sneaky, the
        rebate form will have check boxes but the instructions say to circle
        the item you have.  Most will reject PO boxes even though they use
        a PO box to collect the forms.
        I use a PO box for all mail and for a long time I could put the street
        address of the post office  and my box number as a suite number
        and it would get delivered, but that all stopped after 9/11, guess the
        terrorists were doing this too.

        Intuit even did a direct deposit of my $100 for Quickbooks.

        If you feel you’ve been ripped off let the manufacturer know, file a
        complaint with the postal service, complain to the store, tell them you
        bought the product on the belief the rebate would be
        honored.   Call the local TV station that has a victim’s
        advocate / troubleshooter program, let the store and manufacturer know
        you’re doing that.  Call your credit card company and see if they
        can withhold payment to the store.  The sellers are counting on
        your laziness not to pursue this, the odds are in their favor you’ll
        bitch and moan and do nothing else.
        Jay

      • #3128674

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by zaferus ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        The retailers defend rebates as a way for them to “track” the success of their promotions.  But you’re right the real reason is they can advertise a lower price and not have to pay all of it back.

        I’ve had rebates I’ve sent in and never gotten the money – when I call they say there is nothing they can do since I’ve already sent in the original UPC and they won’t take anything else as proof.  Nice, huh?

      • #3129101

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by skyzyx ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I bought a dell computer three years ago and was supposed to receive a 100 dollar rebate…after numerous phone calls and letters of complaint I’ve given up trying to get it…other than wasting my time…it proved to me that rebates are more of a “bait” than anything else

      • #3129063

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by alangeek ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I’ve read postings from people who claim to have worked at rebate centers. They often state that the marketing people assure the retailers that they will reject as many as 40% or more of all rebate applications received to limit the retailer’s payout. Other people have mentioned receiving rejection emails claiming that the form was never received, when that’s the only way they would have gotten the email address in the first place. It’s all a major scam, and I’m sick of it. I had one of my rebate checks for $50 sent to me with someone else’s name on it, so I wasn’t able to cash it. The last purchase I made required ** 7 ** forms to be filled out and sent in to various addresses across the country, and in the case of some that went to the same address and PO Box, it was stated that they must be sent in separate envelopes or they would not be honored. This is getting way out of hand.

      • #3129033

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by smorty71 ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I generally avoid rebates, too. The only time I will make an exception
        is when I have had a positive rebate experience with that company in
        the past. For example, DirecTV is really good about their rebates (2
        week turnaround), so I will buy their products that require rebates.

      • #3129027

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by dobbinsm ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I think that if the government wants to do something really great for the consumer, they could pass a bill eliminating rebates and make the manufactor and stores give you the precentage off up front.My stomach curls up in knots with disgust and anger everytime I see a rebate offer. I would like to take that rebate offer and …….. well, you get the picture.

      • #3128984

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by jo.shell ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I have had some good luck in the past with rebates of smaller dollar amounts, but I’m currently waiting for rebates on a computer I bought.  Okay I bought it in the summer, and I’m still waiting!  The last “delay” was that they said they didn’t have my correct zip code.  Well, no…you won’t have the correct zip code when YOU only type in 4 numbers!!  Hummm, and my copies had 5 numbers on the zip.  Go figure.  Of course, from the time I got that problem corrected they say its another 6-8 week wait.  And all this started when it took me almost 2 hours (yes, TWO) to fill out all the forms, scan it all so I would have copies, and mail them off..in separate envelopes of course!!  Never again is what I’m saying!!!!!  It is just a big rip-off. 

         

      • #3129393

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by fyrewerx ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I’ve had ten rejected rebate requests — all from the biggest scammer of all:  Symantec.  Each time, I made copies of all submittals, and STAPLED all required submittals together.  When I received the “reject notice” via email or website posting, I’ve successfully challenged all ten.  It may not be completely Symantec’s fault — just sloppy handling by their rebate contractor, Parago.  However, Symantec should realize they are losing customers by allowing the scam to continue — or maybe they just figure they have all their customers “locked in.”

         

      • #3129341

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I have made it a rule, a long time ago, that I “NEVER” go for rebates. Rebates are the bottom feeder’s way of trying to get your money and then lead you one hell of a dance if you try to get any of it back. I go in, buy the product, paid for in full, and leave. I’ve even had sales clerks try and stear me unto this rebate thing, then I point out that I’m living in Canada and they are in Florida, Texas, San Fernando, or whatever, then I ask her what she thinks my chances are that I’ll get a fair shake if anything goes wrong with the product. All she does is raise her shoulders and smile.

        That’s what the rebate program is worth, and so I made it a rule for myself, If I can afford it, fine, if I need to rebate the darned thing, they can keep it.

        God even Symantec has tried this nonesense and been represented poorly. If they know it, then they deserve what they get in lost sales, but if they don’t know it, “WAKE UP SYMANTEC” you’re being done in by you’re own reps.

        We won’t around forever.

        Thank you for your attention

        Aaron 🙂 

      • #3126877

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by nobodyhome ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        The best experience I have had with rebates is with Staples (office supply company) “Easy Rebate”
        system.  It is all done online, they keep you informed as to progress, and you do get the rebates within
        the time they specify.  No mail-in or shaving off a UPC label is necessary.  Of course, it applies only
        to items bought at Staples, in-store or online.

        That said, I still detest the rebate system of price inflation.

      • #3126833

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by born4fun ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        There is no question in my mind  that most rebates are scams. Look at the numbers. About 80% of people purchasing rebated items don’t ever complete the rebate forms or mail them in during the reqired time period. Of the 20% that do complete everything and meet all the absurd requirements  30% to 40% will have their rebates refused as incomplete, out of date or not for the advertised product. And this does not include the additional few percent who’s forms will be listed as not received at all. Thus for all the advertising benefits to the retailer or manufacturers, the actual cost is about 12%, not the 40-50 or 60% of prices being advertised. The worst offenders in my opinion are those in the direct sales channel. Dell Computers makes you buy something at full price, fill out a bunch of forms, send them in and wait 6-12 weeks to get a rebate. Try telling their financing arm (DFS) that you will begin making payments as soon as you receive their rebate and see what happens to your credit rating…Shame on you Michael Dell!  Shame on all the retailers who participate in this ongoing scam, and shame on us as consumers for not insisting that the retailer sell us the item for the price advertised before the asterisks and wait for the rebates from the manufacturers themselves.

      • #3126815

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by hermit47 ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I worked for a call center that had Dell for a client, doing their customer support. In the time I worked there, Dell had gone through many confrontations with customers over strict policies with rebates. The issue escalated to the point where Dell requested that we try to press policy, but rather than lose customers over misunderstandings, send a request to the rebate center to reprocess the rebate. It was our understanding that Dell made provisions with the rebate center to accept and reprocess rebates that were accompanied by the request sent by customer service reps. The only rebates refused at that point would be ones that were neglected and in some cases outdated by up to a year or more; Also ones that were offered under limited circumstances like offers for a particular configuration, but the customer added or changed items in the purchase, would be refused.

        While it is true that rebates are nothing more that a “come on” to make the purchase. Flyers and advertising are nothing more to retailers than a tool to draw customers to the point of purchase. Packaging is nothing more that art to entice the sale, so if they splash the “come on” at you and you purchase, then the art worked. Any rebate I have ever seen has always had rules to follow to redeem it. That’s what makes it different from an up front sale. I have also noticed that the price stores put on THEIR shelves is the price you pay at the register/check-out. That is the market or retail price, and other types of sales and discounts would be applied to that price.

        Perhaps the best lesson learned in any of this is simply;

        • Read the fine print before the purchase, then decide whether it is a good deal.
        • When rebates are offered, terms are written either in fine print on the document, or if on the web, links are attached for the details of the offer, read it.
        • Pay attention to footnotes and asterisks, they are the “ifs” of the offer.
      • #3126807

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by boomslang ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        About the only thing that works is Staples online rebates. They give
        you the rebate info on a duplicate receipt, you go to the website, fill
        in the information and they pretty much process it within the time
        period they say is needed to fulfill it. I have yet to be burned on one
        of these type of rebates.

        Where it gets sticky is when the rebate is a third party manufacturer
        rebate that the manufacturer will not allow Staples to process through
        their website. STAY AWAY FROM THESE. They pretty much conform to the
        40% failure rate mentioned, and it is not worth your time fighting for
        the $10 rebates as you will waste way more than $10 of your time and
        life trying to get them to be honored. I shop with that in mind and
        read the rebate crud. If it is one of these types, I just do not buy
        it. Hit Pricegrabber or Nextag and usually you can find it cheaper
        anyway. Vote with your dollars and DO NOT SUPPORT these fraudulent
        come-ons.

      • #3126803

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by da philster ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Mail-in rebates exist because people let them exist.

        Somewhere along the line, the idea of satisfying the customer has disappeared. The customer has to jump through hoops to be served. Try reaching a real live person for assistance. Good luck! Welcome to “Press this or Press that hell” So the manufacturer saves a few bucks on real live people. Isn’t the customer’s time worth anything? Someone is definitely getting “shortchanged” here.

        Back to mail-in rebates. I agree with all the deficiencies already listed and would like to add that many people put the full purchase price (plus taxes) on their credit cards on which they already run balances. The merchants that have their own cards (often at APR in the 30% per annum range) make out quite handsomely on the “rebated” amounts on which the interest clock ticks away.

        Personally, when I am offerred a mail-in rebate deal, I just walk away from it AND tell them why. I neither have the time nor the patience for this kind of foolishness.

        “You can make a difference”

      • #3128101

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by 123xyz ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Insert comment text here

         “Rebates” are used as incentives to purchase their products – not to offer the buyer any “cut in price”. They want to sell and collect their monies. . .and then “cut bait” to move to the next fish). They have absolutely no desire to  assist in fulfilling any “rebate” promise. You are totally on your own after they get your money. A big sell pitch for buying a Dell computer (and signing up for Verizon’s DSL when buying the computer) was a rebate of $100. I bit the bait – months later, no rebate. I checked “on line” as I was told to – it told me “none” under “Rebate”. I went ballistic and was just as determined to get the $100 as they were to not giving it to me. I didn’t let up – documenting everything – I thought that Dell certyainly must have some integrity somewhere! Guess they decided I was too much trouble, and they sent me their check for $100. My opinion is that if this was a true “rebate” and not “reBAIT”, I would not have had to fight for my money. To the retailers who do this, I say SHAME ON YOU for making this a part of your selling strategy. Rebate should be spelled . . . REBAIT!  As I see it (and have experienced it), that’s what it is used for – BAIT.

        Barbra Richman

      • #3127875

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by darcellep ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Customer service has went to hell in a handbasket.  Most people in customer service act like you are being a pain in the butt when all you need is informaton.  I worked in Customer Service for 28 years and I was very concerned why customers were irate.  I always told my customers to document everything.  Most everyone has a large calander in their home.  I use to tell my customers document on your calender jeverytime you had to call, the person you spoke with, and the reason you were calling.  If the representative told you they would do a follow up with you on such and such a date, circle it on the calender with the letters FU and the company name.  File a complaint with the BBB against the company if necessary.  I did not receive a rebate of 300.00 for a computer I purchased and the company went bankrupt.  I like most of these postings will not buy anything that has a rebate unless it is given up front with my purchase.  Let these manufacturers know how you feel, call them and file a complaint directly with them and maybe that could change the guidelines on their so called “rebates”.

      • #3127862

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by pet ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        You can be a cynic and call them scams, or you can judge them for what they are: making customers jump through a few hoops to claim their savings. The business week article that 40% of advertised rebates never get redeemed are the fault of customers, not companies unwilling to rebate them. The onus is squarely on the customer to follow the instructions correctly to get their money back. No one forces you to buy something with a mail-in rebate. Here’s an old news flash I revealed earlier this year: http://www.techforthetimid.com/2005/05/are-mail-in-rebates-scam.html

      • #3129777

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by chug ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I agree that given the choice I would much rather not deal with rebates, and I agree that the reason retailers do them is because they know most will never even be mailed in.  BUT, until the general public just quits buying things on rebates, rebates will never go away and there are just too many good deals to pass up to not use them.  I do probably 20 or 30 rebates each year for at least the last 5 or 6 years and have NEVER had one that I didn’t get the money.  I get maybe 1 per year that I do get a rejection notice for but I always keep copies of everything I mail in (I just scan them and keep PDF copies on my PC instead of keeping paper, but keep paper if that’s your only option) and any time I’ve had one rejected I contact the company immediately and they have me resend the copies and it’s always accepted after that.

        Also, almost all rebates can be tracked on web sites now and this makes it much easier.  I check the status on my rebates online about 2 weeks after I mail it to make sure it was accepted, and then about a week after the deadline the form said I should get my check to see if the check had been issued yet.

        The one BIG complaint I do have is that it takes so dang long to get the rebate check after it’s received.  With e-mail notification on most rebates now you know exactly when they received it and most rebates take at least full months to get the check after it’s received.  CompUSA rebates are the WORST, they usually take close to 6 months!  This is even when the rebate form clearly states “8 to 10 weeks” or maybe “12 weeks”.  With some very rare exceptions I never get rebates within the time frame the form says I should.  One thing I would like to see is somebody (some state attorney generals maybe) go after these companies and make them stick to the time frames they advertise.

         

      • #3129772

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by hewitt_charles ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Right on the money. I don’t even want to think of how much money I’ve been hosed out of because of the rebate scam.

        I really like sorry can’t have two rebates for the same two products  go to the same address. Even though I bought two of the widgets. I would rather just buy something without the d__m rebate than get ripped again or buy online. Rebates just suck!!—ch

         

      • #3126572

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by hypnotoad72 ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Scam.

        MAXTOR said I lost out on a $100 rebate, claiming I did not include the original receipt.  That was a lie.

        COREL said I didn’t send in the Paint Shop Pro rebate form in soon enough.  That was a lie.

        MICROSOFT said I didn’t include sufficient proof of
        purchase information, so I had to carve up my other OS box. 
        Whatever, but I did get the rebate.  (which reminds me, I’ve lost
        out on OTHER rebates (usually ‘competitive rebates’) because of this
        box-cutting bull.

        Been 3 months now and I’m still waiting for $20 from another company as
        well.  Pity I didn’t get “We’re telling you to bugger off because
        ____” as I’d love to add in their name too.

        Mail order or nothing, I won’t play the infantile game anymore. 
        They don’t care, apart from going back on their word using excuses they
        know we can’t prove against (they hold the evidence!)

        And thanks to open source, more and more rebates become a non-issue.

      • #3126433

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by dwightp ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Recently purchased a color laser printer thru Staples.  It had a $50.00 Staples rebate.  Because my arm was in a cast, a  Staples manager at the store, who sold the product, filled out the rebate form and attached all the correct slips and UPC code.  Several weeks later, rec’d notice that the rebate had been rejected because the attached UPC was the wrong one.  Back I went to Staples and showed the store manager the email.  She told me she was sorry but there was nothing that could be done and she only filled out the forms for me as a “customer service”.  Took out my Staples card and asked if I could borrow a pair of scissors as I WOULD NOT SHOP at a store that treated it’s customers the way Staples did.  She asked me to wait a moment and came back with $50.00 is discount coupons (had to buy almost $500.00 to get the $50.00 savings).  I mailed my cut-up card to the VP in charge of customer service, along with the discount coupons and a letter and copy of all the rebate documentation.  About 2 weeks later; I got a new card in the mail saying they were replacing the damaged card!  NEVER AGAIN!  Unless the rebate is an “instant” rebate, I will not buy the product and NEVER AGAIN at Staples!

         

         

         

         

      • #3126353

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by sql_joe ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Never had a problem with the Staples Easy Rebate program.  I am wary of others.  I think sometimes they’re just very slow (accruing interest).  Its been more than once that I’ve received a check in the mail from someone and had to do research, only to learn it was a rebate check from over a year ago!

        George

      • #3126270

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by chug ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        Regarding Staples Easy Rebates, I’ve never done one of these but I read something somewhere that the rebate isn’t actually a check that you can cash or deposit, but instead more like a gift certificate or gift card good for credit only at Staples.  Is that true?  If so, that’s absolutely worthless to someone who doesn’t shop there often.  I almost bought something out of their day after Thanksgiving ad until I saw the comment about the easy rebate only being store credit.

      • #3095945

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by suavebob0 ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        The rebate matter sounds like the US Postal Service. My boss complained about my appointments with the Veterans Administration Hospital. I told him that I was given these appointments by my doctor and he made the decision that they weren’t important. I kept my appointments and he wrote me up. I made a grievance, but level 1 was with my supervisor who gave the usual answer (DENIED.) My level 2 was with his partner downstairs who came up and berated me in front of my coworkers and gave the usual answer (DENIED.) My level three was between two people (one from Connecticut and one from New Jersey [I’m from the Bronx, NY and was workingin White Plains, NY.]) When I went to arbitration, the arbitrator sat down with me and told me that hegets to go on many trips around the country arbitrating Postal disputes and is paid very well. Naturally, he have the same answer (DENIED.) I went to the EEOC and they told me that because I worked for the US Postal Service, I would have to go to the Postal Service EEOC. The called me on the day of the arbitration and asked where I was for the hearing (Everyone lese was there, where were you?) They were told that I was at work (because I had found a job because I needed an income.) I called them back the next day and told them that I wasn’t there because I hadn’t received notification of a hearing. They had a copy of the Return Receipt Requested which was not signed on the back (the Postal service sends everything Return Receipt Requested because they do not pay for it.) They got me in touch with someone from New York City who DENIED my request for another hearing and got me in touch with someone from Washington, D.C. (who, also, DENIED my request for another hearing) and ever since then, I’ve been getting the run-around. It took me two years before I got a copy (front and back) of the Return Receipt Requested showing that I had not received the notification. Incidentally, the job that I found was with a Rebate House as a Rebate Inspector.

      • #3207351

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by laketahoeent ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        My girl friend purchased two phones with $100.00 rebates
        each from verizon. I am very familiar with the difficulty with rebates, so I
        took it upon myself to make the copies and send them out myself. After not
        receiving any rebates I decided to contact Young America to see where my rebate
        was. The gentleman was very courteous to me and told me to send out the
        original receipt for the phones and I would receive my rebates shortly after
        their receipt. I did not want to do this as in order to get my insurance if my
        phones were lost or damaged, I would need original receipts. I did send out the
        original and waited. After one month I received my letter un-opened with the
        words time has expired for this rebate. I called young America only to be told
        that it was too late and I was out of luck. So I asked to contact a supervisor
        and was told the same thing. This was after talking with a very courteous young
        man who had said there would be no problem and just send in the original
        receipt. Now I feel I was lied to and wasted all the time I invested to receive
        this money promised to us. Very Disappointed and upset with the customer
        service that I received. I will copy this letter to the President of Verizon
        and to various consumer blogs (http://www.uspirg.org/consumer) (http://www.maryschmidt.com/2006/03/24/we-value-your-business/)

        (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/01/free_the_ad_scr_1.html#comments)

         and websites
        until this problem is resolved.

      • #3280154

        Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        by uhopfer ·

        In reply to Rebates: Do they provide real savings or are they nothing but scams?

        I just got ripped off by Symantec who did not honor their rebate for Ghost10. Their justification: Invalid postmark. That does not make any sense because their posted purchase period is 9/23/05 and 12/31/06, according to the coupon. Today is 10/6/06 and I bought Ghost 10 in June 2006, which clearly falls in the posted period.

    • #3126291

      OS/2 Lives!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      With all all the talk around here lately of MacOS vs. Linux vs.
      Windows, it got me thinking lately about my old Microsoft Alternative
      OS Of Choice – OS/2. Long ago having lost the desktop war with Windows,
      OS/2 quickly faded to obscurity. Even IBM announced earlier this year
      that it had decided to stop selling it.

      But,
      that didn’t keep me from firing up the old OS and seeing if it would
      still work as an alternative. To that end, I loaded up FireFox 1.5 for OS/2. With a little bit of help from Innotek’s Font Engine and Java,
      I got the machine mostly updated to a level where it’s actually running
      fairly well and reasonably up to date for daily use. This particular
      post is being written on Firefox 1.5 and OS/2.

      I’ve been able
      to do most of my work today on OS/2. It’s been at least as stable and
      efficient as my SuSe Linux 10 test machine, and in some cases even more
      so. For example, I’ve discovered when I open a multiple set of
      bookmarks as tabs under Firefox on Linux, Firefox becomes good for
      nothing else until the tabs have mostly all finished loading. On OS/2
      (as under Windows), you can continue to do other things.

      Can I do everything
      under OS/2? No. There are still a few holes that make it a little less
      than a 100% desktop replacement mostly for software reasons. Until
      OpenOffice 2.0 appears for OS/2 early next year, I’m stuck using
      StarOffice 5.2 or an old version of Microsoft Office for basic
      wordprocessing or spreadsheets, creating a bit of a compatibility
      problem more so than a functional problem. For most things however,
      there’s usually an OS/2 workaround if you’re REALLY a diehard user.

      IBM may be halting the sale of OS/2 but you can still buy a new version of it called eComStation.
      This is a licensed version of OS/2 that is sold by Serenity Systems. It
      includes updates and new commercial programs that may make OS/2 an even
      more viable Microsoft alternative. I’m thinking about giving that a
      look at this point.

      Is OS/2 as fast as Linux or Windows? Hard to tell really. My OS/2
      machine is an old 450Mhz Pentium III with 320Mb of RAM. My Linux test
      machine is over 1Ghz and my production XP box is 2.8Ghz. By raw
      horsepower, naturally this box is going to be left in the dust no matter what OS you put on it.
      However, OS/2 was designed to run in 8Mb of RAM on a 486, so it should
      be a LOT more efficient overall. I’ll have to put it through some
      actual tests and let you know.

      The
      moral to the story however is that sometimes when you’re trying to
      decide between two things, sometimes the actual answer comes from a
      third – and sometimes unexpected – alternative.

      • #3126278

        OS/2 Lives!

        by master3bs ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        Interesting.  I had been wondering about OS/2 recently and whether
        it could still be used productively.  I never used it myself,
        although I did come across some OS/2 install floppies a few years back.

        Out of curiosity, I am now downloading eComStation.  It should be a fun adventure.

      • #3197784

        OS/2 Lives!

        by wcerniglia9 ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        Many years ago I installed OS/2 Warp on a PS/2. It was needed to connect to an IBM AS/400 threw a Token Ring for an application called “CallPAth” This machine ran for about 7 years without any downtime or problems. In fact I left the company and for 2 years no one even new what the PC was for.

         It seemed to be a very stable OS. Maybe I will get a copy of this eComStation and reminisce.  Thanks

      • #3197728

        OS/2 Lives!

        by pweegar1 ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        A number of years ago I worked for the State of Arizona. We had an OS/2 V1 machine used as a print server!  That pc was rock solid. Never had a problem with it. OS/2 was a required OS from one of our vendor’s we used to scan, view, store and print documents electronically.

         

        Would love to see OS/2 run on a fast computer. With lots of  RAM. That could be exciting!!!!

      • #3127442

        OS/2 Lives!

        by rsteiner9 ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        Nice to see someone else discover that OS/2 isn’t quite as “dead” as some would make it out to be, at least in terms of what it can actually accomplish. I still use Warp 4 as my primary platform at home myself, although I suspect I’ll be moving to eCS 1.2 relatively soon. My box is only a PPro/200 with 192MB of RAM, but that’s really all it needs. 🙂

        As far as word processing goes, don’t forget that Lotus WordPro (formerly known as Ami Pro) is still out there as part of Lotus SmartSuite (available from places like Mensys for around US$150), and DeScribe was pretty good also if you can find a copy (look on eBay). Also, there are some fairly nice free graphics programs around: Embellish was released as freeware (binary only) for OS/2 by Dadaware and PhotoGraphics was released as freeware by TrueSpectra, and both can be found on Hobbes. The former is a little like an object-oriented PaintShop Pro, while the latter is … different. 🙂

        If you go the eCS route in the long term, Pixel has also been ported to eCS, and it might work on OS/2 as well if you use SciTech’s SNAP graphics drivers.

        To learn more about some of the things happening in the OS/2 world, check out the <a href=”http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/”>OS/2 News and Rumors Site</a>…

      • #3127172

        OS/2 Lives!

        by ac4fs ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        I loved OS/2.  I used 2.11 and 3.0, back during the “Windows 3.1x”
        days, and really loved it.  It could multi-task effortlessly on my
        486-66 with 16 MB of RAM.  I have thought about trying eComStation
        many times, but just can’t get over the price they are asking.  I
        suppose I should bite the bullet and get it though.

        It’s a darn shame IBM couldn’t keep OS/2 as a viable platform. 
        There are a lot of folks using Windows now that probably wouldn’t be,
        if only they had a modern up-to-date alternative for the PC
        platform.  I remember feeling quite crushed by the way IBM handled
        OS/2.  In the words of some long lost writer: “IBM managed to
        snatch defeat in the OS wars, right from the jaws of victory!”.

        I have been running Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X as my main operating
        systems for quite some time now.  I do still have one Windows 2000
        Pro computer, but that’s just for my work.   I realize Linux
        is a far cry from OS/2, but it does what I need it to do, is very
        stable and virus-free, and hey, the price is right too!

      • #3125201

        OS/2 Lives!

        by debuggist ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        AFAIK, OS/2 is still used for automated teller machines. I once saw one
        boot up (using Warp) in a hotel lobby after a power outage.

      • #3120817

        OS/2 Lives!

        by hschoenman ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        At one time OS/2 used to run every (or at least nearly every) ATM machine. While OS/2 still may be in use on some, the vast majority have converted to Windows (2000 or XP).

      • #3196758

        OS/2 Lives!

        by petedude ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        I’ve tried eComstation’s Live CD.  For a revamp of an old platform, it’s a surprisingly nice “blast to the past”.

        Has anyone noticed that eComstation supports USB removable media?  That means you could conceivably use it to move data off a failing OS/2 box. . .

      • #3197970

        OS/2 Lives!

        by martiniturbide ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        The new evolution of OS/2 Warp operating system, eComStation 2.0 beta 1 is available for eCS Software Subscribers.

        The most significant updates on this beta version are:
        – SNAP/ENT the special licensed version of SNAP by Serenity is in there, we boot Snap directly from CD-Rom
        – Bootable JFS, this version is able to install on bootable JFS
        volumes. Installing onto a bootable JFS volume will show a dramatic
        performance increase!
        – ACPI Driver if ACPI is detected for improved hardware support
        – Updated Snooper drivers for improved hardware support during installation
        – Updated eWorkplace to support ACPI

        For more information visit:
        http://www.ecomstation.com/ecomstation20.phtml

        Regards

      • #3197959

        OS/2 Lives!

        by martiniturbide ·

        In reply to OS/2 Lives!

        USB removable media runs fine on OS/2 Warp 4 and eComStation. Almost
        every USB Flahs memory works under OS/2.

        You can visit this page for more information on the drivers you need.
        http://www.os2warp.be/index2.php?name=usbremovables

    • #3197726

      Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      A little more than a year after releasing the first version of Firefox,
      Mozilla.org has finally released Firefox 1.5. This new version is supposed to
      add all sorts of new features including Live Bookmarks which merge RSS and
      bookmarks, improved error pages, improved patch mechanisms, as well as more
      security and faster load times. Naturally, with all these new features, you’d expect it to be less efficient.

      I started by loading Firefox 1.5 on my Linux
      workstation. I had a few conflicts with packages loaded by prior versions, but
      it was nothing that was Firefox’s fault. Once it was finally up and installed I
      checked to see how big of a footprint Firefox 1.5 had over Firefox 1.07. Here’s
      what I found:

      • Firefox 1.07 showed RAM usage was 38.7MB, with 78.6MB of Swap.
      • Firefox 1.5 showed RAM usage was 40.7MB, with 78.4MB of Swap.

      As you can see, Firefox 1.5 is a little bigger on my
      test machine than Firefox 1.07. But this was on a Linux machine and your mileage
      may vary anyway. The added bulk hasn’t seemed to have negatively impacted
      performance though. Firefox 1.5 seems to load a little quicker and load pages
      quicker than 1.07 as well.

      On my Windows XP workstation, Firefox 1.5 consumes 20.5 MB of RAM
      before visiting the first page. The real proof in the pudding however
      is how it performs as you use it. Visiting the TechProGuild homepage
      immediatlely causes Firefox’s usage to climb to 24.8 MB on Windows and
      42.3 MB on Linux. Load a couple of articles and read them, and the
      memory usage continues to spiral. Firefox 1.5 occasionally releases the
      memory but not as fast as it should. There have been occasions on my
      Linux box where Firefox has grabbed over 150MB of RAM and wont let go
      even though there’s only one window and page active. Normally
      however that’s after I’ve had several windows and dozens of tabs
      running.

      It’s interesting that Firefox uses less resources under Windows than
      it does under Linux. I checked Erik Eckel’s Mac and Firefox consumes
      more memory there as well. I’m sure this has a lot to say about
      the robustness of the development tools.

      • #3197642

        Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        by steven warren ·

        In reply to Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        Please perform the same test on IE 7 Beta and include this in your results.

      • #3121450

        Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        by netnerdo9 ·

        In reply to Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        IEbeta7 doesn’t run on Linux. And comparing Windows “stats” to Linux
        “stats” is a little unfair considering that the Windows internals
        (i.e., how memory usage is offered up to tools) is only knowable and
        properly exploitable by MS insiders. In other words, Windows can
        produce skewed results however it has been programmed to do and there
        is no independent 3rd party to verify that what the stat tools say is
        actually truthful or based on similar definitions of memory usage
        (shared or otherwise) as defined on Linux.

        The bottom line test is how does it feel to the user? IEbeta7 on Windows vs Firefox on Linux.

        ps. Consider perhaps testing an FF build that has been optimized and
        has various speedups turned on (not that this is how it comes out of
        the box but it would still provide useful metrics for what is
        achievable to any user that wants to go the extra mile tweaking). As
        for IEbeta7, I don’t work for Microsoft so I don’t know what to
        recommend except that I think it only runs on Windows XP so that (and
        all the memory that the machine would require to support Windows/IE
        shared internal libraries) would be a requirement.

      • #3125761

        Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        by silviostar ·

        In reply to Christmas is coming – Firefox is getting fat

        Installing firefox and Thunderbird is the best thing that happened in my life in the last 5 years.
        I though before that I was not influenced by marketing ,but I was wrong,
        The Bill Gates boys have a lot to learn from the guys of Mozilla ,the first ,how to develope
        a flexible and friendly utility,with OPTIONS.
        I am a simple consumer,my opinion is not worthy in Tech matters,the only think I know is that from now on,I will consider all options in software,that will make as consequence ,to save hundreds of MGb and have a faster computer.
        ss

    • #3121435

      5 IT Headlines You Won?t See In 2006

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Ah yes, it?s that time of year. A chill in the air. Wishes of holiday cheer. Increasing traffic around shopping malls. And the mandatory predictions of what?s to come in the New Year.

      Rex Baldazo has already given you his views on what we won?t see in the news in 2006. So has Erik Eckel. Now it?s my turn. Fortunately, a tear in the space-time continuum that appeared as a result of loading OS/2 onto a 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 PC allowed me to connect to a News.com page dated 12/31/2006. Here?s what I didn?t see:

      1) Technology X displaces Microsoft X in the marketplace

      I don?t care if we?re talking Web applications, Linux, OpenDoc, MacOS, Firefox, or Google. Every year we hear of the Next Big Thing that?s going to crush Microsoft. It hasn?t happened yet, and chances are it?s not going to happen any time soon. The only caveat to this prediction may be the PlayStation 3 going over the xBox 360, but until it ships, even that?s debatable. Microsoft?s biggest enemy in the marketplace is Microsoft itself, and until it makes a fatal mistake, nothing else is going budge it.

      2) Vista ships on time ? with a full feature set

      Microsoft has a history of creating illusory ship dates. Maybe Slip Dates would be a better term for them. As the shipping date gets closer, one of two things invariably happens. Either the ship date changes or features get tossed over the side. Beta 2 has already been delayed while promised features like WinFS suddenly have become possible options in the future. Vista may indeed appear in 2006, but it will be very late in the year, and without a full set of features that were announced years ago.

      3) Novell returns to profitability

      This one pains me because I?ve long been a Novell and NetWare fan. The problem is NetWare market share is dropping like a rock at the same time Novell is trying to sell a free operating system that has a version dominated by RedHat. Novell has a solid record of selling operating systems to business and understanding networking in general, but so far it hasn?t been able to turn this reputation into profits. Being squeezed by Microsoft, RedHat, and The March Of Progress, Novell is in a whole world of hurt. I hope this one turns out to be wrong.

      4) IT Budgets Soar

      The economy may be slowly improving, but with the sudden changes that still appear all the time such as oil shocks, terrorism, and natural disasters, the economy is far from being strong. IT is usually the first thing that gets cut when times go bad, and it?s usually the last thing to be restored when things appear to get better. Business wants to make sure that it can get widgets built and sold consistently and profitably before it starts budgeting for the latest computer gadget. Get used to doing more with less.

      5) Apple crashes and burns

      The Mac may never replace Windows on the desktop or in the server room, but at the same time, Apple?s nowhere near in danger of disappearing or becoming irrelevant. The iPod continues to bring in cash and the Mac itself has a hard-core enough following that Apple doesn?t have much to worry about. And let?s not forget that if things do start looking scary for Apple, that?s usually when Steve Jobs shines and pulls a rabbit out of his hat. GM will crash and burn before Apple does.

      • #3135280

        5 IT Headlines You Won?t See In 2006

        by ideaguy ·

        In reply to 5 IT Headlines You Won?t See In 2006

        function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>Excellent Top 5 HLYWS in 06!function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        } class=”khtml-block-placeholder”>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>#5 – “GM will crash and burn before Apple does.”? Absolutely correct.function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        } class=”khtml-block-placeholder”>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>My .02 ?function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>GM isn’t any different than many PC manufacturers, building junk en masse from most of the line up with the occasional gem, most (95%) running with ‘an outdated engine’ using all the same underpinnings it had decades ago. Shiny knobs and whizzy names are added year after year and despite being touted as the largest automaker in the world, GM faces collapse because consumers are quietly walking away.?function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        } class=”khtml-block-placeholder”>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>I chuckle whenever I see or hear of someone beaming about how excellent their Sunbird, or Sunfire…. wait for it…… El Camino was. What’s funnier is glowing reviews based mostly on limited or no exposure to another brand or type. “I drives what I drives cuz my daddy drove it too.” I suspect that many of the same people who have influence over desktops and server rooms probably drive GM products daily. Does anyone remember (or even know) that keys for a one GM product often fit similar cars… and worked. Yup, the industry leader couldn’t be expected to have all the bases covered. Poor stupid masses. Seems to me I could be describing Microsoft instead of General Motors.function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        } class=”khtml-block-placeholder”>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>iPods, not unlike Minis or Vespas or Prius’ are hallmarks of function and oftentimes design too. They usually do what they do better than any other.? Apple will continue to be a much more relevant company than Microsoft, just like Honda and Toyota are compared to GM. IMO, since day one, any Mac has always been a better vehicle to drive, so to speak.? It will take a long time to get all the detroit, ooops… redmond pig iron that has been made (Win 95, 98 and so on) onto the scrap heap but that is because there is a whole infrastructure that supports this behemoth can’t see past the next block.? function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        } class=”khtml-block-placeholder”>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>MS for so many years, like GM, was asleep at the wheel, is currently overcorrecting and the writing is on the brick wall it is about to become a part of.?Market share matters most to the who has most to lose. GM is toast.? IMO, Microsoft should pay close attention to what is happening to GM.function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>function (match)
        {
        return match.toLowerCase();
        }>

      • #3196872

        5 IT Headlines You Won?t See In 2006

        by pkr9 ·

        In reply to 5 IT Headlines You Won?t See In 2006

        Number 6 is:
        Companies turn to buying IT based on business needs and business descisions -like when buying new production machinery – and not as of now, based on what Microsoft tell them they need.

    • #3079678

      eComStation 1.2 Arrives!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Last year ? ok last month ? I mentioned that I started
      kicking around OS/2 on one of my workstations at home and found it still
      relatively useful. I also mentioned how Serenity Systems had been working on a
      licensed version of OS/2 called eComStation. I had read a lot about ECS on the
      web, but hadn?t gotten a chance to use it. I figured there was no better time
      than the present.

      After checking out ECS at the eComStation Web site, the folks at
      Serenity Systems and Mensys
      provided me with a review copy. Longtime users of OS/2 would be impressed.
      Serenity Systems has done a lot to improve the OS/2 experience. They?ve taken
      the basic code from IBM and added many new and third party features such as the
      SciTech SNAP Graphics and Danis506 IDE drivers.

      Unlike most other OS/2 installations I?ve ever done, ECS
      installed like a dream. It wasn?t completely as simple as a Windows
      installation, but was easily in the same neighborhood as YAST installations
      I?ve done with SuSe Linux. The only glitchy point with the ECS installation I
      found was driver support. I had some network and sound card driver installation
      problems. ECS has a wide variety of pre-installed drivers with it, but if you
      consider it, you should make sure that your particular hardware is supported by
      ECS or OS/2 before you install it. IBM still maintains a list
      of drivers and so do some third
      party sites
      .

      I?ve installed ECS 1.2 on an old HP Kayak with 512MB of RAM
      and an 800Mhz Pentium III. No, that?s not state of the art hardware by any
      means, but seeing as how ECS and OS/2 have lower hardware requirement to begin
      with and OS/2 was designed originally for a 486 processor, I thought it was a
      fair baseline machine. For testing purposes, I?ve also configured up a copy of
      SuSe 10.0 on an identical box. When I do comparisons to Windows XP, I?m going to
      give XP the benefit of the doubt by using my 2.8Ghz production
      Dell.

      In the short couple of weeks I?ve been using ECS, I?ve become
      attached to it. I?ll be updating you later about how it works as an Windows and
      Linux alternative. So far, the only drawback in comparison to either of them is
      the price. Linux of course is free. By virtue of being ?included? with almost
      every PC, Windows XP is also ?free?. 
      eComStation 1.2 costs $224. That?s in line with Windows XP Professional,
      but it?s still a big barrier.

    • #3097189

      Viruses don?t seem to know when to quit

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Virus infections seem to be like natural disasters. They hit
      and make a big splash in the news, and then you never hear anything else about
      them. As if after the virus has been released, anti-virus vendors come up with
      a fix and you never hear about the virus again. Naturally things like that
      never happen.

      This became crystal clear for a company that I do some IT
      support for.  The company hadn?t had me
      over for a while and some things need to be done. The office manager had been
      having some problems visiting certain Web sites and she hadn?t been able to
      view some images on sites whether she used Firefox or IE.

      First thing I did was have her show me. She fires up a
      browser and goes to enter the URL for the site in question. While she?s typing,
      I look down to her task bar and notice that her anti-virus isn?t running.

      You can see where the story?s going without me finishing it.
      I quickly determined that she was infected with the Bagle-W worm and several
      other variations thereof. After a while of trying to eradicate it, I finally
      just wound up reinstalling Windows XP.

      Bagle-W is old news. It debuted around mid-2004. When I last
      checked her machine in the late fall, it was fine, so that means that somebody
      forgot to remind the worm that it wasn?t supposed to still be infecting
      machines. It just goes to show that you can never feel safe about catching a
      virus just because you hadn?t heard about it for a while.     

      • #3257732

        Viruses don?t seem to know when to quit

        by van morris ·

        In reply to Viruses don?t seem to know when to quit

        That’s why I always recommend using security tools like SafeSystem from the company GemiScorp Software Solutions (http://www.gemiscorp.com/english/safesystem/info.html). This security tool perfectly complements my other security programs (antivirus, antispyware and firewall). This program doesn’t need to know in advance which virus, worm, spyware or malicious code is trying to infect my computer, it simply doesn’t allow any program to be installed or copied to my system while I’m surfing the Web or working with my computer. Later, if I need or want to install anything I just temporarily disable the program protection, perform the operation and then enable the protection again. It’s that simple and I’m protected at all times no matter if my antivirus isn’t updated or even disabled.

        Here you can see a couple of screenshots from the program:
        SafeSystem screenshot

        SafeSystem security alert

         

      • #3257467

        Viruses don’t seem to know when to quit

        by crond ·

        In reply to Viruses don?t seem to know when to quit

        I’m not sure that I can agree with your confident conclusion posted in your final paragraph. Presumably when you last checked her machine in late fall (2004 or 2005?), the anti-virus software then installed should have been protecting against Bagle-W, and that protection should have continued provided that the anti-virus software was receiving regular updates and that users of the machine hadn’t been disabling it (for their own spurious reasons). The more ready conclusion that I would have been likely to draw was that necessary anti-virus software operations hadn’t been in place at some point, thus allowing the infection to occur.

        You could more charitably assume that this machine had been infected with a new variant of Bagle-W in the period between when it was released onto the net and when anti-virus profiles containing its definition became available. Such a situation wouldn’t, however, come under the heading of new infections caused by an old problem. The problem has effectively been re-invented, even if it does remind one of similar historical sightings.

    • #3259890

      File trading can result in virus trading

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Last week I mentioned my
      recent encounter
      with a virus that had recently resurfaced. We still
      haven?t been able to trace down exactly how she got that virus, although it was
      probably through an infected email.

      The other day I was presented with another computer that
      refused to boot. All it would do when you turned it on was beep pitifully. It
      was an HP Pavillion. Not having the beep codes handy, I surmised it was simply
      some bad memory and when I reseated the RAM, everything worked fine ?
      almost.  The beeps stopped, but the
      computer refused to load Windows XP. It would merely sit on the Welcome screen.

      After running Windows XP?s Repair on the unit, I got it to
      boot and noticed that just like last week?s machine this one had Norton?s
      Antivirus running, but it was turned off. When I got anti-virus running, I
      discovered that there were 72 viruses on it. Most of them were labeled as being
      Trojan downloaders. A quick spyware scan afterwards revealed over 200 different
      entries in registry, running programs, and other spyware problems.

      From where had all of THESE problems come from? That didn?t
      take long to discover at all. In addition to tons of viruses and spyware
      programs, the computer was ALSO running several file sharing programs including
      Limewire, Kazaa, and WinMX.

      File sharing programs do more than just leave your
      organization open to viruses and spyware. They can also leave it open to
      litigation as well depending on the types of files being shared. Educate your
      users about the pitfalls of these programs. You should put a policy in place
      about their usage, and if necessary deploy the hardware and software necessary
      to keep them from being used on your network.

    • #3109209

      Next up: MacOS X

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I?ve been running
      SuSe Professional 10.0
      now for several months to test out as a Windows XP
      alternative. So far, that?s been working ok, but Linux hasn?t been without its
      problems.

      I?ve also recently installed a copy of eCommStation
      1.2
      ? the latest incarnation of OS/2. That?s been a fun trip down memory
      lane and the improvements that Serenity Systems have added to eCommStation over
      OS/2 have been astounding. In some ways, it?s a lot better than SuSe
      Professional 10.0. In others, it?s still been a bit bumpy.

      Even though the jury is still out on both of these systems,
      now I have a new one to deal with. Everyone knows how fervent TechRepublic Editor Erik
      Eckel
      has been lately about MacOS X. He recently passed me his Mac mini, so
      that?s now on my list of things to work with.

      The little white brick is currently sitting on top of my eCS
      workstation. The first challenge was getting it to work through my KVM switch
      which I thought was going to be a problem because the KVM is all PS/2 while the
      mini has USB ports. A USB/PS2 converter made short work of that and the mini
      hooked up with no problems. It didn?t even react badly to the Microsoft Natural
      Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse I have connected to the KVM – a good first
      impression.

      I?ve sipped the Kool-Aid, but haven?t taken a
      complete drink yet. Since hooking it up, I?ve still spent more time in Linux
      and eCS than on the Mac, so it?s not fair to judge yet. We?ll see how it goes.

    • #3135132

      TechRepublic?s New Test Lab Takes Shape

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      TechRepublic has long employed various
      test machines deployed in a miniature network. The network has allowed us to
      create original content as well as test the tools and solutions that
      contributors send us before we ultimately publish them on the site. Although we?ve had network servers and
      workstations running the latest software such as Windows Server 2003, the
      hardware itself has been getting a little long in the tooth.

      Our original test lab consisted of primarily Dell Dimension
      XPS client machines, HP Kayaks, several clones, and one very ancient and creaky
      200Mhz Pentium Pro HP Vectra VA. We have one NDS tree, one NT Domain, one
      Windows 2000-based Active Directory tree, and one Windows Server 2003-based
      Active Directory tree. You?d also find several Linux boxes, a couple of Macs,
      and one eCS workstation. The poor overworked machines supported network
      applications like ISA Server 2000 and 2004, Exchange 5.5, Exchange 2000,
      Exchange 2003, Lotus Domino 5, and GroupWise 6.5. All in all, the machines did
      a lot, but they weren?t terribly representative of an actual production
      network.

      As Erik
      Eckel recently mentioned
      , we recently purchased three new machines for the
      network. We received two Dell PowerEdge 1850s and a Dell Precision 380
      workstation. Added to that, we got 5 older Compaq Proliant DL360s and a few
      other older Proliants as well from TechRepublic?s IT department that were no
      longer being used in production. All together, the new TechRepublic Labs test
      network will have over a dozen servers running everything from Windows NT and
      NetWare to Windows Longhorn Server. On the client side, we?ll have Macs, Linux,
      and just about every version of Windows. (I?m even considering bringing in an
      old Tandy 1000 that?s running Windows 2.03 and putting it on the network just
      for the heck of it.)

      Once the network?s up and running completely,
      we?ll have a network that completely mirrors what?s running in the typical
      small to medium business. It won?t be all cutting edge, but it also won?t be
      completely obsolete either. We?re forseeing problems with heating, electricity,
      security, access, and all of that other fun stuff that you deal with on a daily
      basis. Through it all, we?ll use it to ensure that the content we provide
      becomes even better in the future.

    • #3106888

      OK ? I admit it. I use an Office Assistant.

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      They say confession is good for the soul, so here?s mine. I know it?s sure to cost me several hundred Esteem Points in the IT world, but nonetheless. I have an Office Assistant running on my copy of Office 2003. Specifically Links The Cat.

      The sad truth was revealed the same way truths always are ? by an unintended revelation. I was demoing Windows Vista to a friend of mine and when I switched back over to my Windows XP machine, I had Outlook up with Links sitting there happily in the corner.

      Yes... it's true. this is on my pc.

      ?What?s THAT?? he said.

      ?What? The cat? Oh, that?s one of the Office Assistants from Office 2003. Y?know ? like Clippy.?

      ?Yeah, I know ? but what?s it doing there??

      The fact of the matter is I happen to like Links. He (She?) reminds of a cat I used to have who?s name was Casey. Plus it?s amusing to see some of the things it does. Like the little stamping paw prints when you send something to the printer. Or whipping out a laptop and typing up an email when you use Outlook.  Casey didn?t used to do all of that, but she did like to curl up in my lap when I worked on the computer, so Links is close.

      I know everyone hates Clippy. Personally, the first thing I do whenever I install Office is either turn Clippy off or swap him out for Links. The assistants can be annoying at times, and they do add unnecessary overhead, but they can be amusing, so I don?t mind. I don?t think I ever USE it for anything, but it?s nice just to have it on the screen.

      I started loading the assistants back in Office 97. At the time, I loaded The Genius, who is an Albert Einstein knock-off. I always felt sorry for him, because the Office 97 Assistants were stuck in these little windows. They looked trapped in a way. The Genius is missing from later versions of Office, but Links has been a good addition.

      Ok ? so there you have it? it?s out in the open. Whew. I feel a lot better now.

       

      • #3093480

        OK ? I admit it. I have an Office Assistant loaded.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to OK ? I admit it. I use an Office Assistant.

        “Hello, my name is Palmetto, and this is my first visit to OAA (Office Assistants Anonymous).”

        I like Links. I have a ginger cat at home who acts just Links. At least, like Links does when you empty the Deleted Items folder and the darn critter shreds everything.

        I also run F1, the small two-legged robot. I’ve been know to click Animate dozens of times trying to get him to do either the backflip or the Happy Dance.

        There were two other cats before Links.  Scribble was included with O97 and was an origami cat made from a piece of lined notebook paper.  The other was a mangy blue flea bag of an alley cat who had to be downloaded from the MS web site.  I can’t recall his name, nor can I find the download any more.  If anyone has seen him, please send his URL home to me…

      • #3253194

        OK ? I admit it. I use an Office Assistant.

        by joanre ·

        In reply to OK ? I admit it. I use an Office Assistant.

        Thank you. I knew there was something missing from my office Office. Just installed F1. Cute litle bugger. Yes, me too, don’t actually use him but he’s nice to have around.

    • #3092929

      Mac to the rescue!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I was relating a story to TR’s Mac-o-phile Erik Eckel
      about having to use the Mac mini to burn some Windows Server 2003 R2
      MSDN ISO images because I couldn’t get the new Dell Vista workstation
      to do it, and he insisted I blog about it. So here we go.

      I decided that we needed to be running Windows Server 2003 R2 in the
      test lab and not plain old Windows Server 2003. As such, I downloaded a
      fresh pair of images of R2 from MSDN. They come in an ISO format, which
      like ISOs in the TechProGuild Download Center, require you to create
      working CDs from the image. My production machine doesn’t have a
      CD-burner on it. Nor does any other computer in near proximity. We had
      a workstation on the test network that did have a burner on it, but
      it’s now in pieces so I couldn’t use that. What to do?

      Aha! Our brand new Dell Precision 380 comes with a DVD burner! We can
      just use that. Wait… no we can’t. It’s running Vista 64-bit and the
      CD burning software refuses to recognize the burner. Not a good sign.

      Fortunately, I still had the Mac mini sitting in the cube and IT has a
      CD burner in it. I disconnected it to play with Vista, so all I had to
      do was swap some cables and fire it back up. Once I connected to the
      test server that had the ISO images stored on them I got the CDs burned
      in no time.

      So now, while Windows Server 2003 R2 is installing on our new Dell
      PowerEdge 1850, my coworker has a big grin on his face because his beloved Mac
      was able to create the CDs to make it happen when the fancy new Dell
      couldn’t. Talk about Job Satisfaction.

      • #3133104

        Mac to the rescue!

        by conundrum ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        Good ol’ Mac. How I miss them!!

      • #3091184

        Mac to the rescue!

        by skooboy ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        Although my eyes welled-up with tears as I read your Wintel song of lamentation…I’m still trying to understand the point of your story.  This doesn’t sound like a technical edge of one platform or computer over the other, rather, this is a simple story of human error I’d be rather embarrased to tell.  Now let’s see, you can’t afford CD burners in your workstations, but you can afford the 64-bit software.  Plus, you’re running this advanced software on a PC not meeting the HCL requirements.  Well congratulations on creating such a problem for yourself.  It sounds as though the Mac came to the rescue after the tech guys created an emergency. 

        I won’t delve here too deeply into the Mac-PC platform war, but I’ll add 2 points regarding Macs that everyone should know.  Apple releases a new OS every year.  “Great!”, you say.  But hold on.  If you check the system requirements for virtually any piece of Mac-compatible peripheral equipment in any given year, you’ll see that the OS from sometimes just 1 year prior is not supported.  For example, if today you purchase a scanner for your late-2004 or early-2005 Mac, you will probably need to upgrade your OS as well.  And if you lack the memory requirements of the new OS, you’ll be required to purchase additional memory, too.  In another example, the latest version of Firefox will only run on OSX 10.4.  But you bought your Mac in 2004?  Go buy 10.4 today (even considering that 10.5 will soon be released!).  I call that insanity for an enterprise.  If you purchase the same peripheral equipment for the PC, most likely Win ’98, 2000 Pro, and XP will be supported operating systems.  Second point: take it from the admin of a 50/50 Mac-PC enterprise (I know, it’s not my fault), Mac hardware costs are astronomical.  You cannot simply purchase any internal parts for the Mac.  The Mac-compatible parts market is very tight and confined to a few vendors’ products.  Power supplies typically cost me $150 each, PRAM batteries–$150/year (for 100 Macs), PAV boards–from $200 to $600.  And those are trade-in prices lowered for higher education.  I never condemn anyone’s preference of platforms, but Macs present several increased costs for the enterprise.

      • #3091114

        Mac to the rescue!

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        *chuckle*

        Well, it doesn’t have much to do with affording the CD’s in the
        workstations. Our standard configuration when these stations were
        bought were non-RWs. All of the production machines were bought that
        way. The 64Bit machine is for the test network only. And it does have a
        burner in it itself. It’s just that the beta version of 64Bit Vista is
        allergic to just about every CD-burning software I’ve put on it.

        So yeah, the wounds are semi-self-inflicted, but it doesn’t nearly rise
        to the incompentence level that you’re suggesting in your post. The
        moral to the story was how ironic it was to be generating Windows
        Server 2003 disks from a Mac when Vista couldn’t do it.

        As for the Mac-Windows Holy Wars, I won’t get into that. I leave that up to other people…

      • #3091065

        Mac to the rescue!

        by gustavomora ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        Interesting tale… I like all the systems and machines, but I like them when they are on a production environment, in a lab that is not .. by definition… the place where everything works perfectly. I’m not sure burning cd’s defines a benchmark…

      • #3101278

        Mac to the rescue!

        by automationguy ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        MAC: It just works!

      • #3101207

        Mac to the rescue!

        by mnedrow ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        John,

        Thank you for telling the world about the power of the Mac. I have often wondered why anyone would want to use any Apple product. Finally I have my answer. Mac’s are good as a back-up CD burner! And to think that I was just using them as paper weights.

      • #3101129

        Mac to the rescue!

        by bostechie ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        So what? Vista is still in Beta.

      • #3102700

        Mac to the rescue!

        by jduino ·

        In reply to Mac to the rescue!

        Correction: it wasn’t “the fancy new Dell” that couldn’t burn the
        image, it was the crappy new Windows that couldn’t.Stick in a Knoppix
        CD, or if you have the time, a Window XP CD, and see how it works.

    • #3092100

      Drivers Wanted

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      After going through the hassle of getting the Windows Server 2003 R2 CDs burned, I figured installing R2 on the new test server was going to be a breeze.  Naturally I thought wrong.

      Microsoft hasn’t changed the installation routine on R2 much from the
      original version of Windows Server 2003. Everything went pretty
      smoothly right up until the point where I tried to connect the server
      to the network. Even though Windows Server 2003 R2 is a brand new
      operating system it couldn’t detect the Ethernet controller in my
      PowerEdge 1850.

      Fortunately, a quick trip to Dell’s Web site fixed that. I downloaded
      the drivers, put them on a USB key, and now have them installed on the
      PowerEdge. Now it’s just a matter of continuing the install until the
      NEXT problem shows up.     

    • #3091881

      KDE or GNOME?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One thing I’ve been particularly concerned about when running SuSe 10.0
      was the fact that it seemed to be a lot slower than I expected. I
      have it running on a couple of machines and the graphics just aren’t as
      responsive as I’d like. As a matter of fact, I’d say that Linux feels
      more sluggish on one of my 800Mhz test machines than XP does on my test
      450. And that’s with the 800 running 512MB of RAM vs. 384MB on the 450.

      To get an actual comparitive feel, I recently popped a copy of SuSe
      10.0 Professional on my HP OmniBook. I already have XP running on it,
      so I got another hard drive for the same machine and configured it for
      SuSe 10 Professional. Everything’s the same, except for the hard drive,
      which is of the same model. Sure enough – SuSe 10.0 felt slower. I
      didn’t bother to pull out a stopwatch to get an actual reading, but the general feel of the system was just much slower.

      When I installed SuSe, I chose to use KDE. SuSe comes with 9 other
      window managers including GNOME, WindowMaker, and IceWM. On a whim, I
      changed window managers from KDE to GNOME. The difference was night and
      day. GNOME seemed to be much more responsive than KDE. It loaded programs
      faster, displayed windows faster and was an all-around better
      performing experience.

      The one drawback to GNOME is that it doesnt seem to be quite as
      flexible as KDE. You can’t modify it as easily and the menus are layed
      out completely differently.

      So for now, I think I’m going to stick to GNOME for a while. Even
      though KDE was SuSe’s default manager, GNOME seems to be the better
      choice to squeeze more performance out of the machine. As a side note,
      I recently read that Novell itself may switch SuSe’s default manager to GNOME, so I may be on to something.

      Let me know what your experiences have been with GNOME, KDE, or any of the other Linux window managers.

      • #3091747

        KDE or GNOME?

        by stress junkie ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        I just had a similar experience regarding the speed of KDE vs. Gnome. I am using SuSE 9.2. I generally use KDE 3.3 as my default window manager. When I read this post I realised that I hadn’t run Gnome in a long time so I set Gnome as my default window manager and restarted the X server. I completely agree with you about the speed of screen updates and starting applications. KDE is sluggish. The Gnome 2.6 software on my machine runs faster than the KDE 3.3 software using SuSE 9.2. Now I’ll probably stay with Gnome for a few months before trying another window manager. I round robin between them when I’m in the mood for something new.

      • #3091694

        KDE or GNOME?

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        Try a more lightweight window manager like Fluxbox, FVWM, or Afterstep.

         

        Good luck!

      • #3091676

        KDE or GNOME?

        by swlchris ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        I would suggest ,if you haven’t already tried this ,to recompile your kernel for the exact specs of your machine.
        I have Slackware, which as default install was configured  for 486
        cpu amongst other things. After a recompile to set cpu to P3 700 mhz
        and ditching some things such as as laptop support , etc,etc, it flies
        twice as fast now. Slackware was never known as a slow  distro to
        begin with , but it’s amazing what a close to perfect optimization can
        do for you.It’s fast in either Gnome or KDE.

      • #3100737

        KDE or GNOME?

        by dave howard ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        You guys are WAY to pickie——Put SuSE 10.0 on an AMD 3200+, 1.5 Gb of RAM and see what happens—–KDE is a resource hog like WIndows XP, so give it some more to use—-

      • #3100469

        KDE or GNOME?

        by joedcook ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        John,
        Yes I believe that the “responsiveness” of the KDE desktop is not a
        quick as Windows XP but I still use it as my personal desktop
        everyday.  I haven’t used GNOME to any extent lately so I will
        give it a try again. I just introduced a customer to SUSE Linux and
        sold him a copy of SUSE Linux 10.0. He came in yesterday and said that
        he loaded it with no problem and that he tried both KDE and GNOME and
        that he liked GNOME best.  Great.. I don’t care which desktop my
        customers use and neither should anybody else.  That’s one of the
        benefits of Linux.. we can be different together.

        Now in a corporate environment some standardization is needed so on
        Novell’s Linux Desktop they use GNOME as the desktop. Not so much a
        surprise because both Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza are both
        developers who prefer the GNOME environment. They have made a couple of
        feelers to see if they could just do one desktop and there are so many
        people on each camp that leaving one out would alienate too many people.

        So we continue to have a choice of graphical interfaces and that is a
        good thing, especially because many of us don’t know why we like one or
        the other.. we just do.  But responsiveness isn’t the reason that
        I chose Linux as my desktop regardless of whether I use KDE or
        GNOME.  I chose it because of reliability, flexibility, security,
        and cost in that order.  I have used other distributions.. Red
        Hat, Simply Mepis, and Mandrake but SUSE seems to meet my needs beter
        than any other so far.  Your mileage may vary.

        Joe Cook

      • #3101102

        KDE or GNOME?

        by mat.enders ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        I disagree with your anecdotal evidence.  Unless you had just
        about everything turned off in GNome it is a much heavier drain on
        resources than KDE.   “I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE.
        This ‘users are idiots, and are confused by functionality’ mentality of
        Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots
        will use it.” -Linus Torvalds

      • #3100952

        KDE or GNOME?

        by nico baggus ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        I gave up on GNOME long ago, yes it’s sleightly faster but if I want speed then both gnome & kde deserve to be scrapped. there are faster WM’s around.
        Then functionality.. If I want to print double sided no option on the printer menu (gnome) appearantly it is too difficult to use it as an end-user ==> the user won’t need it, en thus no need to build it.
        Have you seen kdeprinter? if my printer has some special option chances are i can use that option too (think double sided printing, multitray, and such).
        Btw. KDE stands for Kiosk Desktop and is customizable from top to bottom, there are tools for disabling modifying alsmost every aspect of KDE. You can use it as a real KIOSK desktop.

        Integration between components…, kde integrates a whole bunch.. Have you tried konqueror with some exotic protocols typing gg: in stead of http://google.com/ etc. will send your query to google..
        use smb://server/share as a URL and you’re looking at your samba/windows server etc. etc.

        Not just from your konqueror:, f.e. run kate (tekst editor), open a new file (looking for existing ones) and type smb://server/ at your location: field… same view

        All kio_slaves at your service. for newsgroups/manpages/bluetooth/perl doc/python doc’s/windows helpfiles/newsgroups/plain files/ftp/http/subversion digital camera etc.etc.

        gnome looks to me like the dark ages.

      • #3100801

        KDE or GNOME?

        by haas ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        I agree that GNOME is better than KDE. I have used both and found that GNOME works faster but again I am using it just for web hosting, ftp, and mail server. I didn’t install all the apps that came with it because I was not planning to use them. So that might have contributed to the speed difference. I also agree with the other comments that there are other WM that do a good job as well. Before I installed SUSE 10 I did a lot of reading of other users experiences instead of installing them and spending a lot of time to figure out which one would work for my specific needs. So I did my homework so to speak and I installed what I needed and I am a happy SUSE user with GNOME as my favorite WM.

        Peace
        Haas

      • #3273491

        KDE or GNOME?

        by ajmateusg ·

        In reply to KDE or GNOME?

        GNOME is much easy and menus are organized in categories logic

    • #3252275

      Ah – The Joys Of Betas

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Among the test machines we got for the new TechRepublic Test Network is
      a Dell Precision 380. This machine has 64-bit Pentium 3.0Ghz processor,
      2Gb of RAM, and an nVidia Quadro FX 3450 video card.  We speced
      this machine out to be a killer Windows Vista test machine to get the
      full effects of Aero Glass and the works. Theoretically, there’s
      nothing this machine can’t run.

      Except for Windows Vista.

      Ok- it can run Windows Vista. I’ve installed Beta 1 and Beta 2
      on it and everything went just fine. The problem is in the nature of
      beta software. Beta 1 fully supported the Quadro video card. Worked
      like a charm. Beta 2 does not. The December 2005 build shows the video
      card as being a “Standard VGA Graphics Adapter”.

      Oddly enough, a ‘standard’ VGA adapter would only run 640×480 at 256
      colors, but Vista thinks THIS ‘standard’ adapter can do up to 2048×1530
      at 32bit color. The problem is that as a ‘standard’ adapter, Vista
      configures the screen at 1024×768 at 32 bit and does so VERY slowly.
      Dragging a window around the screen pegs the CPU at 100% and looks like
      you’re moving XP screens around on a 486. Painful.

      nVidia’s Web site claims to support the card under Vista, but as of
      yet, even they have not written the drivers for this specfic
      card.  So for now it’s just a matter of waiting for the Vista beta
      to bake a little while longer until the card is supported.

         

      • #3132666

        Ah – The Joys Of Betas

        by steven warren ·

        In reply to Ah – The Joys Of Betas

        For about 124.00-184.00, you can by a supported AGP or PCI card with 128-256 mb or RAM. Vista is still in early infancy beta stages but the os has plenty of supported video cards.

    • #3102457

      What’d we do BEFORE computers?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I just finished reading a book called The Discoverers
      by Daniel Boorstin. It chronicles history around human discovery,
      including such things as the development of the clock, calendars, and
      the ways we went about making some major discoveries that changed the
      course of humanity. It’s one of those books that get you to thinking
      “Just how did we get to where we are?”

      That got me to thinking about computers in general. Just how did work
      get done before computers? I’m old enough to remember the days of DOS
      before Windows took over the planet. But at the same time, I’m too
      young to know how general business got done without word processors,
      spreadsheets, databases, and everything else that we take for granted
      today.

      It makes looking at old TV shows and movies interesting. As much fun as
      it is to see old cars go by in such things, you look at the office
      setting and notice what’s missing as well. No PCs. Certainly no cell
      phones or PDAs.

      So what were the ‘Good Old Days’ like? I’m sure it wasn’t quite like
      The Flintstones, but a reminder would be pretty interesting.  

      • #3102440

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by leee ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Went to the library. Bought encyclopedias from door-to-door salespeople. Used travel agents. Counted on our fingers. Wrote letters. Changed typewriter ribbons. Got paper cuts. Slept at night.

      • #3102435

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Well as old as I am, computers are older. I do remember a time before PCs were everywhere, and where only special people had computers.

        People in accounting had big ledgers and/or big filing cabinets. Things were typed on IBM Selectrics. Thats how my resume was first done.

        Things took a long time. There were lots more steps in most processes with human intervention.

        Life seems like it worked at a slower pace. You accepted a 15 minute wait at the bank.

         

        James

      • #3102432

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by steve.davis ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Read REAL paper books, listened to the radio, sat outside and enjoyed the weather.  I actually went more than a decade without TV, I can’t imagine what I would do now without it or computers.

      • #3102976

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by zlitocook ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I was in high school in 1976 boy I am old 😉 we went to parties and meet people face to face. I could not even use the phone until I was 12 or 13, I read sci-fi and watched tv shows like lost in space and man from uncle. I started using computers in the 80’s and you had to go through a local BBS to get to the internet. That was a great learning experence, at that time you had to build your own TCP/IP stack to get to the internet. And most of what you could get was others just starting out or government sites. And I got into more trouble in those days because I just wanted to look around and the DOD did not see it that way 🙂

      • #3100721

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by ehemdal ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        We had a real secretary who would type our test reports and take
        messages, since there was no voice mail.  It was amazing to see
        her take notes in shorthand — she could capture notes as quickly as
        one could speak.

        Calculators were big, electromechanical things that would take half a
        desk and perform basic arithmetic.  For more advanced mathematical
        work, a slide rule provided a convenience in a much smaller
        package.  For things like trig functions, well, that’s what the
        CRC math tables were for. 

        The requirement to take data, sketch curves, and plot data by hand
        actually improved understanding.  Nothing was hidden inside a big
        software package.

      • #3100505

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by mtn.brk9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        You fellows are all youngsters.  The first computer I programmed was a Univac 1, next was a Univac II and then spent many years with a DEC PDP-1 and so on.  Yup, I’m still programming, but the big difference now is that I have no management responsibilities and just pick and choose the projects I am really interested in.

        One big difference I notice between BEFORE and now is back then we had much less paper stuff.  Just go into a medical facility and look at the piles of paper, most of it dealing with insurance forms, I’m sure.  I was the project director for the design and implementation of the first installed hospital wide medical ordering and patient record system . It was installed in the San Francisco Hospital in 1969.  It had 60 stations throughout the hospital with terminals, badge readers, light pens and printers.  By the way the computer had 16KB of memory with a 5 microsecond cycle time and a second 4KB computer for refreshing the displays.  Our goal was to improve patient care and to allow the medical staff to forcus more on the patient.  The next time you go into a hospital, hopefully just to visit, notice what the staff is primairly doing.  That’s right, paper work,

        Another big thing I notice is when I go shopping.  It used to be that you went up to the checkout counter, the clerk quickly wrote out a receipt, handed it to you and you were on your way.  Today, even when things are moderately busy, you stand in line with the few articles in hand that you want and wait while the clerk types the information and then waits for that to be digested and then wait somemore for the printer to fire up and print your receipt.  It’s all very impersonnal, I think, because the clerk is a computer operator and does not have to pay attention to the customer.

        I loved the work I did and am still doing, but in my opinion computers have not, in any way, lived up to their promise and that promise was to improve the quality of life.  Instead they have become the beast that demands service.  We are becomming the servant and they are becomming the master.  For that I blame the fact that we, the implementors of computer tools. focused on the wrong problem.  Instead of focusing on developing tools that made application implementation easier and more intuitive we focused on the technology of computers.  What was wrong with assembly language, Algol, Pascal.  OOPs is nothing more than a complication of reusing existing modules.  DLL’s, COM’s and their like are just an obscuration to accomplishment.  It all is layers upon layers of detail which have nothing to do with the main goal of implementation, but everyone in the field stumbles all over themselves just keeping up with it.

        By the way, to the author of this original blog, if you enjoyed the book you referred to you might try finding a series of books called, “The Testement of Man”.  I’m sorry I do not remember the author’s name.  I believe they were published in the late 50’s or early 60’s.  I found them fasinating reading.

        Mini-bit

      • #3100470

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by johnboehlke ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Well,  there is one tool that has not been mentioned. Am I the only one who had to use a Slide Rule? Yup, that wooden (not plastic) ruler that could compute mathematical results. Business relied on mechanical adding machines, and accountants worked with columnar paper pads. It is enjoyable to look backward, and also encouraging to see that there still are some people working who had to program in assemble language and actually know what Algol was.

      • #3271828

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by mdbradsh ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I grew up during the 60’s. We did have a TV when I was young, but it was black and white. We only had 4 channels to watch, of which one was always snowy. City kids walked to school. School buses were for rural kids only. We played outside, running and bike riding from dawn to late evening most days, during spring and summer vacations. I took “Data Processing” in high school in the late 60’s early 70’s. Computers took up whole rooms and were less than fraction of the power and capability a mediocre laptop today. Data was fed and retreived via ” Keypunch cards”. Typewriters, shorthand, adding machines ruled the office. Frankly, I don’t think things having to do with typewriters or adding machines are much faster today with computers than they were then. Typing is typing, whether you do it on a good electric typewriter or adding machine or computer. Moreover, I’d say today, with clogged networks and computer glitches, it sometimes takes longer than it did back then.  

      • #3273283

        What

        by jevans4949 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I started in full time work in IT in 1970.  There was a lot less paperwork. When you had to write stuff by hand, or dictate it, and then get a full-time typist to type it up, you kept to the essentials. A correction or alteration normally meant re-typing the whole page. When I re-joined my first employer (a large bank) in the late 1990’s, they had adopted PRINCE management methodology, and IT developers were spending most of their time cutting and pasting stuff between word-processor documents; the amount of time spent on actual design and programming was less than half.

        Before word-processors, many people (mostly women) were employed as full-time typists, trained to touch-type at high speed. Non-academic kids destined for white-collar jobs were even taught the basics in high school. This occupation has now pretty much disapppered, and most people now are learning to type the hard way at half the speed.

        People were content with far simpler presentation methods, i.e. character-based systems, and relevant staff were trained in their operation.

        Bear in mind that office automation goes back a long way, to the invention of the Hollerith card in the 1890’s. I recall a quote from a college textbook in the 1960’s that at that time, without [electromechanical] automation, 50% of the women in the USA would have been employed in book-keeping in American banks.

        I actually used a fax machine in my first job in 1970; it was electro-mechanical and slow, and very big.

        The other main difference is that in the old days customer service was dealt with by local sales people, depending on personal knowledge of the customer or paper records. Today, especially with call centre systems, customer service depends on whatever computer records one anonymous operator has recorded for the next anonymous operator. Without the computer, the whole system collapses. (Although even ancient empires managed to set up large bureaucracies when required.)

      • #3273885

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by pshaw0423 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Actually, yes, it was pretty much like “The Flintstones” — certainly more than what we have now is like “The Jetsons.” 🙂

        I graduated from high school in 1963 (and taking  a touch typing class was one of the smartest things I’ve ever done in my life); I graduated from college in 1967; and I’ve been working in a government office since 1968.  (That was two years before the first four-function no-memory pocket calculator, and twelve years before the first PC, for you young’uns.)  All of my high school term papers were banged out by hand on a massive Underwood mechanical typewriter that had to date from World War II…when I went to college and got a portable electric typewriter, I felt like Buck Rogers.  (Yeah, right: “Buck who?”)

        So how did we do it?  Carbon paper.  “White-Out.”  Slide rules and huge electromechanical desktop adding machines. Spreadsheets were created with stubby pencils and great big sheets of ledger paper, endlessly checked and re-checked by hand.  Cutting and pasting, even for business presentations and publishing, was done with scissors and rubber cement.

        I’m not nostalgic for the old days — they sucked.  There never were any “good old days”: if anyone is nostalgic for anything, it’s only for feeling like the kid they actually were, back in the day. 🙂  There’s nothing wrong with that, exactly, but it colors your memories of what things were like while you were actually living through them.  We didn’t have AIDS or global terrorism, but we did have measles, chicken pox, and polio (earlier on), and the very real terror threat of global thermonuclear war.  I’d rather have have my flat-screen multi-gig computer, with which I’m on the Internet as I write this; and cutting-edge medicine to manage my diabetes; and cars with air conditioning and satellite radio, which are built to keep you alive in a crash instead of turning you into human hamburger.

        But working with stone knives and bearskins (old-Trekkie alert) did force us to use our brains.  If a single typo meant retyping a whole page, or worse, sending an entire document back to an irritated typist to be re-done, you made damned sure you organized your thoughts and chose your words well before you committed them to the page.  If you had to haul your sleepy butt to a library and spend long hours finding references and making coherent notes, by the time you were done you actually knew what you were talking about.  If you had to wait two weeks for a letter, or two months for a package, you learned how to be patient and get on with your life in the meantime.  If you could only get porn by going into a bookstore so creepy that you felt like a human cockroach, you rose above the impulse.  (Um, well….)  And so on.

        Was any of that fun?  Like hell.  But it helped to make us competent human beings.  “Good experiences come from wisdom, which mostly comes from bad experiences.”  And we didn’t have the million unceasing distractions (like this one) from e-mails, voice-mails, text messages, cell phone calls, however many channels of must-see TV, web site downloads, et endless cetera.  It may have been occasionally tedious, but we could focus on doing one thing long enough to see it get done, which is a simple but priceless pleasure.

        Now, back to chasing e-mail and surfing the web….  🙂

      • #3273879

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jjpengr ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        As an engineer approaching retirement in about 5 years, I do remember life before computers.  In college in the late 1960’s we still used slide rules and did Fortran programs on punch cards and waited for batch processing on main frames.  Scientific calculators appeared in the mid-1970’s and replaced the slide rule.  Typewriters and forms were used for documents in most of the 1960’s and 70’s.  Dedicated word processing machines began to appear in the late 1970’s for use by admin assistants. Engineering drawings were done on paper and vellum on big drawing boards before CAD programs became available in the late 1980’s.

        I remember seeing the first Apple II’s and Commodore PET PCs in the late 1970’s.  My first PC was an Apple IIc in the early 1980’s.

        DOS PCs began to appear in offices in the early and mid-1980’s. I remember using Zenith Z-100s and Z-248s which were 8086 and 286 based PCs running DOS and then Windows 3.1.  Although I had a 386 PC for awhile, I remain a Mac enthusiast and have had a series of Macs since.  OSX Tiger is great and I deal with Windows XP at work.

        A lot of changes in the past 40 years. PCs and networks have done much to improve productivity and reduce new product development time, especially using modeling and simulation to reduce prototype iterations.

         

      • #3273874

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jor55 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I was born in 1945 so I remember not only the first time I saw a computer, but also the first time I saw a TV in 1952.  Before that we sat around the radio in the living room. The radio was in a big ornate cabinet about 4 feet tall and at least three big speakers.  Ours had a horizontal frequency display and three big dials, one for coarse tuning, one for fine tuning,and one for volume. It had air vents along both sides with thin silk-lik screens and you could look inside and see big vacuum tubes of several sizes and shapes.  They gave off a lot of light and heat and they ‘blew out’ once in a while so my father had a set of spares in a cabinet close by.   You could buy the replacement in town as easily as buying light bulbs.  The radio was amazing enough to me so that I bought (or my dad did) a crystal and coil radio that didn’t need batteries.  The power was the signal, and the tuning was a ‘whisker’ on a crystal. You can imagine how I felt about the first TV I saw.  It was as big as the radio cabinet, and the screen was as small as the tuning dial on the radio.  The screen looked exactly like an old CRT of an oscilloscope (remember those?), about 5″ across so we had a big magnifying lens in front of it to make it a whopping 8 or 9 inches.  The first computer I used was a TRS80 with a little tape drive and it was hooked up to a TV.   Icopied games and programs out of magazines onto the tape with the keyboard, and then loaded them into the computer to play or use.   When they didn’t work, it was go back and find the typo, which was too often. The challenge was to type a program from the magazine and get it working the first time.   Then I upgraded to the state of the art Commodore 64.    At work in the 70s I used the IBM 8030 (I think it was called) and I sat for hours on the key punch making those cards with all the little rectangular holes that were read by a card reader onto a magnetic tape and stored.  Then I would have it ‘run’ onto pages and pages of wide 3 or 4-ply fanfold which I would decolate and distribute to the offices.  You could program the computer to do different ‘sorts’ of the cards so you could get ‘runs’ of different data according to the needs of the requesting office.   The ‘computer room’ was a huge expanse of 6 foot high tape drives and card readers, and key punchers, and printers, and the computer itself was in a n array of 8 foot high ‘racks’.  Then one day they did away with the actual key punch and we could type it directly onto the green CRTs and store it, and even have the machine punch the cards right off the CRT.  Then one day, we didn’t need the cards anymore.  Then the tape drives got replaced by disk drives-huge round things that you could take off the cover and take out the hard disk, which was an array of circular disks about 10 inches in diameter connected in line along a central shaft.  You put the plastic cover on the thing, tightened a knob on top and it was ready to spin. If you wanted to change programs, you unscrewed the knob, lifted the whole assembly out, placed in into a storage rack, and took another out of the storage rack and put it into the disk reader.  It was a lot faster and easier than the big 12 inch tape drives.  I don’t remember how much data they held but I vaguely remember awsome figures of 10s or maybe even 100s of Mhz.  
        Later I worked in a financial institution in the 80s and we didn’t have anything more high tech than adding machines and desk calculators.  Our balancing was by hand-add up all the disbursements-add up all the receipts-add up all the transfers-add in the opening cash-add in the cash received into the vault-add up all the cash taken from the vault-do this for all the tellers, do the arithmetic-say a ‘Hail Mary’ and compare the bottom lines of the balancing sheet.  If all went well, it was an hour process.  If it didn’t go well, we could be working until 8pm…now this is all done in 15 minutes and you don’t even have to know how to add and subtract.    What would happen if all the computers stopped?  All of us old timers who remember the days when we did it ourselves could train the youngsters how to do it, and the work would get done some how, albeit, very slowly.  But what happens when all us old timers are gone?  I think computers are too ingrained into everything we do from communications of all kinds, manufacturing, medicine, and even the social sciences, that if they went, civilization as we know it would end too.  

      • #3273154

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jor55 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Yeah! slide rules…I hated those things!  But when you know how to use them, they were amazingly accurate.

      • #3273148

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by michael_orton9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        In 1960 I had access to STRETCH super computer. It was all of 92 K (not Meg) RAM of which 86k were available to the user.
        Input: write out each Fortran statement onto a form, then girls punched cards (80 column) then it failed because you have three brackets one side and four the other.
        But by 1964 I had access to an IBM with 8k RAM. This took cards printed directly from some equipment we had. It took a whole day to process 4,000 records.
        Then came the IBM 360. Cards, cards-to-tape and a whole day to process 12,000 records using a COBOL program.
        As for Word Processors, we had typing pools!
        It was only in 1991 that everybody got their own PC, a microchannel IBM PS/2 386.
        I still have one that works, with DOS, First Choice Office Suit, Paradox for Dos etc.

      • #3273085

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by sschafir ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Anyone remember the Timex Sinclair?

      • #3273084

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by chug ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Not directly a comment on this article, but definitely related to it.  I often wonder what I and my fellow IT collegues would be doing for our livlihood if we had lived before computers, or if there were still no computers today.  I was always a techie (one of those kids that took everything electronic or mechancial apart, and usually, but not always, could get them back together again). I got involved with computers at about age 6.  My Dad worked for HP in Colorado and employees could “check out” computers to take home so he’d bring one home quite a few weekends.  He got into programming and started teaching me BASIC programming when I was 8.  My first computer of my own was a Commodore 64 when I was a Freshman in high-school.  So almost from day 1 (at least when you start truly thinking about your future) I knew I wanted to do something with computers.  I can’t even imagine my life without computers, so I question quite often what my full time job would be if there were no computers.  I can only guess some type of engineer, possibly electrical (but even then what if I’d lived before electricity), maybe mechanical.

      • #3273080

        What

        by hampalmer ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        To give you an example of what life was like before computers, I’ll
        relate a story from my days with the Colorado highway department as a
        civil engineer before becoming a software engineer.

        In Colorado, as you can imagine, highway projects were done during the
        Summer months which left winter for surveying and paperwork. After one
        large Summer project, there was an overrun between ‘cuts’ and ‘fills’
        where we cut more dirt out than we had places to put it. This causes
        extra expense to find a place to put the extra dirt, so we needed to
        figure out why this happened. That meant we spent the entire Winter
        months going through the paper plans of the project and calculating,
        for each 100 foot section, exactly how much dirt was supposed to be
        either taken out or added to it and then adding and subtracting the
        results until we figured out where the overrun came from.

        That waste of time could have been avoided by using a computer to do
        the design which would have automatically adjusted the cuts and fills
        until they matched, and we would not have spent that time sitting at a
        desk calculating with one of the afore-mentioned large
        electro-mechanical calulators. There was, however, one big advantage to us of
        spending that time at the desk. We didn’t spend the time, in the snow,
        surveying, which I spent way too much time doing!

      • #3273058

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by mrspock57 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Mi first meeting with a digital device was a Texas Instruments handheld calculator that performed the four basic operations and % (circa 1974). Then I used an IBM 370 with punched cards at the University. And I remember on my father?s desk a heavy mechanical calcultaror he used for his accounting work.

      • #3272974

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by foothillscg.com ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        My dad started with assembly code as an engineer who got tired of waiting for the DP department to get to his changes.  I still remember imagining the computer falling over whenever it “crashed” and lost all his work.  I took Intro to DP in my first semester in college, just so I could talk his language.  Turns out I was better than most of the guys in class, so I went from an Ornamental Horticulture (say that 3 times fast, I dare you) major to Math with an emphasis in DP.  The accounting classes I took had the students doing the whole process of financial reporting by hand; no computers involved.  Now QuickBooks does it all, so General Ledger transactions can be really scary to people who’ve never done a “T-account”.

        I agree that learning a process without computing power provides a deeper understanding, so you really know what you’re doing when you do use the computer.

        My grandfather-in-law was an accountant for the railroads.  We still have some of his accounting journals, full of beautiful, neat, and precise numbers. You had to have readable handwriting back then!

        When all is said and done, I’d rather live at this time then back when women were “the girls” in the typing pool and doing the grunt work for accounting. My mom had only the work choices of Teacher, Nurse and Secretary, but my daughter will be anything she sets her mind to, even a techie like her mom.

        Mindy

      • #3272937

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by wendygoerl ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I didn’t get to play with any pre-“trash-180” computers, but I’ve got a few punch cards my sister had left over from her college computing class. (Ironically, in the early 90’s, she worked at a sewing factory that tracked their piece baskets with punchcards–the system worked well enough they never bothered to upgrade!) And some of my middle-school teachers liked to talk about when THEY were in school and the “in” job everyone was supposed to be going to school for was Punch Card Operator.

        And y’know, there were (maybe even ARE) people who could get an answer from an abacus as fast as from an electronic calculator.

      • #3272895

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by billja ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Insert comment text here .Finished School late teens1965 (good schooling average pupil).Took up Accountancy (politley placed by concerned parents.Pay ?1.50p p.w. othrs had to pay ?500 to ?800 to get into an Articled Office With no pay for 2 to 3 years).Immediately delegated Manual recording to different Depts and received a bonus for my efforts of ?50.00p.Recording was a manual system called Kalamazoo. witin a short time the brain was able to cross balance (down and side ways) useing all fingers.The required proof for management was a print out from an Oliveti Calculator (a manual machine consisting of a numerick key pad and a hand leaver for entry.The printout was on a paper rool as you would  receive today from your local store as a receipt.Life was good except for the week of monthly returns. The speed of the brain to perform calculations was amazing and I would have been a requirer of paper, I saw others able to keep track useing memory only and would give a computer a run for its money.Stuck it out for a few years then changed to a more suitable career.

      • #3272764

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jackbaumel ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Would you believe keeping Social Security records on flat slivers of bamboo held in large metal frames?  That is the way it was done in the pre accounting-machine days.  Accounting-machines were pre-PC combination calculator/typewriters that were used to do large ledger sheets.  Back in the 1960’s, I sold these for Olivette Underwood.  One was a triple calculator for complex problems.

      • #3272649

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by johnfarnham9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I ran a Burroughs 4/5 row posting machine in the 60’s, seemed almost as
        big as a piano. Checking was done by having two posters and comparing
        tallies.
        Those huge countertop adding machines could be used for “slide”
        multiplication. You simply added your second figure the number of times
        of the digit and shifted left one place for every column ( 10 times as
        much). ; easier to show than describe.So, if your right hand figure was
        6 you added 6 times, etc. Since the keyboard locked in place, you only
        “reprogrammed” for each column by moving everything left one place.
        I never did use a slipstick. Log and antilog  tables for trig were around but not common for everyday use.
        I remember one oldtimer  complaining that new 
        construction  tables – building trades stuff – missed viable
        materials combinations because it was too cumbersome to precalculate
        all possibilities.

      • #3088036

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by ocima ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I’ve read the numerous comments already posted and enjoyed some good laughs – they all seem to be written by mere “chickens” compared with me – I graduated from high school in 1937, aged 15 in the UK. You were TAUGHT to use your head – remember in those days the UK did not use the metric system – its currency was pounds, shillings and pence – twelve pennies made one shilling, twenty shillings made one pound. A ton weight was 2240 pounds (of 16 ounces each) and there were twenty “hundredweights” to the UK ton – but a hundredweight was 112 pounds weight! Book-keeping was done (exclusively by men) in “ledgers” where all entries and calculations wre entered by pen and  ink (the ball point pen did not arrive until just after WWII) – and the calculations were done “in your head” (although I do remember a few men using an abacus) and yes there were those of us who could correctly add the three columns of pounds, shilings and pence simultaneously. Early in 1939 (I was then in the British Civil Service) we got our first “book-keeping calculating machine” a Mercedes” (yes that same Mercedes from Germany) which I regard as the forerunner of computers. It looked like an old style typewtiter but with a top bar almost two feet wide on which you clipped “boxes” – which performed calculations automatically – depending on what type of calculation you were doing – I was involved in job costing, so Box 1 showed the numbers of hours put iunto the job by an electrician, sheet metal worker, carpenter etc., – the second box took his hourly rate of pay and thus the thrid box calculated the total value of his work, Other boxes took the cost of material used and finally you got a complete costing of the job – automatically – the first machine “spreadsheets”.Television first appeared in the UK in 1938 – yes before the USA had it – but was temporarily “killed off” by WWII – om tiny 8 inch black and white screens. I was in the British Royal Air Force 1940 thru 1946 and then returned to the same Mercedes machines. But now the “Biro” the first ball point pen appeared (and it was very expensive) and also simple (and mechanical not electrical) desktop “calculators” were the newest thing. I emigrated to Canada (where I still live) in 1957, a qualified “accountant” by then and since (until I retired in 1984) in various office jobs until reaching the Vice Presidency of a biggish company. WWII – out of sheer need – really introduced women to work previously only done by men and the work place in general.I got my first computer as a retiurement present in 1984 when I retired (an Apple) – very simple basic and DOS only but cost almost $5000 in those days

        In Canada we started with IBM punched card computing in 1958 and then climbed up the scale to what exists today. Handicapped physically for better then a dozen years I turned back to computing as a hobby and have cointnued since, up through Windows 3 thro XP (and a beta Vista) today. I run four websites of my own, design websites for commercial (and private) use and have three desktops plus a laptop.

        Is it a better world – than back in those days? No way San Jose! We usually did not hear of disasters half a world away until weeks after they happened and religions (all of them) one kept to one’s self and one’s own country. We were much more neighborly, our pleasures were simpler but more lasting, family was the centre of the world and businesses were ethical not greedy – especially their directors. Sure we did not have the level of health care, cellphones and what have you – nor the stress that they bring. We had time to smell the roses. We did have good basic education – today you do not.

      • #3087961

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by bill.the.rocket.scientist ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        My first encouner with computers was in college.  It was the early
        70’s and the public concept of a computer was a huge machine occupying
        several floors of a building “somewhere.”  Most of us had never
        seen a computer of any sort, and only knew of these arcane devices
        through rumor or the occasional media story.
        I was one of the privileged few who would be taking a radical
        experimental class.  We would be taught how to input problems to a
        computer and use the resulting output as an engineering tool.  Of
        course, we would have to observe the proper customs.
        First, we had to formulate our problems in the proper manner.  For
        this we needed to master the arcane language FORTRAN.  We had
        heard of another computer language known as COBOL, but this was
        reserved for the business majors.
        Once formulated, our inputs needed to be rendered in the proper manner,
        punched cards known coloquially as “IBM Cards.”  We learned of the
        EBCIDIC code that would render our FORTRAN statements in a manner
        acceptable to the machine.  Patiently we typed each card,
        faithfully rendering our program onto the little cards.  Of
        course, each card was numbered, and we had to keep the cards in
        numerical order lest the machine would frown upon our feeble attempts
        and reject our program.
        With our deck of cards properly collated we were permitted to approach
        the acolytes serving the great machine, a class of priests known as
        “operators.”  Like many minor functionaries, operators held an
        incredibly inflated opinion of themselves and delighted in exercising
        every miniscule tidbit of power they posessed.  “Sure, kid, I’ll
        try and run it today.  Check back in an hour or two.”  The
        prescribed response was to obsequiously thank the operator, lest your
        run be shifted to a lower priority queue and you had little hope of
        seeing any output for at least a week.
        The goal of this exercise was to get a clean run.  This rarely occured on the first pass.
        After waiting the requisite hour or two, one went to the output shelf
        and looked for one’s output, a stack of wide printout sheets with a
        deck of cards attached.  If successful, your printout showed the
        results of your program.  If unsuccessful (most likely) the
        printout represented a dump of your cards with a few very obscure
        comments as to the reason your job crashed.  At this point you had
        to analyze each and every line to determine if you had a typo (very
        likely,) if your cards had somehow gotten out of order (I still believe
        a few sadistic operators would deliberately cut the deck) or if there
        was some flaw in your logic.  Debugging was a very painful
        experience in those dark days.
        Today, computers have become ubiquitous.  It is the age of a PC in
        every home and a microprocessor in everything else.  We no longer
        program, we use software programs.  In one generation, computers
        have emerged from the temple and are part of our everyday lives. 
        And I like to think that a few sadistic computer operators have been
        humbled.

      • #3087859

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Bill:

        Your comment about computer operators rang true.  I used to work
        in the computer lab at the University of South Florida. Punch Cards had
        long since passed away, but we still had to manage the mainframe
        terminals, networked PCs and the mainframe printer and printouts. There
        I came across the funniest set of stories about operators which could
        only be describe on this site by its acronym: BOFH.  It’s even appropriate for modern network administrators and support professionals.

      • #3085935

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by the_m0nk ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Strangely enough, I was teaching a class of new hires last week and in progress mentioned how things have progressed. “When I was in school” we even used log books and slide rules. This was before they even allowed handheld calculators! This was in South Africa in 1980, and that was not even that far back!

        Brad

      • #3085933

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by richard.fowler ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        The “good old days” used typing pools instead of work processors, accountants with two-column ledgers instead of spreadsheets, and filing cabinets instead of databases.  Lots and lots of filing cabinets.  We wrote letters instead of email, and could leave a message with an assistant instead of voice mail.  The biggest difference, though, was that we had to know a lot more off the top of their heads than we do today.  We didn’t have to take a week or two to compile the data, because we had to work with the information all the time.  On a constant, day-to-day basis we read and summarized articles, wrote briefs and memos, and when it came time to answer a question from management, we had to rely on what we knew right then.  That’s part of the good old days that I really miss.

      • #3085928

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by calinga ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        My experiences will certainly date me, but my memory goes back to the days of the Burroughs 220 (Vacuum tubes, no less!), IBM 1401, and “Unit Record” equipment while I was working my first real job at Allstate Insurance Company’s Cleveland, OH Regional office. Punch cards, mag tape, and paper tape were the only storage media, and cards were also used as data input and initial program input, as well.  The source paper data was sent into the Keypunch unit where probably 50 keypunch operators would transcribe the handwritten or typed data into cards, which were then verified by another unit of 50 operators who rekeyed the cards from the same source data. A large deck of input cards might take a full day of preprocessing on that unit record equipment before it could be loaded by hand into the card reader of one of the main frames. Data was stored on that mag tape and all jobs were batch jobs. In this period – not even dumb terminals existed, and the computer operator had only toggle switches and banks of lights to show what was going on inside the monster of a machine. One high speed line printer did all of the printing for the entire office, and tha noise that came from that machine was deafening – it was kept in a separate soundproof room to lessen the racket. There was no online accessible database at all. Data was maintained and stored in file folders; punch cards were kept in the folders for each customer/account. Mailings were done by stamping addresses with the old mechanical Addressograph-Multigraph machines, which made metal plates similar to dog tags that contained the customer’s name, address, and account number. There was a full-time staff of probably 30 young people who pulled and refiled the file folders which were kept in long rows – I have no idea how many cabinets, but they stretched for probably 100 yards in 6 double rows. Business correspondence was typed, with carbon paper used for multiple copies. Spreadsheets? Try ledger books maintained by hand. Payroll? Manually computed and punched onto cards for tax calculations and check printing. No email, since no internet of even networks between offices. Memos were used to send quick info to coworkers, and offices employed people whose sole jobs were to carry those bits of paper around the office. Data transfer was by shipping mag tape or card decks by mail or UPS. People kept their schedules and notes in notebooks or Day-Timers. You wrote and mailed checks to pay bills. Instant contact? Telegrams or phone on a rotary dial phone, and long-distance charges were outrageous! If you needed to make a call while traveling, you used a pay phone!

        Not quite Fred Flintstone, but a far cry from where we are today! We still do not have a paperless office, but gone are the rows of filing cabinets containing all of that precious data!

      • #3085925

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by paul.hayes ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Insert comment text here

        Forms, folders, tabulated paper, graph paper, card indexes, slide rules – can remember using all these.

        Paul Hayes

      • #3085907

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by sue’s comment ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I did a statistics course without being able to use computers or calculators! We had to write down how we would use a calculator to do a complex calculation – if we had one. I think a simple calculator cost ?100 in those days – at least two weeks salary!

        We had lots of squared paper and we had techniques for handling calculations by breaking the problem down. For example if you had to compute a mean of four values in the region of 120 eg. 118, 121,125, 115 etc then you would take the mean of -2, 1, 5 and -5 which gives -0.25 and adjust the estimated mean accordingly to give 119.75. this is a lot easier that adding up the original figures and dividing by four.

        We had several thousand values to classify into a two way table once (urgently) and the computer failed. A team of four spent the afternoon on the problem and we were later taken out to dinner for our efforts! The task here was to check that no values were missed. Each record was recorded on the correct cell of the table as a short vertical line but every fifth vertical line was drawn at an angle to cross the previous 4 (normal tallying). A small dot was placed at the end of each cell at the end of each page of data. Two teams of two tallied the results independently. At the end of a page the row and column totals from the two teams were compared. If the results didn’t match then the last page of data (and only the last page of data) had to be checked and the dots marked the starting point.

        Documents were produced on a typewriter. To type a table you had to do your maths first! You had to count the number of characters in each column and work out precisely where the information was to by typed before you typed a single character. Underscores were used for the horizontal lines and an “l” for the vertical lines. Errors had to be corrected using a piece of chalked paper and overtyping so the chalk obliterated the ink. Copies were made using carbon paper inserted between the sheets and typing hard!

        Stencils were typed onto metal plates to enable addressing machines to produce multiple envelopes for people with whom you corresponded regularly. Mistakes not allowed. In the early 1970s a system was introduced where an ink was placed on the reverse of a typed label which was held in a card former. Alcohol was rolled onto an envelope and then the label was put into place and the label was rolled with a dry roller. This deposited a small amount of ink on the envelope and this lasted for about 60 copies.

        The other item in use was a punched card. Pieces of card were designed with punched holes around the perimeter. Attributes were allocated to the holes eg. one hole could refer to male, another to female, one to under 21, one to over 21 and then different holes to political preferences. For large number so frecords these would be preprinted.The holes were cut out (using scissors) to indicate selection. By using a set of knitting needles you could choose attributes and select all males voting for a particular party for example.

        Randomisation was achieved using tables of randomisation numbers.

        Computers were around then but they were not in general use. I ran statistical software programs in the early 1970’s. The program and the data were punched out on punchcards. These were fed through a reader which passed light through the holes and translated the information into bytes. The program itself took up to 24 hours to run before producing a printout! This was very annoying when ther was an error in a punchcard and it had to be run again!

        Ahhhh! Life before Microsoft…..

      • #3085904

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by bkadrie ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Back in the late 60’s, I remember working in an office for a construction company that had union laborers on their payroll.  We thought the one-write check pegboard system was the best thing to come along.  With it, you hand-wrote the payroll checks, pay breakdown, and itemized deductions, all of which copied over to an master ledger sheet in one step.  Of course, the math had to be done with the old electronic calculator.

        The next best invention was the typewriter correction tape that was used to erase typing errors.  Of course, later on, IBM Selectrics came out, followed by word processors.   

        I think office workers had to have more mathematical skills and be super typists back then. 

      • #3085897

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by edgbarrow ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I remember learning to write assembler programs on IBM VS1 on an Amdahl
        540 with 1 meg of real RAM running IBM-type 3330 disk drives.  Our
        network with VTAM (of course) and over 1000 people were supported on
        the system.  ASCII was a dream; EBCDIC ruled.

        In college, we were still running card-decks on a Burroughs.  When
        the sys manager finally let us see the job submission queue on a video
        monitor, we called it “cool”.

        I crashed a PDP11-70 filling the process table with my first shell script…too many forks at the table?
        Thanks for the memories,
        Ed

      • #3085894

        What

        by dilbert9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        We used pens, paper, adding machines, mechanical calculators and punch card tabulators.

        I ran an electrical contractor shop in the very early 1970’s until
        1999. When I started the business was a totally manual pen and
        paper operation. I took the business to a automated, bar code
        driven operation during my tenure. So what did I decide for a
        career after retiring from that business? I’m the Technical
        Director for a small medical software developer.

        I also had a laugh the other day.  My younger children aged 7 and
        8, were tasked at  school to find out how life differed in their
        parent’s childhood due to technology.  They almost freaked when I
        pulled out a vinyl album and a sliderule.

      • #3085891

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by bad2thebone ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I can remember back when there were no calculators, only slide rules and adding machines to do the math. Word processing was done on a typewriter, and if you were lucky you had an electric one with a correction ribbon, other wise you had the old manual typewriter and had to re-type the entire page if you made errors that could not be erased easily. Pencil, paper and filing cabinets were the way things were done and we didn’t have to worry much about identity theft or telemarketers bugging you while you ate dinner. Mom actually cooked meals and we all ate at the dinner table, not in front of the TV. “Crack” was a crack in the sidewalk, and “crystal” was the fancy glass that we drank from when we had special company for dinner, served on fine china (not “china white”). Americans had “jobs” at factories, farms and businesses. Most of the things that we bought were made in the good ole’ USA, and only the cheap junk was made in Asia or overseas. Today you find it virtually impossible to find a product made entirely in the USA, other than food grown here.

        We also had time to write real letters and send them “snail mail”, and we didn’t get a lot of junk mail either. Families had time to visit each other, even though we didn’t have all of the time saving, modern convienences of today like microwave ovens, automatic dishwashers, automatic washers and dryers and permanent press clothes. Not to mention PCs, Macs, PDAs, Blackberries and cell phones. Land lines were the only phones and most residenses were on “party lines” where more than one family would share a phone line. You each had separate phone numbers but you had to pick up the phone and make sure that no one else was on there before dialing, and dialing was the old rotor dial phone.

        Well now you all know that I am older than dirt, but I am also a highly qualified computer/peripheial/network technican/administrator. I began working with PCs with the days of DOS and PCs didn’t even have a hard drive, you booted from a 5 1/4″ floppy disk and then loaded the program (again from floppy disk) that you wanted to run and WordStar and Lotus 123 were the greatest inventions since sliced bread. A Window was something that you looked out, or opened to let fresh air in. Now we recognize that it is virtually impossible to keep abreast of all of the changes in technology in all areas, but as all technical I.T. persons, we must try. 

        Strange how the changes in technology in the last 20 – 30 years have vastly shaped our society. We have gone from a country producing the world’s goods to a country purchasing the rest of the world’s goods and becoming a country offering services instead of real carrers with real benefits. We have gone from a country with the best and brightest engineers and highest technology to falling behind the rest of the world, and outsourcing jobs to offshore sites to boost the bottom line profits.  When and where will it stop and turn around again? God only knows….

      • #3085413

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by michael.vorel ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I grew up on ten-key calculators for number crunching with many books for posting data for review.

        Documents were typed on IBM Selectric typewriters, printed on a small press, bound and distributed

        Forms were created by LetraSet characters and laid out on blue line graph paper for reproduction

        Computers have made life somewhat simpler, though the greatest benefit is due to process improvements and reduced time invested to accomplish similar tasks

         

        mike vorel

      • #3085402

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by techproguild9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I graduated college in 1990 with a business degree, and a fair amount of computer experience (i.e. My Apple IIc, Lotus 123, dBase IV, and WordPerfect). I got a job with a small company that had a 286 collecting dust in the corner. It was the only computer for an office of 35 people.

        They did everything with green column pads, calculators, and pencils. Periods were closed several weeks after the period ended.

        Now I’ll brag…
        With a few simple (and I mean simple) spreadsheets I was completed my “stuff” in hours or minutes. They were used to getting them in days or weeks. Five years later I was the unofficial IT director during the week, and I still had Marketing duties (Ugh). They had to wait until the evenings, and weekends. (Stupid me.) Turned that experience into my own IT services company.

      • #3085397

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by cjsm ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Okay, I admit it.  When I was in high school I took a typing class
        – on manual typewriters.  Only the secretaries and advanced
        placement students were allowed to touch the IBM Selectrix.  My
        family owned a small business, too.  I used to help with year end
        “getting ready for the auditors”.  And that involved large ledger
        books, pages of hand-written entries and hours on a then state of the
        art adding machine.  I wasn’t allowed to touch the big machine
        that did multiplication and division.  Photo-copiers were a big
        deal.  I remember mimeograph machines in school and how the
        handouts smelled when you got them in class.  And a student
        standing by the machine and cranking the handle for hours to get copies
        created for all the classes.  Carbon paper.  Whiteout. 
        Erasable carbon paper was cool when it came out, correcting mistakes
        was so much easier.  Typing pools.  Some of the old movies
        show women (almost always) sitting in a large room and pounding out
        reams of paper.  Did you know there are still some people who
        prefer writing out letters long hand and then having a typing person
        enter them into the computer?  How wasteful.  First you write
        it out, then they type it, then you correct it (since they couldn’t
        read your handwriting), then they retype it, you correct it, and so on
        until you either get it right or give up.  Shorthand.  My mom
        learned shorthand in high school.  I never attempted to learn
        because I was sure I was never going to do that kind of work – and I
        was right.  The good old days – how I DON’T miss them.

      • #3085384

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jackaaa3 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I really don’t remember there not being an IT. Sounds strange doesn’t it. My first exposure to the then “Data Processing” field was in 1966 when I was a senior in high school and I haven’t looked back since. I wouldn’t trade my career for anything. To me, getting paid to do something I loved was absurd. Back then this kind of love was only found in professional sports. It has been an honor to have watched IT mature to what it is today. I’ve done everything there is in this field at one time or another and what a ride! Even now, at 57, I still learn something new everyday. To do otherwise is a waste of time. My generation is thinning out now but I have great confidence that the techno-geeks coming up will do okay as long as they get educated.

        Jack Foley

        Jack of all, king of a few

      • #3085372

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by ammerlin ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Um, there were secretaries. That’s how the work got done. I had to laugh at your question and then at myself. I guess I really am getting old. As a former secretary and for the past nearly 20 years a programmer, I don’t miss the ‘Good Old Days.’  We used 11×17 inch grid paper to do manual spreadsheets. Calculations were done on a 10-key manual calculator which used those cash register type rolls of paper. Non-electric ones had a pull handle on the side that would total your entry (kinda like the old slot machines). Typewriters were either manual or electric. If you wanted a copy of something, you used carbon paper when you typed the original. No copies after it was typed! No voice mail; phone messages were jotted down on little pink slips of paper which accummulated on your desk. Spell check meant using a dictionary – an actual well-worn hard cover book. Instant messages might be likened to memos – short notes usually typed on a half sheet of paper. Email replaced interoffice mail and the delivery people that moved it around. I’m sure there is much more that my subconscious refuses to let me remember.

      • #3085358

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by harvey1z ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        It was all there before PCs and servers, the computers just automated it and speeded it up. Spread sheets were done by pencil and held in massive binders. Databases usually consisted of at least two seperate binders, one for the tables of values and one for the actual data – all hand entered and updated with pencils. Word Processor – before the typewriter it was pencil and eraser. The biggest leap forward given by the Word Processor was cut and paste and in line editing.

      • #3085351

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jim gillespie ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Back when I was a boy, we didn’t have computers.  We had rocks.. and when we wanted to count things, we’d use our fingers.  We’d smash a finger for each one, and when we ran out, we’d use our toes..  then we’d smash them all again..  and they turned blue, and swelled up and they hurt, and we liked it!

      • #3085327

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by jim ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        IBM Selectric typewriters… the Selectric II could actually backspace and whiteout an error. Carbon paper… lots and lots of carbon paper. Most companies would allow 3 typos in a letter before you had to retype it. If you had 3 typos, you sweated bullets ’til the end. Fountain pens that finally came with little cartridges, so you didn’t have to syphon up the ink from a bottle. Mimeographed tests in school. There was always one kid in the class that knew where the janitor kept the extra bulbs for the 16mm projector… the first Geek! If the movie projector was taken, you could always count on the football coach who also taught social studies to come up with a film strip. My brand new 1968 VW beetle was $2004. *sigh* Ah, the good old days!

      • #3085229

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by gallagher2 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Insert comment text here Well, there was carbon paper, comtomotors, ledger paper, pencils, and pencil sharpeners also erasers.  You had to press hard on the keys of the Remington typewriter (no motor) and the great advancement from the “hello operator” to the dial.

      • #3085207

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by marc.correll ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Copier Technician for years and years and years until 1994.

      • #3085200

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by are3 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Can you say IBM keypunch? Not only were these cards the original data entry forms, when you were done with them, they made great Christmas wreaths in the 70s. 

      • #3085185

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by dchandler@islandtechnical ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Can you say “80 column card”? Can you say “punched paper tape”? Can you say “Teletype ASR/KSR 33”?

        I’d love to do a retrospective on what it was like “before there were computers”!  (Oh, by the way, not to sound either old or arrogant:  computer is “not equal” to PC. Find a copy of Bell and Newell, “Readings in Computer Structures”, published in 1971! A great HISTORY of computers, 10+ years before the PC!)

        Anybody remember non-saturating logic, like ECL and TRL? Remember shmoo curves and margining memory (CORE memory!)

        I, personally, am glad I got to experience those days. But I’m probably sounding like my Grandfather, who was personally grateful to experience the horse and buggy before automobiles.

        Don Chandler
        President
        Island Technical Solutions
        BSEE ’68, Purdue

      • #3087129

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by wswinglenospam9 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        My father was an insurance salesman. In addition to finding new client he would carry a thick stack of cards with him that were punched with one hole and each card was put on a ring for easy access. He would call on each client monthly, with the client card and their payment information, to collect their payment.  Paper boys also did this on their paper route. 

      • #3087113

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by lilawagner ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Insert comment text here
        In 1967, I got my first business job as a temp in the transfer department of a trust company.  I spent the entire day typing up stock certificates on an IBM selectric.  I counted my blessings that I didn’t have to use the old manual typewriter with carbon paper and stick erasers.  The accounting department had a large “posting machine” run by an old pro – she must have been all of thirty and wouldn’t teach anybody anything about her machine that took up about a quarter of the office.

        It was about this time that my Dad, who was into telephones and switching circuits, got all het up about a computer program called “Visicalc,” the grand-daddy of all the electronic spreadsheets.  He was enthralled with this device that could rapidly update the whole spreadsheet, and eliminate the need for what we bookkeepers called “Cross-footing.”  C-F was to add every column, and every row and make sure that all the vertical and horizontal grand totals matched.  It was almost a decade later that I was able to use Lotus 1-2-3 on a “mini-computer.” And that in DOS.

      • #3086987

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by regulus ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I guess that I thought that I was a Management Consultant.   Eventually I found that I was doing more to resolve IT issues and nature took its’ course…..

        MCSEDave

      • #3086981

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by hulyalkar1 ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        I am old enough to grow up with hand held adding machines which was trill for me after passing out from my engineering college where we used log tables and slide rule.  There were computers but meant for special people who were expert in punching cards.

        I think the first computer for a novice was Calculator.  Processing numbers was far more easy and there was no need to learn anything but to punch figures on machine.  So those who can read could process numbers.  When Bell invented telephone there was no criteria for users that there must a minimum education qualification required to operate it.  Same was with cars, and use of electricity but NOT so with computers.

        With computers everything has changed.  You must learn special languages first and then and only then you could use computers in early days.  This is slowly changing with PC

        Work went on smoothly without computers and it will go on smoothly even in future.  It?s for few (in IT community) who feel there will havoc without computers.  According Management Guru Peter F Druker this is the fourth information revolution (Ref: Management Challenges for 21 st Century).  I am old enough to realise the full implications.  My young friends in IT area who specialise in focused skill set of C, C+ or Java don?t agree on this.

        And like any old man says I repeat: Life was much smoother than what it is with Laptops and phone cum calculator cum camera cum computer cum and list could be endless…

        Computer is wonderful machine but it?s tool available to enrich human life and not to make you a slave of him.

        Satish Hulyalkar

        Consultant Telecom & Knowledge Management practicing “Lean” Office

        Pune / India

         

      • #3267081

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by gsg ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        My grandmother, who passed away in 1993, was born in 1899.  I have a picture of her moving, by covered wagon, to a new town.  It took her 3 weeks.  I drove the distance in 3 hours.  She remembered the first time she saw a car, the first airplane she ever saw in the sky.  Think about it.  She was born in a horse and buggy world, and lived through 6 wars (if I missed one, I apologize…I also count police actions as wars here), raised 11 kids through the depression, and watched the space shuttle take off on television.  She didn’t even have plumbing until the 50s, and didn’t get an indoor bathroom until the 60s.  She loved her microwave.  She would boil water in it just so she could watch it because it was such an amazing thing.

      • #3103562

        What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        by mike.plante ·

        In reply to What’d we do BEFORE computers?

        Used a pencil with an eraser

    • #3100537

      KDE gets up to speed

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      The other week, I made the observation that KDE seemed very slow in comparison to GNOME on my SuSe 10.0 workstation and, after dealing with the pain long enough,  thought that maybe that meant that GNOME was the way to go to get the best performance out of the system. I was initially willing to chalk up the difference in speed to the added complexity of KDE and leave it with that.

      Nope.

      SuSe 10.0 Professional comes with KDE 3.4.2. While researching the slowness problem, I had come across references on KDE.org about the recent release of KDE 3.5.1.  The site didn’t go into any specific mention of performance increases with the new version, so I dismissed it. Years of ‘training’ with Windows taught me the lesson that new releases invariably add features and slow down systems. Microsoft hides the bloat of new features behind faster hardware, so you don’t always see it. I applied Windows-logic to a Linux problem and moved on.

      Then an article appeared on News.com about the forthcoming upgrade to GNOME. The new version GNOME 2.14 due out next month is supposed to be faster than GNOME 2.12 that ships currently. It made me wonder whether the slow problems with KDE 3.4.2 were just endemic to that specific version, so I went and did some further research.

      Sure enough – KDE 3.4.2 seems to have a reputation for being a cow when it comes to performance. Big, slow, and not very bright. I found several mentions that that specific version was buggy and slow on various distributions, including SuSe Professional 10.0.

      That lead to the adventure of upgrading KDE on a couple of my SuSe 10.0 boxes.  After much gnashing of teeth, I got the upgrade applied and working. The difference was night and day. It wasn’t just one system either. Whenever I applied 3.5.1, performance improved.

      There are still times when the system seems slow – like loading multiple tabs in Firefox 1.5, but it’s nowhere near as bad it used to be under KDE 3.4.2. Applications load and things work just as smoothly under KDE 3.5.1 as they do under GNOME 2.12.

      Of course, now it will be interesting to see what happens when GNOME 2.14 ships….

    • #3087874

      Living La Vida Lenovo

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I got an email the other day asking about the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet PC
      I’ve been using. The emailer thought maybe there was something wrong
      with the machine and that I hadn’t been using it because I hadn’t
      blogged about it for so long.

      Well, part of the problem is in the nature of blogs – or at least the
      way I approach them personally. Generally, I blog about what’s new in
      TechProGuild, some interesting story I’ve seen in the Tech News, some
      IT issue that’s been particularly bugging me, or just random thoughts
      that happen to cross my mind.  The Lenovo ThinkPad just hasn’t
      been hitting any of those categories for me lately because the darn
      thing just works too well.

      It’s become my standard PC for work at home and office meetings because
      the pen features are extremely handy. Plus, with the attached keyboard,
      it’s easy to rotate out the keyboard and use it rather than the stylus.

      I’m surprised with the Tablet’s ability to recognize my ‘handwriting’.
      I can barely read it myself sometimes, but somehow the Tablet can seem
      to decypher it pretty well.

      Of course, that doesn’t have anything specifically to do with the
      Lenovo itself. That’s more a feature of XP’s Tablet Edition. Where the
      Lenovo really rocks is the form factor of the machine to begin with. TechRepublic Editor Bill Detwiler currently is experimenting with two Tablet PCs – one from HP and one from Gateway.

      The Gateway is just huge. It’s about 4 inches wider than the Lenovo.
      It’s also a couple of pounds heavier. It makes for a nice
      laptop-replacement, but to rotate the screen and hold in your arms for
      a tablet – it just weighs too much.

      The HP is smaller than the Lenovo by about 2 inches, but it weighs
      about the same. Plus, the keyboard is detachable, so it’s not nearly as
      convenient.

      We’ve also had a Viewsonic Tablet PC here as well, but it also couldn’t
      compare. It didn’t have keyboard at all and weighed about 3 lbs more
      than the Lenovo. It was also a lot slower.

      In any case, the Lenovo is the best Tablet PC we’ve got in the shop
      right now. And I’m not letting Bill near it. Mine. 
      MineMineMineMine. But I digress…

      The Lenovo seems to have the hardware combination down perfect. It’s
      not too big, not too heavy. The battery easily holds most of the day,
      as long as you back off the brightness of the screen. I’ve never had
      any problems getting and keeping a connection.

      If there are any areas I could complain about there would be two: One
      is around the vaunted ThinkPad keyboard and the other is around the
      infamous TrackPoint. ThinkPad keyboards are still in a league by
      themselves, but my poor Lenovo has a mushy spot around the arrow keys.
      Maybe it’s broken underneath, but it just doesn’t feel the same as the
      rest of the keys.

      As for the TrackPoint, it seems to have fits whenever the hard drive is
      running a lot. If you try to load several programs at the same time,
      the TrackPoint jumps randomly and sometimes starts additional programs.
      I’ve seen on Usenet where this appears to be a common occurance, but
      noone seems to have suggestion that works to fix it.

      So that’s about it with the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet PC update for
      now.  If you don’t hear about it again for a little while, it’s
      only because I’m using it and enjoying it too much. 

      • #3074857

        Living La Vida Lenovo

        by wilbrian ·

        In reply to Living La Vida Lenovo

        Not about the Lenovo specifically, but could the TrackPoint problem be that “Language Bar” problem that some notebooks have?  This is where the Language Bar is on by default with the microphone activated.  At certain times the microphone starts to pick up ambient noise and attempts “voice activation” of the OS and application programs. Just shutting off the Language Bar seems to solve it for my clients.

      • #3074643

        Living La Vida Lenovo

        by bushta ·

        In reply to Living La Vida Lenovo

        I haven’t notice that problem where the pointer jumps around randomly on the Lenovo ThinkPad R52.  On other models I have had to lower the number of colors on the screen to 16bit so the pointer doesn’t freak-out.  The display isn’t as pretty, but the pointer is stable.  It seems to be a software driver issue.
          I just checked the Google Groups and saw a post about unchecking the “Enhance Pointer Precision” box.  He says that the solution works but not 100%.  I’ll take this one for a test drive.
        http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.mshardware.product/browse_thread/thread/a1d8beb02b685bba/6683ba443feec08c?lnk=st&q=mouse+pointer+erratic&rnum=2#6683ba443feec08c
         – Greg

    • #3085257

      Hack the Mac

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Earlier today, I stumbled across this article
      on News.com that mentioned a hacking contest that someone held to see
      how long it would take for a hacker to gain root access to Mac OS
      X.  The verdict: 20 – 30 mins.

      One of the most common arguments from the Pro-Mac camp is that fact
      that it’s more secure than Windows and is virtually hacker-proof.
      Another common argument is that Macs are invulnerable to viruses and
      spyware. Recent Mac viruses and vulnerabilites have laid that myth to rest as well.

      Naturally having their favorite ox gored caused Mac-mavens to quickly denounce the article and results it purported.

      Macophiles have long crowed about the safety of the Mac – either
      because of it’s ‘superiority’ or through the theory of “Safety Through
      Obscurity”. The first theory claims that the Mac is just sooo much
      better that it’s unhackable. It may be better in some respects at some
      things, but it’s far from perfect.

      The second theory claims that because Windows is just so much of a
      larger target that Mac users are safe because virus authors will go for
      the big game first. By that theory, we should all be running OS/2.
      Nobody writes software for it anymore – not even the hackers.

      No one platform is going to make you any safer than another. The key is
      to pick the platform that works best for you – Mac, Windows, Solaris,
      FreeBSD, Linux, even OS/2 – and then learn as much as you can about it,
      and secure the heck out of it. Nothing made by Man is ever going to be
      perfect.  Even if that Man is Steve Jobs.

      • #3268194

        Hack the Mac

        by joeldm1 ·

        In reply to Hack the Mac

        >No one platform is going to make you any safer than another.
        This is just patently stupid. It begs us to believe that all of the viruses that Windows is riddled with don’t really exist and that Unix is no more secure than Windows, which anyone with a brain-pan larger than a walnut knows is not true. There are _many_ real and easily understandable reasons why Mac OS X is more secure than Windows of any flavor.?
        I hope the guy who wrote the above gibberish can follow this:
        Unlike Windows, in OS X, the default configuration is to have communication ports closed and file sharing, FTP, remote login and web sharing all turned off right out of the box. And unlike Windows, the OS X admin account doesn’t have access to core functions of the OS.
        While hordes of amateur script kiddies successfully crack Windows security and cause millions of dollars of damage every year, there are no live virus or exploits that have caused any damage on Mac OS X. Why? Well the Unix code that forms the heart of OS X has been under attack for nearly 30 years by all manner of crackers. The open source nature of the BSD Unix kernel has been available to those intent on cracking it and those intent on preserving its security alike. That means that there is no more inherently secure desktop environment than OS X and the other ‘nixes exposed to such Darwinian pruning.
        As one expert notes, “Many orders of magnitude more people look over the source code for OS X and the related BSDs than have access to Windows source code,” said John Klos, a developer of NetBSD, a flavor of Unix closely related to OS X (quoted from an article in the Baltimore Sun entitled BACKLASH by DAvid Zeiler).
        Knowledgeable commentators believe that the notion of security-through-obscurity that seems to be all the rage by the ZDNetters these days, are desperately hoping for that sweet moment of schadenfreude when and if OS X is ever violated successfully (as opposed to tests where “hackers” are given local access to run their “test”), is a myth perpetrated to spread FUD among potential Mac converts (as if 90% + isn’t enough market share for them to feel secure!
        No, there is no completely secure computing environment, but the notion that there is no difference between them is just dumb. But note that most people who say such things are usually trying to defend an inferior product. And their only hope is to convince readers that excellence simply does not exist. Good luck with that . . . oh, and don’t forget to update your virus definitions!
        JoeL
    • #3084143

      Checking Vista?s performance

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Previously, I?ve mentioned
      how we?ve got a new workstation for the TechRepublic Test Lab that was initially
      designed to be a Windows Vista monster, but in reality has turned out to be less
      than impressive. Most of the problem can be attributed to the fact that Vista
      is still in early beta and anytime you go outside of the mainstream of
      computing, you?re bound to be left behind while a product is still in beta.

      I was reading Greg Shultz?s article on the Windows System
      Performance Rating in Windows Vista. This tool will give you an idea about how
      your system performs. Just for kicks, I decided to run this on our test
      system.  Here?s how it turned out:

      Windows system performance rating of tr lab's test workstation.

       

      As you can see the workstation only managed to score a 2 on
      overall system performance. The key is to get as high a number as you can. The
      main limiting factor here was the video card ? an nVidia Quadro 3450.

       This card is no slouch. It?s a PCI-Express based card with
      256Mb of on-board video. It?s designed for high-end graphics including CAD/CAM,
      video editing, and other intense graphic chores. The problem is probably that
      there are no Vista LDDM drivers available for it yet. I was able to get some
      Beta 1 drivers that were higher performance than what I dealt with before, but
      they still wouldn?t support Aero Glass or other Vista features.

      Shockingly, the CPU, a 3.00Ghz Pentium D 64-bit processor only
      managed to score a 3.6 for system performance. What it would take to get a 5 or
      better is kind of scary to consider. Probably with the advent of dual-core
      CPUs, it?s going to be necessary to use one to get any decent performance from
      Vista.

      Finally, the Gaming Graphics category is interesting. It?s
      supposed to measure video memory and even though my card has 256Mb on board, it
      shows up as being 0. This too is probably a beta driver issue. I find the name ?Gaming
      Graphics? to be telling however.

      Greg set up a discussion
      thread
      to talk about Windows Vista System Performance. If you?re running Vista,
      check your performance and chime in. If you?re interested in what?s in Vista,
      check it out.

    • #3076995

      Ch..Ch..Changes?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      By now you?ve probably noticed the subtle changes that are
      taking place around TechRepublic. In areas like the My Workspace and the Blogs, you can see the
      shape of what the new TechRepublic is starting to look like. TechProGuild is
      going to be undergoing some similar changes as well.

      In the upcoming months, we?re going to be adding new types of
      tools to TechProGuild. These will be aimed at helping you get your job done.
      There will still be the technical how-to, tips, tricks, and solutions that you?ve
      come to expect, but there will also be new things that will help you be more
      productive. 

      We?ll also reflect the look and feel of TechRepublic itself,
      so the old TPG green will probably fade away as well. But all in all, we?re
      working hard to make TPG subscriptions more valuable and a more useful resource
      for the IT solutions you need.

      There are still a couple of more months to go before the
      changes are all fully implemented. We?re in the process of formalizing everything
      currently. If you have any ideas, questions, comments or complaints, now?s the
      time to voice your opinion!

      • #3265643

        Ch..Ch..Changes?

        by merc49 ·

        In reply to Ch..Ch..Changes?

        Personally, I’d like a move AWAY from the TechRepublic site. I haven’t used the TPG site as much as I would like, but that is going to change. It’s sometimes confusing trying to determine what site your on.

      • #3265570

        Ch..Ch..Changes?

        by regulus ·

        In reply to Ch..Ch..Changes?

        Articles should always be printable.  Lately you’ve had several very excellent articles that were primarily a series of photo’s. There was no option to singularly print the whole set or save it to a document.  —except one – by – one….

      • #3265395

        Ch..Ch..Changes?

        by darinhamer ·

        In reply to Ch..Ch..Changes?

        Making TPG more user-friendly is a great idea. Having more productivity tools to help me do my job is also great. I guess the only constructively critical comment I would make is that I would hate to see the TPG web site integrate too smoothly with TR. I pay $10/month for TPG and already have some difficulty telling which services I’m accessing are premium and exclusive to TPG or which are freely available on TR. If I am going to continue my premium subscription, I want to easily be able to distiguish which things are premium and which are not, so I can accurately judge the value of my subscription.

         

        Thanks for listening.

      • #3265908

        Ch..Ch..Changes?

        by brooks2 ·

        In reply to Ch..Ch..Changes?

        I would like to see an improved search function. A lot of arch and I get a huge number of hits that are just not related. I don’t see how they coudl have been scored as a viable candidate for the search. I spend a lot of time wading through the hits and weeding out what is not a legitimate hit to my search.

         

        With that said, I do love your service and use it a lot. I find the download newsletter and the items included the mosty useful.

    • #3076702

      Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      At the end of last year, several TechRepublic members made their picks for Headlines You Won’t See In 2006. My #2 is as follows:

      2) Vista ships on time ? with a full feature set

      Microsoft
      has a history of creating illusory ship dates. Maybe Slip Dates would
      be a better term for them. As the shipping date gets closer, one of two
      things invariably happens. Either the ship date changes or features get
      tossed over the side. Beta 2 has already been delayed while promised
      features like WinFS suddenly have become possible options in the
      future. Vista may indeed appear in 2006, but it will be very late in
      the year, and without a full set of features that were announced years
      ago.

      Not only won’t Vista ship this year now, it STILL won’t ship with all of the features that were originally promised for it. Yet again, Microsoft misses another slip date.

      Oh wait – No, Windows Vista will be available this year after all! It’s going to be available precisely for the people who care least about it – business customers. People who’ve ponied up money for Microsoft corporate licenses (and expect ‘regular’ updates as part of it) will be able to get copies of Vista this year. For the rest of the planet, you’ve got to wait until January 2007.

      This makes little sense. Businesses are usually the last to adopt a new OS, not the first ones. When new OSes ship, most businesses sit back and wait for the bugs to be squashed. When I was a network administrator I remember that when Windows 2000 Professional shipped, the corporate mandate was to format a new machine when it came in the door and put 98 on it. They didn’t install 2000 Professional until after the first Service Pack was released.

      Windows XP took years to gain real market share on corporate desktops. Windows 98 and Windows 2000 Professional hung around solid until late 2003 / early 2004. Why should Windows Vista be any different? Microsoft has promised lots of benefits to business in this new release, but if they can’t be trusted to hit a simple ship date, how can they be trusted that this 1.0 release is going to be worth installing 3 months before its general release?

      You can always tell the pioneers because they’re the ones with arrows in their backs. Businesses don’t want to be the pioneers with a new untested OS. Shipping promises in the Corporate License agreements aside, if the product is ready for business today, it should be ready for the consumer market as well. If I was a CIO and a vendor told me it was ‘good enough’ for work, but not quite ready for home use, I’d think twice about doing business with that company.

      Meanwhile – how many new versions of Linux and Mac OS X have shipped since 2001? And how many more will be ready before January 2007?

      • #3263039

        Hate to say

        by sterling “chip” camden ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        I think the real problem is “enterprise bloat”: http://www.chipstips.com/microblog/index.php/post/296/

      • #3285436

        Hate to say

        by bbell ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        The Vista delay means NOTHING to us here in our small school in central Pennsylvania.  We have to wait until the summer to work on all the computers anyway, because they’re in constant use by the teachers and students during the school year.  About the only thing that will matter to us, is if MS slips again, and Vista doesn’t get to us until late Spring.  There will be a point where it will be too late, we won’t be able to run it through our tests, and it won’t make the new images we create for deployment over the summer rebuild process.  If that happens, then maybe I’ll get a vacation next year!

      • #3285417

        Hate to say

        by jnhannah ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        Why is it that we all get so hung up on release dates? Why should software comanies always be held to such strict dates?

        Personally I would rather that Microsoft took the time to iron out as many of the bugs as possible before releasing vista commercially to the public. Let them get all the issues fixed before releasing the software.

        My XP Home works just fine, and I am in no rush to get my hands on Vista. I don’t want to see another Windows ME fiasco.

        I’ll probably use Vista once it has everything in it. What are peoples thoughts on the security software (anti virus and anti-spyware) that MS is putting into Vista? Are we going to see more lawsuits against Microsoft? I think it would be great to have a fully integrated system. I can still use other software as well. What are peoples thoughts on this subject?

      • #3285413

        Hate to say

        by arthurp ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        John,

        By your standards this posting is nothing more than a cheap shot at Microsoft.

        Maybe I’ve missed something, but it appears that the e-journalist has set in stone what they believe to be the delivery date of Vista, and then seem to be surprised that it will not be delivered to their stated times and dates.

        Concerning the “expected elements” that will not be delivered; are you sure that the e-journalism community have not become confused, in that those so-called missing elements were not originally intended for Longhorn Server ?

        So far the only Greg Schultz, who publishes a weekly posting upon Vista has really had anything to say … it appears that almost everyone else is taking pot shots at Microsoft, which is neither helpful; not does it help your credibility.

        Maybe you would be better focusing your efforts upon how the application will be developed, what we can expect upon launch, and discussions concerning the eventual business deployment, (deciding whether the business should upgrade its current hardware, or replacing it, designing the build around the hardware, will the infrastructure be able to support the OS, software compliancy testing).

        The last roll-out that was conducted of this potential scale was XP, and that started in 2001 with hardware testing, and build design.

        I for one will be happy to receive a system that is relatively secure, and does what I want it to do, straight out of the box – Users without rights .. at last

        Arthur

      • #3285391

        Hate to say

        by bookkeeper ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        I think there are to many cooks to spoil the brew. Microsoft true has
        alot more to contend with such as: they are the top dog and everybody
        knows if someone going to pick on somebody it will be the top dog, but
        in any case you would think that they would be organized enough to
        either not make promises it can’t keep or if they make those promises
        or delivery dates make sure that they can produce. One side can’t
        communicate with the other, or to many cooks spoil the brew.
        Signed just an opinion

      • #3286661

        Hate to say

        by nobby57 ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        Personally I don’t think most people care that much. I already know people who think the onset of Vista will make their existing machines obsolete. What is the benefit the public will realize from a new Windows OS? After you upgrade your hardware to run it decently you will have about what you have now, but it will be wearing a tux (didn’t mean that, exactly!) I know my company ran 98 until 2003. They won’t be breaking down the doors for Vista, as you said.

        Conservative businesses won’t adopt Vista until they know that it won’t break their apps or open new security holes. But they will stick with Windows anyway, running XP until Microsoft won’t support it any more, because they are confused by Linux and think of Mac as a graphics-only OS.

        Reid

      • #3286462

        Hate to say

        by regulus ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        Vista, might be nice.  Might also be M.E. or even worse, DOS 4.0 – who knows.  But really, What real pressing need is there for this product?  And why all of this hype over MS missing their initial ship date?  I mean, Bill doesn’t really have an ’empty pockets’ syndrome does he?  If it is meant to be, let Vista get here when it gets here.  

      • #3075490

        Hate to say

        by jp5472 ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        This is tyical Microsoft – a whole lot of hype, promises, bells and whistles, but never any performance or substance.  They are the GM of the OS industry.  If the company hadn’t become such a monopoly, we’d all have steered clear of their products ages ago, but we are forced to use them with all of the apps, all of the tools, the internet browser, everything based off a windows platform.  Yes, you can have Linux running your servers (and should as it it light years more stable than Win2K3 server products), yes, you can use FireFox (and I do, but still have to revert back to IE for some aspects) but now that we all have been led down the path of MS Office, Outlook, and a myriad of other products that integrate with Windows, who wants to have to go through the pain of whole companies changing over to platforms and applications that their users are unfamiliar with?  How long of a learning curve, and at what expense?

        It’s always the hype, the “spin” that Microsoft ever delivers on time.  Guaranteed when Vista finally is released, much of the hyped features will be missing or they will be released as “options” later, or there will be the pathetic levels of “Home”, “Professional”, “Advanced”, “Enterprise”, etc.  Then there will be the constant parade of patches, fixes, service packs, excuses…and all our frustration trying to find the solution to the latest quirk of something not working as it should.  Not only that, but I am sure that this new OS will probably be over the 10GB range as that is what, with all the SP’s and patches applied, a root drive is approachiing now just with OS related files.

        Maybe someday MS won’t continue to BS, but I know I am just an idealist who waits for the right path to be chosen, thinks and dreams it may happen when the crossroad is presented to a company, but we are talking about Microsoft here….just out for the money grab and dominating everything.

      • #3287288

        Hate to say

        by mail.dave ·

        In reply to Hate to say “I told you so…” (No I don’t.)

        Apple’s Boot Camp, once imaging of a drive with both HFS+ and Win (Fat32 & NTFS) partitions is settled, will start to look more and more inviting to anyone tiring of persistent Windows issues.


        For those who want to maintain their current PC hardware, Vista will be a long wait and a serious gamble, which will lead some decision-makers to give a long hard look at Linux whereas they might never have considered it before.
        Truth is, cost of implementation, maintenance/upkeep and support, and *training* will probably be the driving factors of any decisions made.
        I would certainly not overlook the MacIntel machines, but that option won’t be what’s best for all people.
        As well, few desktop users , still, could really handle Linux.

    • #3263715

      Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      A recent article I stumbled across on National Geographic’s Web site
      discusses how a long forgotten about, fully stocked bomb shelter from
      the Cold War era was discovered beneath the Brooklyn Bridge
      Meant to help New Yorkers survive a nuclear attack, the shelter still
      contained food and water, some of which was dated 1957 and 1962. 
      Over time, people forgot the shelter existed, but there it awaited set
      and ready to go for a nuclear holocaust that never occurred.

      When I was going to school at the University Of South Florida in Tampa,
      Florida, some friends and I discovered a similarly stocked bomb shelter
      under one of the dormitory buildings. It contained metal tins full of
      crackers, chemical toilets, cans of water, and antibiotics that had
      expired in the late 60’s.  The stuff was stacked to the roof of a
      10 foot ceiling and looked like it hadn’t been visited by anyone other
      than thousands of cockroaches for years.

      Millions of dollars were probably spent for similar civil defense
      shelters around the country in the hopes of protecting civilians in
      case of a nuclear war. They were planned for, paid for, and created –
      ultimately to be forgotten. Shelters which could have been kept
      updated, modernized, and modified for other uses turn into treasure
      troves of archaeology. Today we look at these shelters and wonder how
      people back then ever thought they’d survive a nuclear war in them.

      Long forgotten bomb shelters like these can remind IT professionals
      about the importance of keeping disaster recovery plans up to date. You
      can’t just create a disaster planning and recovery process and set it
      aside. You have to keep revisiting it on a regular basis, updating it
      to meet current needs.  If you don’t your plan becomes a wasted
      investment and won’t help you when disaster does strike. Instead years
      down the road will stumble across your plan in a dusty file cabinet
      drawer or somewhere on an old hard drive and marvel that you thought it
      would actually work.

      • #3265632
        Avatar photo

        Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        Indeed, this is the toughest aspect of disaster planning. The day you roll out your disaster plan, everything’s good. But then you add a new server, tack on a new domain, and open a branch office and guess what? Your disaster plan didn’t address backing up data for any of those elements.

        What’s the best way to maintain a disaster plan? Should such plans be revisited monthly? Or, would disaster planning meetings be the first eliminated when a difficult project creates a scheduling conflict?

      • #3106743

        Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        by sfowler44 ·

        In reply to Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        You couldn’t be more Right.

        When I took over this job I found a plan that was 15 years old, and thought the same thing “How could this ever work”.

        Keep the plans uptodate.

        I review mine every 3 months and activate the plan to ensure it works.

        Steve Fowler

      • #3106740

        Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        by slapt0p ·

        In reply to Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        IMHO, DR plans, scripts, procedures, physical resource/targets, external supplier contract schedules must be solidly linked to the organisation’s change management system and maintained by its managed content.  All changes to live service components, INCLUDING HR type organisational change, need to be validated for impact upon the Business Continuity Plan, which includes the IT Disaster RESPONSE arrangements, which may include Service or Component recovery plans, scripts and resources.

        Mostly, I come across organisations of varying size in varying sectors that have no idea that this should be the case, are too small to have formal process, relying on good practise or the IT team to know what they’re doing or run disparately large complex structures made up of varying standards/practises, Gaps and overlaps.  Basically this is too hard to accomplish for 90%.  Occassionally I find it working in a bank,  or it works sometimes, or its planed to but doesn’t, or used to when so and so was in charge. 

        Not hard in concept, just difficult in practise.  It takes only one change to invalidate the continuity arrangements, so proove them often.

      • #3156515

        Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        by chenderson ·

        In reply to Investing in Disaster Recovery shouldn?t be like buying the Brooklyn Bridge

        I like your analogy to the neglected bomb shelter.  I referenced your post on my blog:  http://lawfirmmanagement.clarislaw.com/law-firm-disaster-recovery/update-your-disaster-recovery-plan.php#more

    • #3075434

      Pity poor Novell

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I’ve been using
      Novell products for almost 20 years now since I got the chance to play with
      NetWare in college. There, in the Business Computing Lab at the University of
      South Florida, we had a small network of 30 IBM PC XTs networked to one XT
      running NetWare 2.15. From there I’ve both worked with and written about
      NetWare and Novell through all of it’s various stages and changes.

      During the late 80’s
      and into the 90’s, Novell ruled the networking landscape through the power of
      NetWare. But then Novell stumbled in a misguided effort to take on Microsoft in
      it’s own backyard ? the desktop ? with the purchase of DR-DOS and WordPerfect.
      The combined steamroller of Windows 9x, Office, and Windows NT on the network
      (along with some questionable business tactics on Microsoft’s part) quickly
      wrote the history we’ve come to learn.

      Even though Novell
      included innovations in NetWare years ago that Microsoft is only now starting
      to put into Windows such as federated directory services, Novell struggles to
      maintain viability. The NetWare kernel is stalled with version 6.5 and doesn’t
      seem to have a future. Novell is quickly moving NetWare services to Linux with
      Open Enterprise Server, and is again trying to challenge Microsoft on the
      desktop with SuSe 10.

      The problem is Novell
      can’t seem to get a break. RedHat has an estimated 70% of the Linux market and
      the bet on Linux as a savior for Novell is looking dubious. Pundits ridicule
      Novell’s vision
      of Linux challenging Microsoft on the desktop. And now
      News.com points out that most of Novell’s own employees haven?t
      made the switch
      from Microsoft products to open source ones.

      Yeesh. Novell has a great history. And for
      companies considering making the migration to Linux, it would seem to be the
      best bet because it understands how business works through years of selling
      NetWare. For
      several months now
      , I’ve been pointing out how SuSe Professional 10 makes a
      great desktop environment. But does
      that matter anymore? Is Novell still
      relevant?

      • #3103668

        Pity poor Novell

        by jcritch ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        “And now News.com points out that most of Novell’s own employees haven?t made the switch from Microsoft products to open source ones. “

        I guess that sums it up

      • #3103657

        Pity poor Novell

        by tom.howarth ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        and this says what????  the article does not make any points. or attempt to answer.  but unfortunatly no, Novell is no longer relevant, more and more companies are migrating to Microsoft from Novell.  and in my opinion Linux is not yet ready to be trusted in the enterprise.

      • #3103653

        Pity poor Novell

        by rswanson ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I have been with Novell since back in version 3.10 and loved the product.  I never have felt the partner relationship has ever been right with Novell.  I am now still supporting limited Novell sites but most of our efforts have been on the Microsoft camp.  The Microsoft (MS) Partner Channel is well organized, MS does a lot more events and their product support is realistic.

        I named my company after Novell and the fact that I started out as a CNE so the name Computer Network Enterprises, Inc. just made sense to us.  Novell has bullied us in their partner program and tried to force us to sell their product and force us to change our business model….sorry big red the writing is on the wall.  I will miss the Novell days but uncle Bill just keeps sending us work and Drew Major had a great product but never found anyone to market the Novell properly nor get all the buggy problems with GroupWise working – hey just “FIX IT”

        Sorry to see Novell dwindle…

      • #3103652

        Pity poor Novell

        by sbeighle ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I was an advocate of Novell for years, but then Novell
        wouldn’t help me when my GroupWise 5.5 EP client started automatically adding obscenities
        to outbound messages, including to my organization’s Board of Directors. 
        In fact, Novell’s response was that I needed to upgrade to GroupWise 6…that’s
        not support, that’s extortion in my most humble opinion.  Don’t believe me?  They even have a TID that I was referenced to when I called them for support, TID10066760.

        So, I say the heck with them…they’re getting what they deserve (yeah, I’m a
        little bitter).  By the way, we never did upgrade to GW6…we switched to
        Exchange.

      • #3103644

        Pity poor Novell

        by petedude ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I think it’s more the perception that Novell has lost its relevance than anything else.

        Novell will likely continue to bring new ideas and energy into the industry.  It’s just a matter whether the industry bites or not.  Most of that is due to poor marketing on Novell’s part.

        I think the marketing problem has partly been that traditionally Novell’s been a bunch of geeks who have been too honest for their own good and too reliant on word-of-mouth about the quality of their products.  Those atitudes prevent them from doing the insane marketing that their competitors do (especially MS), and therefore they have no advertising presence/no public awareness.

      • #3103626

        Pity poor Novell

        by myersnet ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Good point. Novell is NOT relevant and hasn’t been for over 10 years. One of the many mistakes Novell made was to never transitition from selling products and services to the network geeks – to selling products and services to the suits who are making the decisions by looking at “the big picture”. And, if you speak with the few remaining “I bleed red” Novell pundits today, they suffer from the same narrow-viewed approach to solving today’s connectivity issues. Even before Novell missed this boat I’m describing, they made another series of grave mistakes by alienating a lot of the developers writing .NLM code with policy changes and support policy changes. Many developers I knew abandonded the platforms they wrote in and jumped on the Win32 bandwagon – and hasn’t missed a beat yet, (unless you count the .NET paradigm shift.)

        Novell as a company has – in my opinion – two near-genious products under their belt: NDS and Zen. Not enough though. They can’t manage their way out of a paper bag.

      • #3103612

        Pity poor Novell

        by carlos55 ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I have been using Suse 9.3 and now 10 desktop since August at home, but use XP for work and also at home.  I don’t see where the Linux desktop is going to make any inroads currently into Windows, and certainly not to Novell’s bottom line.  There just isn’t enough reasons for anyone to make a change.  For Linux, the server side is where the profit is, and that is with Redhat….

      • #3103599

        Pity poor Novell

        by amolina ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Don’t pity Novell.  Microsoft took nothing away from them that Novell didn’t outright hand to them.  I remember a time when Microsoft was considered a joke in the NOS world, and Netware was king.  Because of their refusal to focus on strength and have a clear vision of the future, they threw whatever momentum they had away.  If Apple couldn’t challenge Microsoft for the desktop with decades of momentum and (at least earlier on) superior technology, then it’s misguided hubris to think that Novell could challenge today.  I guess I’m embarrased that I once was proud to be called a CNE.

      • #3103596

        Pity poor Novell

        by crake ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I am a systems engineer who works for a technology consulting company. In this role, I meet dozens of new clients every month. Most of the clients are small- to mid-size organizations, although we do have several large scale customers. Out of all the customers I have worked with, only a handful were still running a Novell server; maybe 10 out of 100. None are running – nor were they planning on deploying the Novell or Suse Linux desktop solution.

        I have been a Microsoft engineer for 15 years. I thought it would be a good idea to familiarize myself with Linux because we do see quite a few UNIX/Linux servers out there – most of them hosting Web and/or Intranet sites. So, I started “tinkering” with Linux about 8 years ago – particularly Red Hat, then Suse and Debian, then a number of others.

        I think Linux is a great system – you can build a rock-solid server that provides a firewall, proxy/web/content filtering, MTA with SPAM filtering, Web hosting with content management systems… all on nothing more than an old PIII with 512RAM (I know this first hand 🙂

        However, I don’t see any compelling reason for companies to switch from Windows to Novell/Suse or Linux on their desktops. The argument I hear most often from proponents of Open Source Software (including my coworkers) is that Novell/Suse is far less susceptible to malware. That is not enough of a reason when management would have to consider a number of issues, including the following:

        • Re-training staff
        • Porting their business applications from Windows to Novell/Suse – if that is even possible.
        • Cutting their losses regarding their investment in Windows software.
        • Details, details, details – for example, many (most) enterprise level document management systems (HP digital senders, Fujitsu, Ricoh, Minolta… et al.) do not provide drivers for Novell or Linux.
        • Most newer PDAs, including HP iPAQ, Sony Clie, and of course RIM’s Blackberry are not supported by Novell/Suse or Linux. No need to mention Microsoft’s handhelds, eh?

        There are a number of open source PDA synchronization software applicaitons, but they do not work with these proprietary appliances. [There are several petitions being put together demanding that RIM provide an open source driver for the Blackberry – so we’ll see what happens.]

        Those are just a few considerations. I am sure that if corporate management at a given company sat down and thought it through, they would come up with many more.

        So, to the question “Is Novell still relevant?” I would have to say no.

        On the other hand, Linux is a fine system and should continue to thrive in the server market.
        I don’t see it displacing Windows on the desktop any time soon. As I said, it’s not so much that open source isn’t capable of being a corporate desktop solution – it’s all the other considerations, including the lack of a stong, compelling reason to switch.

      • #3103582

        Pity poor Novell

        by crake ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        test

      • #3103554

        Pity poor Novell

        by mstoumba ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Novell is still the best NOS out there. Do you need to improve on NW 6.5 ? I don’t think so. It is very stable and doesn’t cost much to run. Microsoft has to keep moving foward to fix the stuff that they didn’t fix when they release a product.

      • #3105654

        Pity poor Novell

        by summerj ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I too started out my Network career with Netware 3.x and stayed on the bandwagon until Netware 6. I was as proud as a peacock when I got my CNE. Expertise in Netware openend the door to other opportunities.

        I think Novell lost its way with the half hearted support for TCP/IP in Netware 4. Instead of native TCP/IP, Netware 4.1 came with Netware IP. I like many others was disillusioned, and predicted the begining of the end for Netware. Everyone wanted TCP/IP and most of them turned to Windows NT instead.

        Novell weaved magic with IPX and turned it into a cutting edge protocol, but the market wanted TCP/IP with the advent of the Internet. It was the relunctance of Novel to switch to TCP/IP that spelled the death knell for Netware. DR DOS and Wordperfect were mistakes, but only minor ones.

        Jonathan S,  Australia

      • #3105023

        Pity poor Novell

        by gem ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        It may interest you to know that Novell gets a multi-million dollar pay-out from Microsoft every years because as a result of Novell pointing out to the courts that Active Directory has more than just a passing resemblence to NDS.

      • #3105009

        Pity poor Novell

        by khunter ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        It’s difficult to pity a company who’s management decided to go mucking into fields where they had no clear vision.  I also began my Novell experience with 2.15 and Arcnet topology (though not in school).  Today, I’d be hard pressed to find a Novell shop to find work in.

        NDS is a great NOS, but Novell was out-flanked with better marketing on a poor product (as with most of the MS apps).  It’s difficult to compete against a company who had their software installed on almost every system that went out the door.  Name recognition is a powerful marketing tool that works well on the technically challenged masses.

        So what do I use now?  It’s a Microsoft world at my day job, but in the comfort of home… Novell 5.5, Linux (I’ve just started tinkering with SUSE 10), XP for the desktops (until I find a better one for the specialty apps we use), WordPerfect (still a superior product), Word (only when necessary) and web-based email (access from anywhere, with any machine).

        I wish Novell lots of luck with their future endeavors, but what they need is a miracle.

      • #3104974

        Pity poor Novell

        by robbi_ia ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        We’ve almost completely moved over from Windows to Novell, and have no intention of upgrading from the WinXP desktop to Vista.  Once M$ stops supporting XP Pro, our systems will all be converted to SLED. Agency management is in agreement, and user training will be a breeze.

         Zenworks is heavenly to work with – we added that about a year and a half ago.  Our Groupwise runs smoothly, and Gwava’s Guinevere has kept our email virus free for 3 1/2 years.  The previous IT department here had 5 people on staff and they still outsourced much of the work.  We’re now a staff of 2 for 200 workstations in 6 offices and 22 preschools – and all work is done in-house.  My monthly mileage is less than 200 miles, even though we are spread across 4 counties.

        I’d say we’re very happy with Novell.

      • #3104921

        Pity poor Novell

        by michael.durkin ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        In my opinion, Novell is not relavant in the OS market anymore. It is a sad thing, they did have a pretty good product, but I think they lacked vision. Even today Novell doesn’t seem to understand the enterprise marketplace and continues to product products that are not as enterprise aware as they should be. I think that Novell saw the file and printe server as a stand alone product, while other products were installed to meet specific needs- all of them stand alone. Microsoft either by accident or design, hooked every application and solution otgether, and right now there is no competitor that can offer the breadth of integration and enterprise capability. I don’t think that changes with Novell (Suse) or Redhat (RHEL). They are very far behind. They could catch up, but I think that will take at least 10 years, and I am not sure either company has the financial backing to support that development without sales. Recently, Red Hat (president I think, but am not sure) said that the problem with Open Source development is that they are not funded. Because they are not funded, they have a difficult time meeting timelines and objectives. The Open Source programmer, no matter how good they are, need to be able to support themselves and their families. Because of that, they must have a full time job to provide the income. Open Source development naturally falls to the programmers available time. This model is not sustainable when pitted against the coprporation that pays people to product code 40 hours a week.

        My two cents.

         

        Michael

      • #3104916

        Pity poor Novell

        by laduerksen ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I too was once proud to call myself a “CNE”.  I can’t even remember what version it was (pre 2.00).  In the central US, Novell has been dead for several years now.  I used to have several Unix based servers but  replaced all but one with Microsoft products or appliances cause I wanted to take a vacation from time to time.  Since I had no one else working for me that new any but Microsoft, I made the switch. 

      • #3104908

        Pity poor Novell

        by plumley9 ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Relevant – yes. Winning – no.  Worthy of support (and capable of providing it) – absolutely. I have SLES for the webserver and Workstation on a half dozen machines.

        I used 3.12 until 4 came out and when the political forces on Campus(UF) started talking ONE forrest and outside admins on our servers we dropped Novell and went NT. It wasn’t Novell’s failure as much as misunderstanding the resistance to ‘federation’. NOBODY wants to hear ‘we will take your job and your budget’.

      • #3104874

        Pity poor Novell

        by still lynn ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Yo! Jcritch!  If you are going to actually sum
        things up then how about a summary with a better referent than the blog
        author’s comment that there is an article about this somewhere else and
        maybe providing a little substance to support your summary (if you will
        also forgive me offering my opinion below as something of “substance”
        rather than just lump of text)?

        Here is the first sentence of the News.com article that Mr. Sheesley provided a link to:

        —–
        “Ron Hovsepian, Novell’s president, speaking at a press event in Sydney,
        said that “about 2,000 employees right now out of 5,000 are single-boot
        only, which is Linux only, the rest are dual-boot.” He said that a
        project to migrate the 3,000 dual-boot workers to open source is likely
        to be completed over the next year or so.”
        —–

        Now here is my summary (low fiber to be sure, but not just empty calorie sugar):

        In an organization that actively develops for the Windows platform they
        have 3k out of 5k that still dual boot and expect to be all open source
        within a year.  Sounds [to me] like they are only fixing what is
        broken on a timetable that will allow them to make a complete
        switchover without trashing development schedules and policies in a
        planned and non-turmoil inducing project schedule.  Migrating five
        thousand employees from one platform to another is far from a trivial
        process.

        You may be inclined dismiss their progress like Mr. Howarth does by
        pointing out that some shops are still running Novell software and that
        some of those shops are just now switching over to a Microsoft software
        stack.  I wouldn’t call that a resounding indictment of the
        shortcomings of the Novell stack, but YMMV.  You may even share
        his opinion that Linux is not ready as an Enterprise platform even
        though Novell, Oracle, Merrill Lynch and many others don’t share that
        assessment.  But I feel that just saying that Novell hasn’t
        completed the switchover “sums it up” seems like an inadequate
        summary.  That doesn’t mean you are wrong or that I am right but I
        thought I would at least provide a little of the thought process that
        went into forming my opinion.  Again, YMMV.  There is more
        than one conclusion that can be made based on available information.

        Blogging can be just preaching to the choir.  But
        It can also be a way to stimulate useful discussion on a topic that
        might otherwise be ignored, overlooked or relegated to free
        marketing/PR.

      • #3103819

        Pity poor Novell

        by tolancollins ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Novell is dead!!  Over the past 10 years how many times have we heard and read this (yet it is still being discussed)?

        So you’ve had a bad experience with a security feature of Novell which prevented you from logging in…. I guess we should assume you’ve never had a odd problem with a Microsoft product which didn’t cause some minor (or major) frustration?  🙂

        I’m not anti Microsoft, however, there is still a definite place for Novell’s many products which integrate on all platforms (there is no point discussing which server is best, it serves no business purpose).  At my office we run Windows Server 2003, 2000, NT, Citrix, NetWare 6 and 6.5 all in harmony. 

        The Novell applications such as ZenWorks, GroupWise,  (not to mention their identity products) will happily sit on a Windows as well as a NetWare/Linux server.  The underlying point is that Novell is not just about NetWare/Linux servers (which no one can deny is in decline) but many different products which integrate and enhance ease of management of any network.  It’s about best of breed products (apologies for the clich?!).

        We don’t run Linux, but is certainly being considered.   XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.  Do you really need to spend approximately ?250 on a XP and Office when you can get Linux for free (or ?65 supported (per user))?  Is the Linux interface really so different that users won’t just login and get on with the basic day to day operations? 

        The next offering from Microsoft is Vista and is supposedly going to need 1 gig of RAM and a 256 Meg video card, and for what, a few fancy screens? (Just think how GOOD all the new effects will make your word processor look while you are typing a letter!)

        Before being led further up the Microsoft path why not consider an alternative and evaluate whether it has a place on your network/desktop, it may not, but why write it off ?

        http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
        Worth watching the 4 very quick videos (especially the cube) very cool!!  (if you?re after fancy screens!)!

        Tolan

      • #3103787

        Pity poor Novell

        by tomk3212 ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I also started my networking career with NetWare (3.12, to be exact) but got disillusioned with 5.0 and even more so with 5.5.  I was running a combo of NT/Win2k and NetWare servers, all “speaking” TCP/IP but I still needed the NetWare client and IPX/SPX for my NT/Win2k clients to talk to the NetWare servers!  By the time I left we had standardized on Windows 2000 with some Linux.

        Kinda reminds me of the old “Betamax vs. VHS” debate.  NetWare relevent?  ‘Fraid not!

        Tom K.

      • #3286940

        Pity poor Novell

        by la songs ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        You wrote:

        “…in it’s own backyard ? the desktop…”

        Grammatically speaking, the “it’s” should be “its,” without the apostrophe.

      • #3286890

        Pity poor Novell

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        ” XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.”

        Really?
        Why?
        I don’t own any Microsoft software or miss it.

        all Linux here.
        [ and not Novell’s Suse ]

      • #3286883

        Pity poor Novell

        by tolancollins ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        ” XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.”

        You’re quite right, that was a sweeping statement!! I work in the legal sector and the clean successful exchange of documents with clients etc, is of paramount importance. We cannot afford formatting or page/paragraph/TOC numbering issues etc etc.

        Whether we like it or not Office is the suite used by the masses and if you need to transparently exchange documents then you need the same applications (Open Office hasn’t full compatibility with Word).

        We went through a similar exercise with WordPerfect and Word. WordPerfect was the tool of choice but because substantial time was lost when exchanging documents (not to mention looking unprofessional) we were forced to migrate to Word.

        So if you don’t exchange documents then you fit into the “not necessarily all” category. 🙂

         Tolan
         

      • #3286830

        Pity poor Novell

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        As others have pointed out, Novell ruled during the 90’s; I will give them credit for leading the way back then, but they are now not even a blip on the radar screen of technology.  I took the CNE courses and got certified, but the world moved on, and Novell didn’t.  While I used to be a big fan, proud of my Netware credentials, after years of supporting their products – including the odious Groupwise 5.5, the worst email server/client I’ve ever used – I grew alienated with Novell.  I have no love for Microsoft (I’m an operating system agnostic) but they simply make superior server and desktop products (regardless of who “borrowed” from whom).

        We had a few Novell servers at my company that ran OK as long as you didn’t touch them, but if you tried unloading NLMs, doing any maintenance work or even just using the server console, watch out; they were bound to lock up and require a cold boot.  I tried all the silly server parameters like changing the “Packet Receive Buffers” value, etc. (after scouring the Novell site as well as my textbooks for every tip I could find) to optimize performance; those just never did anything.  The Groupwise server was even worse; we couldn’t even update the NLMs for the product as the Internet Agent would not work.  It got to the point that the servers were off-limits during production hours, because we had had so many inconvenient reboots during the day caused by these servers locking up.  That more than anything else is why I got so fed up with Novell (and no, it wasn’t a hardware problem, nor misconfiguration of the servers, nor anything other than the fact Netware simply could not seem to handle any activity being performed at the server console).

        Ditto for the support packs and the horrible Novell client, which brought any Windows machine to a crawl; they kept releasing new versions, updates, and other “releases” but it never improved in quality.  Using Netware Administrator was not fun – it took at least 2-3 minutes to load!  Proving our punishment gluttony, we also used the Novell BorderManager firewall/VPN – other than the proxy server component, which ran reasonably well, the rest of the package was not impressive.
         The VPN pretty much only worked in one instance I can note, and that
        was on my home PC after spending days on the project; it was not fit to
        roll out to the user community.

        We got off Novell in favor of Active Directory a few years ago, thankfully.  Like finally booting out an unwelcome guest who has stayed too long, it was time to clean house.  I actually have nightmares now that my company returns to using Novell/Groupwise and all the headaches it entailed – probably because I went on a casual job interview with what must be the last remaining company in North America that uses that deadly combination, and was appalled at the prospect of committing career suicide by taking a job working with those products again.

        I still get the Novell magazines, somehow, and as I skim through the articles devoted to the “hot new products” Novell is pushing, I just think about the crazy babbling man on the corner outside the liquor store, and feel a mixture of pity and disgust.  Do they really expect anyone other than perhaps a Novell devotee or casual hobbyist to use their Linux desktop?  I’d rather just use a genuine, free, Linux server/desktop combination to achieve the same ends – at the very least I would not be reluctant to put on my resume.  Now I hear Oracle is thinking about buying Novell.  The only conclusion I can come to is that they intend to salvage what few remaining elements of useful technology may still exist at that organization and then euthanize the rest of the product line.  Probably that would be a mercy.

      • #3148552

        Pity poor Novell

        by sterling “chip” camden ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I just finished a project to automate Groupwise using a combination of their object API and the token interface.  Looking back on it, Groupwise seems to be a very powerful and full-featured product.  But the frustration of setting it up (the evaluation version) for the first time was unbearable.  The documentation is non-existent, the pre-sales support people knew less than I did, and the only real technical help I found was in the forum.  The people in the forum did know what they were talking about, but it could sometimes take days to get an answer.  For an “evaluation” experience, this ranked way low.  If I wasn’t being paid to do this, I would have given up several times along the way.

        If Novell wants to succeed in attracting new customers, the product evaluation experience has to be improved.

      • #3149133

        Pity poor Novell

        by mehenson ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        We are currently considering moving from Netware to
        Microsoft servers for many reasons.

        1. It
          seems like every feature on Netware requires a separate client component
          ex. Novell Client, iPrint client, iFolder client, Zenworks client.  That?s just crazy.
        2. Recently
          we have been forced to update our GroupWise 7 server with a BETA
          patch because the original release was so bad that Novell recommended that
          we use the BETA.  What kind of company makes a product so
          buggy that they recommend to use a BETA
          patch.
        3. Microsoft
          is running full speed with innovation, and Netware is stuck on its last
          version.  Hardware venders are not
          even planning to spend the time to make drivers for future server hardware.
        4. And
          simply, I can support Microsoft servers with less time than with Netware
          servers

        Also, in education Novell is very expensive, and Microsoft
        is very cheap.

      • #3152193

        Pity poor Novell

        by gus ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        I was using Novell when it was 2.2 . I went to class to get my CNA. Novell forced my small shop to keep upgrading which was expensive at the time for a small service company in rural areas. Our main jobs were law offices with maybe 3 to 5 stations. We couldn’t sale enough to stay a member of the big red club. Novel forced many small operators in to changing to Microsoft just becasue the volumes weren’t enough. I’m now the Technology coordinator and we have 1500  computers and 40 servers. I’d rather deal with that than Novell.

        graynor

      • #3152114

        Pity poor Novell

        by timseery ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        The question has been and is anyway going to be is “What does Novell be when it grows up?”. This constant struggle with Microsoft has prevented Novell from finding itself and a market. GroupWise was and is a good product, NDS/EDirectory was and is good product, ZEN Works was and is a good product, only going to prove that the company can deliver. But it appears to me that Novell is making the same strategic error; betting the business on the wrong product at the wrong time.

        Novell can be relevant but it has to stop wasting time trying to create new and shallow markets. There is a very limited market for Linux desktop in the enterprise just as there is limited market for MacOS and Solaris on the desktop. Focus and expand on core strengths and stop trying to go head to head with Microsoft on every little product. For example create Identity Management products that are tightly integrated with Active Directory, port GroupWise to Windows/AD. Rebuild the disbanded consulting practice, sponsor more tech/learning events and improve product support. ? That how do it, that how you win!

      • #3152058

        Pity poor Novell

        by dippleydokus ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        Blah blah, natter natter. Jeez. The very complaints everyone has about Novell is what Microsoft is doing in the present.

        The only “strength” MIcrosoft has is the perception that one doesn’t get fired for buying Microsoft. That’s how it was with IBM not very long ago, and where is IBM today, as a player …? Of course, Microsoft does play to its strength. 🙂

        Microsoft is involved in hardware, games, application software, litigation (to make sure nobody can compete … just look at Lindows and MikeRoweSoft) and Lord knows what else. And people claim that MS is specializing in NOS development?! Give me a break.

        Is Microsoft “better” than Novell? Is the Pope Baptist? <g>

        Duh!

      • #3151994

        Pity poor Novell

        by andy goss ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        “News.com points out that most of Novell’s own employees haven?t
        made the switch
        from Microsoft products to open source ones.”
        No, News.com does not make that statement. It reports Ron Hovsepian,
        Novell’s president, as saying that “about 2,000 employees right now out
        of 5,000 are single-boot
        only, which is Linux only, the rest are dual-boot.”.
        I don’t know what that means to you, but to me it looks like 3,000 old
        Windows PCs have been dual booted, which is the only realistic way of
        moving to Linux in a continuous working environment, and 2000 new PCs
        are single boot.
        Novell have got so much wrong in the past that I am amzed they are
        still around, witness all the postings above, but I can only wish them
        well in their bold attempt to make it back to the big league. We need
        diversity, and we need active competition to stimulate real innovation.
        And I don’t mean Windows Live.

      • #3152723

        Pity poor Novell

        by parkwhite42749 ·

        In reply to Pity poor Novell

        The company I work for has extra support systems to shore up Windows servers. We have security scanners, automatic updates and antivirus. By contrast, our Netware servers require none of these.
        There are Netware 4 servers actually still in use pretty much as they were the day they were brought on line. Contrast that to Microsoft NT4 servers and their forced retirement.
        How does Microsoft get away with it? That’s what Novell needs to find out!

    • #3105831

      A little thing called karma

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      In my last
      entry
      , I questioned whether Novell was still relevant after all these
      years and the problems they?ve been having lately gathering traction in the
      Linux market. Apparently the NetWare servers in the TechRepublic Test Lab were
      reading the site because today when I tried to access them, I discovered that I
      was locked out.

      It?s actually XP?s fault. 
      Ok. It?s my fault for typing in my password wrong when I went to access
      them this morning, but XP retried to access the servers so quickly and
      repeatedly with the wrong password that it triggered the Intruder Lockout
      feature I had enabled on them a while back ago when doing a story about network
      security.

      No problem though. A quick visit to ConsoleOne or NWAdmin
      would fix the problem by logging in as Admin on a workstation and connecting to
      the servers that way. Rather than go the easy route however, I decided to make
      use of the GUI on the NetWare servers themselves.  In case you forgot ? or never knew – after NetWare
      5.1, Novell included a Java based GUI that you can invoke by typing startx at the console prompt.

      Well, I forgot just how slow the Novell GUI is on NetWare on
      the test machines we?re using.  After 10
      minutes of loading and then slugglishly opening windows that would make Vista
      look like a Lamborghini, I went back to the workstation and reenabled the
      account there.

      It just goes to show you that computers ARE like cars. If you
      say, or even imply, something bad about them, they listen and retaliate at the
      first opportunity.  

      • #3103945

        A little thing called karma

        by petedude ·

        In reply to A little thing called karma

        From a longtime Novell fan:  that’ll teach ya! 🙂
        Seriously, though, have you updated that 5.1 box to the latest patch levels yet?  The later GUIs on that release were a LOT more responsive.

      • #3103941

        A little thing called karma

        by ashtay ·

        In reply to A little thing called karma

        You are absolutely right. Best funny story of the day or maybe the week..

        Hyacinthe A. TOURE, MS

      • #3103867

        A little thing called karma

        by arleenw ·

        In reply to A little thing called karma

        I love the intruder lockout feature. It alerts me when someone tries to
        bypass security on our public access computers by rebooting.

        The server gui actually started with Netware 5. It was/is horribly
        slow. I never found it useful for much. I just typed “down” on my 5
        server the other day for the last time because the hardware is too old.
        🙁  I never had any problems with it, but I don’t plan to install
        it on new hardware either.

        As for Novell, they have some really nice offerings coming up with Suse
        Linux Enterprise Desktop and Server 10. I got a look at them at
        Brainshare and I realy liked what I saw. They really need to step up
        the marketing if they want to gain any ground on Redhat and Microsoft
        and become relevant again.

      • #3103831

        A little thing called karma

        by tolancollins ·

        In reply to A little thing called karma

        Novell is dead!!  Over the past 10 years how many times have we heard and read this (yet it is still being discussed)?

        So you’ve had a bad experience with a security feature of Novell which prevented you from logging in…. I guess we should assume you’ve never had a odd problem with a Microsoft product which didn’t cause some minor (or major) frustration?  🙂

        I’m not anti Microsoft, however, there is still a definite place for Novell’s many products which integrate on all platforms (there is no point discussing which server is best, it serves no business purpose).  At my office we run Windows Server 2003, 2000, NT, Citrix, NetWare 6 and 6.5 all in harmony. 

        The Novell applications such as ZenWorks, GroupWise,  (not to mention their identity products) will happily sit on a Windows as well as a NetWare/Linux server.  The underlying point is that Novell is not just about NetWare/Linux servers (which no one can deny is in decline) but many different products which integrate and enhance ease of management of any network.  It’s about best of breed products (apologies for the clich?!).

        We don’t run Linux, but is certainly being considered.   XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.  Do you really need to spend approximately ?250 on a XP and Office when you can get Linux for free (or ?65 supported (per user))?  Is the Linux interface really so different that users won’t just login and get on with the basic day to day operations? 

        The next offering from Microsoft is Vista and is supposedly going to need 1 gig of RAM and a 256 Meg video card, and for what, a few fancy screens? (Just think how GOOD all the new effects will make your word processor look while you are typing a letter!)

        Before being led further up the Microsoft path why not consider an alternative and evaluate whether it has a place on your network/desktop, it may not, but why write it off ?http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
        Worth watching the 4 very quick videos (especially the cube) very cool!!  (if you?re after fancy screens!)!

        Tolan

      • #3287647

        A little thing called karma

        by joedcook ·

        In reply to A little thing called karma

        And shame on you for making such a statement anyway… unless you were just trying to goad us into some kind of flame war.

        So I went to my Netware box and typed in startx to see how long it takes.  Yes Console One is a slow Java-based app but I think there must be some other reason for your 10 minute plus wait. After one minute and 15 sectonds I was logged in to Console One and authenticated.  This is not a high powered system.  Pentium III, 750MB RAM running Netware Small Business Suite 6.5.

        Most management tasks though I do through iManager from my linux workstation with a Firefox browser. I almost never manage anything from the server itself.

        There is a lot of life left in Novell.  I sell and install products from Novell and Microsoft. I have seen just as many improvements in the Novell products in the last 5 years as I have in their Microsoft counterparts. Most people see what they are looking for and there are not that many looking for improved Netware products.  Most of my customers are being told  by their software providers that the software requires Windows for networking functionality even when that is not true and that is what makes Netware a hard sell. But it works well, is very secure, and very reliable.

        Suse Linux 10.0 is the best desktop operating system that I have ever used.

        So Novell is very relevant to my office, my business, and my cusotmers…. your mileage may vary.  Let the flames begin.

    • #3104808

      Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One of the few 800lb gorillas left in the software industry
      that can challenge Microsoft with any success is Oracle.     Oracle?s database
      programs have successfully fended off attacks from Microsoft SQL Server for
      years. In the portal world, Oracle?s products are also gaining steam. Oracle?s
      services and applications businesses have flourished. And Oracle long has had a
      lot of mindshare in large government and large businesses.

      I read with interest the News.com story that talked about
      Oracle wanting to challenge Microsoft directly with its
      own version of Linux
      . Oracle?s bread and butter ? the database server ? has
      long had the advantage of being able to run on just about any platform. You can
      get a version of Oracle that will run under Windows, Linux, and just about
      every other operating system including NetWare. Therefore, it would seem kind
      of odd that Oracle would try to get its own operating system and thereby remove
      the perceived OS neutrality.

      The key part of the article said that Larry Ellison?s goal
      was ?to sell a full range of software that, like Microsoft, included both operating
      system and applications.? As I pointed out in a
      previous post
      , this is exactly the strategy that Novell took in the late 80?s
      and early 90?s when it ruled the NOS. Novell took its eye off the ball and got
      squashed. Will the same thing happen to Oracle?

      I doubt it. There are a couple of key differences here. First,
      Oracle?s a much bigger company than Novell was at its height. Oracle also has a
      deeper bench. Novell relied on NetWare and basically nothing else to fund the
      fight against Microsoft. Oracle has many different lines of business and is
      more deeply entrenched in the larger companies. Microsoft could quickly and
      easily hold Novell off on the desktop while counterattacking on the NOS front.
      It can?t do the same with Oracle because Oracle?s a bigger target.

      Secondly, Oracle has the advantage of Larry Ellison. From
      just about anything you ever read about Ellison, you discover his ego is the
      only thing bigger than his wallet. And one of the few wallets bigger than his belongs
      to Bill Gates. Ellison is not just a Type A personality. More like a Type AAA+.
      Therefore, you can just guess that he?d love nothing more than to take a few
      shots at Microsoft.

      Will Oracle get in the game that others lost? And will it do
      it by buying Novell or RedHat or by using the advantage of open-source and
      create its own version of Linux?  That?s
      where things get interesting.

      • #3286893

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        ~evil grin~

        I went to Oracle’s website, and posted in their forums, the linux one about this…

        Oracle considering creating it’s own Linux Distro?

        Posted:
        Apr 18, 2006 10:16 PM
        According to this article they are:http://news.com.com/Oracle+says+may+launch+own+Linux+version/2100-7344_3-6061696.htmlIf they do decide to create an Oracle Linux, what Distro would you like to see them base it on?RH? [ a quick scan shows the issues RH has with Oracle’s software right now ]Debian?Suse?Slack?Gentoo?Actually,
        I would recommend they work with a from scratch distro and build it
        themselves completely, since RH is as far from being standards
        compliant as possible, Suse isn’t a lot better.Debian is closest to
        being standards compliant, but since the standard states RPM is the
        package manager and Debian won’t downgrade from their own .deb system
        they aren’t fully compliant.Red Hat has the major Market share,
        but buying a bugware distro and fixing it would cost more than rolling
        their own from scratch would.I would love to see a Company that
        could give Microsoft a run for their money backing a Linux
        Distribution, but I would hate to see that company saddle themselves
        with bugware to start with. I say that rolling their own is the best
        way for Oracle to go

      • #3286889

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        So . . . basically your whole argument against Slackware and Debian is that they don’t use RPM? (I don’t have to ask about your argument against Gentoo.)

        Frankly, I’m of the opinion that the LSB is a sham that will eventually end up largely ignored due to its partisanship and mismanagement. In the meantime, I’ll happily lead the pack as one of the first to think the guys at LSB have lost the plot.

        The reason Debian won’t standardize on RPM is simple: it’s an inferior standard to DEB. It’s not surprising that’s the case, considering the fact that the DEB package format has been around a lot longer, and has had many more developers working on it all this time to refine it. It’s just more mature, and seems to have headed in the right direction in the first place. Furthermore, there aren’t any package management tools as slick as those developed for the DEB package format — APT, aptitude, Synaptic, et cetera.

        Besides, Debian does support RPM, for the sole purpose of being LSB-compliant: it has Alien for package translation and basic RPM tools. I always go with a minimal install and don’t install those, but they’re there if you want them, and they’re there in the default install types available through tasksel.

        Personally, I’d like to see Oracle build a distro using the Debian official software archives, plus an Oracle-specific third party archive for its own software additions to the distribution. I might even be willing to use it.

      • #3287377

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5f7bdc18-ce85-11da-a032-0000779e2340.html

        The actual interview that all the reports are drawn from.

        it actually says that Oracle wouldn’t even think of buying a distro, they would just use the sources to build thier own.

      • #3104416

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by michael.durkin ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        Will Oracle enter the desktop market?  I don’t know, but I am fairly sure that if they do, they will be throwing good money after bad. I do think that Oracle would be taking their eye off the ball, and would likely lose ground in more markets, and probably gain nothing in the desktop market.

        They may have deep pockets and a deep bench, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

      • #3104403

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by wcallahan1 ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        Oracle will not only scoop up Novell and thier SuSe Linux product, but Red Hat as well.  SCO is dying, and they don’t have the muscle to challenge Oracle in the Unix ownership debate.

      • #3104396

        Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

        by mach-one ·

        In reply to Oracle? Moving into the Linux market?!

          I think if Oracle
        would buy up Red Hat, Oracle could also take a cut out of IBM too.  I
        worked for both Oracle and IBM and I can tell you IBM is counting on Red Hat
        and SUSE Linux (More on Red Hat then SUSE.) to help the company move forward in
        both software and hardware offerings areas.  So I think this would heart
        IBM more then Microsoft short term anyway.  Oracle and IBM always liked
        the Linux platform and disliked Windows, of course this is a no brainier.  They both think of Linux as the future of
        operating systems to use with there other offering.   

          If Larry just wants the best Linux OS than I would buy
        Novell, this is the best Server and desktop OS looking at Linux in my opinion.  Novell is a good take-over target and we all
        know Larry likes to buy.  Larry, when he
        buys (Speculation on my part) should build up the Linux OS as a stand-alone and
        packaged offerings (Certified package.) 
        That would be the only way he can take away market shares from
        Microsoft.  Adding an office productivity
        package could add value to the Linux OS too.  

    • #3285080

      Gee – Thanks for all the help

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      At TechRepublic, we use Microsoft Office 2003 as our standard
      office suite. At home, I use Office 2000 most of the time because it has better
      file compatibility for working from home than OpenOffice and I have no reason
      to spend the extra money to get the few added features that Office 2003 has.
      Most of the time there are no issues running Office 2000. It’s solid and gets
      the job done. But something interesting happened yesterday.

      Working from home, my HP Omnibook blue-screened in middle of
      writing an article. The computer’s been flakey for a while, but my ThinkPad
      Tablet PC was at work and I had to make use of what I had. When XP restarted so
      did Word 2000, and as it is wont to do, it properly froze. I had already saved
      the article, so the data was safe but Word itself hung.  A quick [Ctrl][Alt][Del] and visit to Task
      Manager allowed me to remove the offending process and then Windows offered to
      report the crash.

      “What the heck, might as well”, I thought as
      Windows dutifully reported its errors to the mothership. 

      Then, just like it’s supposed to Windows comes up with a
      window saying that the error has been reported and oh, by the way, here’s a
      link to see how to keep the error from occuring the future. Figuring it was
      hardware problem, but interested to see what Microsoft thought was wrong, I
      clicked the link and promptly saw this:

      A helpful message from microsoft

       

      That’s a pretty helpful solution isn’t it?

      What I find interesting is the fact, that going to the Event
      Viewer, I was able to find the exact error and sure enough it was a hardware
      failure. Would it have been so difficult to have kept the support page that was
      probably there in 2001 – 2003 that mentioned what the error was rather than
      redirect you to a page telling you to buy something else? 

      Now, I suppose in this day and age I don’t really expect
      Microsoft to provide support for a 6 year old application. But just what kind
      of ‘help’ is a support document that tells you that you need to upgrade? I
      guess that must come from the Marketing Dept and not Support.  If a company is going to offer help, it
      should provide REAL support not disguised advertisements for further purchases.
      Otherwise, nevermind – I’ll figure out the problem on my own.        

      • #3285075

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by steven warren ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        What process did you kill?

      • #3271488

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        I understand believe me.

        I had been using MS Office 2000 then Upgraded to Office 2003. The only real difference for me was that the menus were a lot Fancier than what I wanted and/or needed and the thing got far more complicated that I felt it should be 3D Menus?. Add to that the loss of My beloved Photo Editor and I find myself thinking of going back to my trusty old 2000. It may not be as fancy and top heavy as 2003 but 3D Menus don’t make for a better system, they just make it prettier that’s all.

        In almost every area where you could go in and control the program, Microsoft has added ten levels of things you can adjust.

        I frankly don’t see the point unless your the type that likes to tinker with every little aspect of the system. I for one am perfectly satisfied just having it do what I want, which is to say write letters and reports and above all Give me back my PhotoEditor.

        OH NO !!, you have to deal with MS Publisher now, which is nowhere near as efficient. I don’t care how fancy it is.I can’ sharpen a picture anywhere near as well with this as I did with Photo Editor.

        Microsoft has taken to chopping up a Product  into Ten different pieces and then adding all the facades to those ten parts that comprise the whole program and then breaking that down even more in order to give you menu, upon menu, upon menu. Thus you think you’re getting more. You’re not. You’re getting the same, only the cut is different i.e. more menus, “Big Deal”

        Who need’s it, certainly not I. Just give me something that writes, spell checks and looks good and above all is ease of use.

        That’s MS Office 2000. Maybe Microsoft need’s to back up because in many ways, they’ve jumped the fence in 2003 unless of course one is a glutton for menus and 3Dtoys.

        I’m going back and when they get real again, I’ll come back and have a look. Thanks but No thanks to 2003 and all it’s trappings or better yet, “traps”.

        If this is what’s waiting for us in Vista, “God help us Everyone”. At least with the menus. 😉

        Regards

        Aaron

         

      • #3148851

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by btyng ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        A key issue is why shouldn’t you expect Microsoft to support a 6 year old software product?  Most businesses and individuals don’t have the resources to continually upgrade.  A perfect example is how you (and many of us) are still using Office 2000.  This is one of the problems in technology today, it is assumed that change is a given and that it is always better.  Reallity shows that change isn’t always best, sometimes you don’t have to fix what isn’t broken. But marketing tries to convince us otherwise

      • #3150439

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by davida ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        On one hand I understand discontinuing support on computer equipment and software; the life cycle is so short. On the other hand I can still go to a Ford dealer and get a power window motor for a 1992 Crown Vic. Yes, durable goods versus comodity computing products, blah, blah, blah. I acknowledge the intrinsic flaw in my comparison.

        My first experience with the marketing machine as substitute for true “help” was with Dell a few months back. I had to replace memory in an old Dell and only wanted info from tech support on what was the maximum amount of memory the MOBO would support. Instead of a simple answer, they simply said the computer was far older than they continue to support, and directed me to sales. Sounds very similar to what you experienced with Microsoft.

        In my business, my clients often run legacy OS’s on ancient hardware simply because it still works, and avoids the concurrent user limitations of new OS’s. When we do have a problem with an old piece of equipment or software, I can usually work around it, which my clients appreciate. The planned obsolecence strategies of manufacturers and publishers don’t make it easy.

      • #3150420

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by mehenson ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        I don?t see that message as Microsoft trying to push a newer
        version on you.  From a support perspective,
        they are just telling you what is required to receive support from them.  You will also notice that this page states
        that updates are available for your current version and gives you a link to
        download updates like service packs which might fix your problem.  If Microsoft doesn?t support Office 2000
        anymore, it?s probably good that they educate people of a step that they can take
        so that they can get support.  Basicly,
        Microsoft is educating the public as well as promoting their newer product
        which is normal for any free enterprise company.

      • #3150218

        Gee – Thanks for all the help

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Gee – Thanks for all the help

        Upgrade, schmupgrade. No one has mentioned that had the application upgrade been performed, the hardware error would still be present. I guess the error reporting system either doesn’t include the system event error along with the application events when it uploads, or the system events don’t get analyzed.

    • #3150932

      Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Apple?s been getting a lot of coverage lately about their new
      Intel-based Macs. It seems like hardly a day goes by whenever you don?t
      read something about these new machines.
      Most of the hype and hysteria revolves around the potential of running
      Windows on a MacIntosh. Whether it?s the attempt to natively load XP on
      a Mac or dual booting Mac OS X and Windows using Boot Camp, people seem
      to be bending over backwards to get Windows running on the Mac.

      Beyond the clear Wow factor of being able to do so, I can?t really see
      much of a point to wanting to run Windows on a Mac. To me, it seems
      like putting a set of Firestones on a Ferrari. You get to spend lots of
      extra money on the machine just watch it crash.

      Yes, I understand that it would allow you to run Windows applications
      on a Mac, but again I say ?Why?? What matters most is data
      compatibility, not the application itself. If you?re using Microsoft
      Office on Windows at work, you can just as easily run Mac Office at
      home to do the work at home. For just about every Windows application
      out there, there?s a correlating Mac application that does the same
      thing. If you absolutely HAVE to run Windows on a Mac, you can do so
      perfectly easily today using VMWare or Virtual PC. Virtualization
      solves the immediate problem without having to go through the hassle of
      dual booting or anything.

      The Mac?s supposed superiority comes from Mac OS X. OS X is supposed to
      be more stable, faster, and more secure than Windows XP, right? If
      that?s the case then why would someone want spend the extra time and
      money to take what is otherwise a step backwards? Remove OS X from a
      MacIntel, and all you really have is an overpriced Dell. When I can
      purchase a dual-core Dell laptop for $699, why would I even think twice
      about an $1800 MacBook running Windows?

      On an episode of Murphy Brown once, Murphy was riding in her boss?s new
      Range Rover. Her comment to him was: ?Why are you driving this? Why
      don?t you just take $20,000 and glue it to the hood of a Ford
      Explorer?? That?s Windows XP on a MacIntel to me.    

      • #3148230

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        You should have said “Goodyear” instead of “Firestone”. Firestone actually makes some pretty good tires. Maybe not the sort of tires you’d tend to choose for a Ferrari, but better than what you’d put on a Ford Escort.

      • #3148225

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by mesmd ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Just let corporate America either change to the new macintel machines or, better yet, switch completely to Macs, reversing the current ratio of M$/Apple!!!  I own several thousand shares of Apple since 1999!! Mac is a better machine and Jobs  should let other manufacturers produce his product as Mr. Gates did years ago. I agree with you about the over hype of running xp on a Mac. To me it’s like giving a dead man an enema!!!

        M.Stone, M.D.

      • #3148197

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by dreonn ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        I have to agree with everything that was said here.  I have always been an intel man running windows and Ubuntu linux.  It would be a waste of time to install Windows on a Mac.  What we should be talking about is; being able to install Mac OS X on my intel computer.  Finally getting rid of windows and install the Mac OS X instead.  Is it possible?  Then I could be a Mac/Linux home.

      • #3148175

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by karlthoeni ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

         It has always been my experices most (Mac users) really don’t think too clearly when it comes to applications between the too OS’s,everbody knows that you can’t do the sane things an a Mac as you can on a WindowsXP machine, I see it as just anther way to try and show how much better (there) Machines are! ….when the only that matters is applications that run on the OS, There will always be a Cult like alience to( Mac Machines user) to them the only thing that matters in it has the name Apple an It. 

      • #3148158

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by tech.systems ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Consider coming from the other side.  Being able to run the Mac OS
        from a Windows user perspective.  This gives the avid Windows user
        a safe comfortable way to try the Mac OS without having to leave their
        comfort zone. They can experience and learn the Mac OS at thier own
        pace.  So if and when the person makes the decision that the Mac
        OS is superior, they can adopt the Mac OS without having to buy a new
        computer.  I personally know that a Windows user can’t suddenly
        expect to learn and be proficient in the Mac OS without some time and
        the dual boot system is a great way to give that Windows user the time
        to learn and experience the Mac OS.

        By the way, I have used both VMware and Virtual PC and I prefer to boot
        to the OS and not to use virtualization.  I have run into problems
        with the virtualization and I’m never sure if it is due to the virtual
        software or some other bug.  So I end up booting to the OS anyway
        to find out.

      • #3163412

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by bookkeeper ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        I agree whole 100% I don’t understand why a person would spend that kind of money just to take a few steps backwards as far as one not sure Mac’s are all that much better anyway and two if gaming is the issue its not the OS thats going to make it any better but the graphics that actually make a difference.

      • #3163355

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by david_libby ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        At the moment you can’t run Virtual PC or VMWare on a MacIntel – not out yet, and Microsoft hasn’t promised that VirtualPC will come out for MacIntel (although I don’t see why they wouldn’t).   I am playing with the Parallels Beta.

        Another issue I have is that we’re a dominant Mac shop but have a project that works with a custom plug-in that only work on PCs – so I have a ThinkPad to sometimes lug around along with my MacBook Pro just to show off one use – also to use one Windows only program (Notes Administrator).  Now for the Notes Administrator, virtualization works fine, but for the plug-in it’s very graphics intensive, and BootCamp will give me significantly better speed.

        You might get me to agree that BootCamp is for niche uses, and I’d prefer virtualization in general, but having the option is nice.

      • #3162791

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by klaken ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        I have a MacBook Pro and run both OS X and Windows.? My reasons for doing this are:

        1.? As a business consultant my clients either use Macs or Windows.? I am required to use both systems, as well as my staff.
        2.? Critical business software such as Quickbooks do not operate the same in Macs and Windows.? In fact the Windows version is far advanced and superior to the QuickBooks for MAC.? In all features.? The Olympus voice recorder only works in Windows.
        3.? I am a pilot, and there is no software for advanced flight planning for the Macs.?
        Installing Boot Camp.? The Mac side took only 25 minutes and everything on my iBook transfered the first time without a glitch, programs, data, passwords, settings, address books, EVERYTHING.? In the Windows side, this is day 7 and I am still installing all of my original software, data etc.? The good news – every windows application works!!
        Finally, this is why I did the change.? I now only carry one laptop and transformer.? A 50% weight reduction.? I am forced to work in Windows (I have to tolerate Microsofts lousy customer service), but I choose to work with Apple products because they understand the customer – me!
        So on a scale of 10 (10 best) I believe that Apple is a 9 and Microsoft is trying to reach a 3 with customer service.? As for robustness dependability and uptime – Mac 9 and Windows 2.? As for productivity Mac 95% efficient and Windows 32%.? This is a big enough difference for most CFO’s to take note, and I predict that many companies will convert to MAC based systems to save significent money on maintenance, productivity, and security.
        Keith Laken
      • #3162647

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by cdemmin ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        One advantage that I see is in the classroom. If you were teaching applications on the Mac and applications on windows, you would need two computers. Now we can save a lot of money by using one machine for two different OS systems.  The big question is will the schools buy into this.

      • #3162924

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by guidomuldoon ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Running Windows on a Mac is like inviting mad ebola monkeys to move into your beautiful, perfect dream home. There may be advantages….I just can’t seem to think of one.

      • #3152494

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by lammygeek ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Actually, Firestone and Bridgestone are now one in the same, and Bridgestone is the official tire supplier to Ferrari’s F1 team.  Still, a cute example, but unfortunate choice of words.

      • #3153445

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by dreonn ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Can we get an article on how to install Mac os X on my intel machine that is currently running Windows.  is it possible?  I would like to try.

      • #3269919

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by crazyfun ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        Your point about applications has some merit, but remember that MacOS penetration is still in the single digits compared
        to PCs so the high-order bit is to get more Macs out there in the first place.. By adding dual-OS capability you remove
        a key barrier for many customers to switch to Apple. And, for any mainstream application, a marketing message saying “It’s supported on Mac; just run it under Microsoft Windows” isn’t a viable long-term message if they’re seriously targeting that platform? [it adds a tax, and provides an opportunity for the competition].?

        Parallels/BootCamp will bring the greasy nerds back to the Mac camp; they’ll be able to run Windows, Linux, and Mac
        on their machines. That will spark more innovation on the platform as well as the explore what can be done with
        this new OS model of virtual desktops. Jobs will make it work for the rest of us, and Gates will come out with a version
        a few years later with a lot more menu selections, clippy ™, and a new strain of viruses. It’s all good, sort of. True, you
        can do all this on PCs, but just imagine how many more dates you’ll get when you hang at Starbucks, surfing
        the web on a chic looking Mac.. The women will think you’re a trendy graphic artist and, when you show ’em
        the virtual Desktops, hang on! The extra $200 you’ll spend for the machine will be well spent.

        And most importantly, running Windows as a virtual desktop on a Mac will let me surf porn on my Mac
        with reckless abandon! Just fire up that trusty MS Desktop and start clicking away! And, when I’m
        done, clean up is a snap, just like with me and my trusty Kleenex box. No lingering guilt, viruses, or
        other glop on the machine; just delete the OS image and back to work you go. Sure I can do this on
        my PC, but watching that smooth skin looks sooo much better against a chic aluminum flatscreen.

        And for the gang that argues that PCs rule because of bus architecture, my Dad can beat up your Dad because
        he drives a car with a Bosch onboard computer!

        pung

      • #3269867

        Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        by mr first ·

        In reply to Windows on the Mac? Who cares?

        As a Mac user that also owns a PC due to having to use one for my work, this would allow me to get rid of the PC altogether – less expense and clutter. I do most of my web surfing on the Mac, since Windows is such a magnet for viruses and other malicious entities.

    • #3148372

      Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      No sooner did Apple announce that they were switching to
      Intel chips to power the MacIntosh did people start making noise about being
      able to run Windows on them. As I pointed
      out in my last
      message
      , it seems to me that running Windows on a Mac doesn?t make a lot of
      sense.

      Of course the real draw to running Windows on a Mac is the
      ability to run the thousands of Windows applications that are in existence. The
      usual reason given for this desire is the ability to do work at home on a Mac
      and then be able to transfer it to work where the user usually has a Windows workstation.
      With the introduction of OpenOffice 2.0
      for the Mac, NeoOffice, and Microsoft Office for Mac OS, you would think that those
      products would take care of that work-at-home requirement.

      The cynic in me would say that that requirement exists
      because people don?t simply want the ability to do work at home and transfer
      data. Instead they want the understood ability to pirate the applications and
      run them at home instead. Otherwise, those applications I mentioned, along with
      the hundreds of other Mac OS programs that have Windows equivalents would suit
      the bill fine and people wouldn?t desire to run Windows applications on a Mac.

      The real problem with running Windows applications on a Mac
      is that it discourages the creation of new Mac OS applications. If I?m a
      software vendor, why should I take the time to fund and create an application
      for a smaller operating system, when my Windows version will run on that
      platform just fine? As Mac OS applications dry up and blow away, so too will
      general support for the operating system.

      Think it won?t happen?
      Again, let me point out the lessons learned from OS/2. Beyond the
      general marketing problem IBM had with OS/2, one of its main problems was the
      fact that it ran Windows and DOS programs very well. In many cases, they ran
      better than the same applications did on their native platforms.

      Because OS/2 was proportionately a smaller target market and
      it ran Windows applications fine, few ISVs ever found a reason to create OS/2
      applications. Instead, they focused on Windows applications and let their OS/2
      customers figure out how to run them on OS/2. The few OS/2 ISVs there were took
      the opportunity to do the same thing, creating Windows applications and then
      letting their OS/2 versions wither on the vine.

      Running Windows applications on the Mac doesn?t give the Mac
      any TRUE advantages. It removes the incentive for ISVs to produce Mac OS specific
      versions. It also puts smaller Mac-only ISVs into competition with larger
      Windows ISVs that can survive on a lower margin. Not to mention the fact that
      it places the entire Mac hardware platform into a competitive realm with vendors like Dell
      that can eat its lunch from a price/performance standpoint.

      Windows apps on a Mac?
      If you?re a Macophile, just say No.

      • #3163647

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by network.administrator ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        What about the need to run music software that is specific to each OS.  Eg. Cakewalk.  Instead of having two machines you just have two OS’s

      • #3163643

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by alxnsc9 ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        It is obviously the end of Mac… Intel CPU, MS OS… After the grey the black comes…
        Not the best, not even the fittest – the worst survives…As ever, the worst takes the upper hand.
        … “no rules in the land of mules”…
        Fare thee
        well, Mac…

      • #3163609

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by clbrooks97 ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Let’s see. The processor is now Intel. The OS is now (roughly) BSD Unix. I claim that within 5 years Apple will be out of the computer business all together – and the fabled Mac GUI will be licensed to various software vendors as a competing style of window manager, akin to KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, etc.?

        And you’re absolutely right. If you’re a Mac-only ISV, the writing is on the wall. Time to diversify.?
      • #3163582

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by bensil ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Good points. Apparently, Mac apps have to be modified for the Intel platform, so anything other than the native Apple programs don’t run optimally. There is a freeware program, Boot Camp, that allows the Mac to dual boot as either a Mac or a Windows machine, and the Windows apps run faster than they do on a PC. It looks like you are right; Mac development is in its “last throes.” I see Apple becoming a software company in the not-too-distant future.

      • #3163011

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by ives ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        If I were apple… I’d be positioning OS X to fill the gap where Linux desktops are failing miserably (high-performance desktop interface on top of *nix).

        With the move to Intel, the marketing for the hardware & OS should be separated. This would allow greater sales of the MAC hardware & greater sales of the MAC OS on other Intel boxes. The cost of the hardware might actually come down for the average Mac user.

      • #3161952

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by bart ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        John Sheesley writes: Running Windows applications on the Mac doesn?t give the Mac any TRUE advantages. The whole article seems to written from the point of view of a Windows user who cannot understand the reason Mac users buy and use Macs and Mac software. If Adobe said it will now stop producing Mac software the whole article would not only make sense, it would be prophetic. The real reason Mac users may want to run Windows is beacause they have always wanted to be able to do everything they want. They demand the best hardware, the best software and now whatever damned Operating System they want. The Mac is gaining SERIOUS traction and unless MS throws out its OS with the shaky foundations, it too will be history. Bring on Vista and we’ll see, after all, there’s no hiding from Mac users now, they can compare Apples with Lemons side by side.

      • #3270016

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by pwebendorfer ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Using system virtualization, it’s only a matter of time until you can run Mac OS on a PC.  The real question then is why would you want to pay extra money for a Mac.  One other thing…  I’ve heard from kool-aid drinking Mac addicts for years that the Mac platform is so superior.  If that is the case, can someone explain to me why Apple has ditched their original bus architecture, graphics system, OS and processor?  Now they are giddy about running Windows.  Give me a break!

      • #3269943

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by rob.chang ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Your point about applications has some merit, but remember that MacOS penetration is still in the single digits compared

        to PCs so the high-order bit is to get more Macs out there in the first place.. By adding dual-OS capability you remove
        a key barrier for many customers to switch to Apple. And, for any mainstream application, a marketing message saying “It’s supported on
        Mac; just run it under Microsoft Windows” isn’t a viable long-term message if they’re seriously targeting that platform?
        [it adds a tax, and provides an opportunity for the competition].?
        Parallels/BootCamp will bring the greasy nerds back to the Mac camp; they’ll be able to run Windows, Linux, and Mac
        on their machines. That will spark more innovation on the platform as well as the explore what can be done with
        this new OS model of virtual desktops. Jobs will make it work for the rest of us, and Gates will come out with a version
        a few years later with a lot more menu selections, clippy ™, and a new strain of viruses. It’s all good, sort of. True, you
        can do all this on PCs, but just imagine how many more dates you’ll get when you hang at Starbucks, surfing
        the web on a chic looking Mac.. The women will think you’re a trendy graphic artist and, when you show ’em
        the virtual Desktops, hang on! The extra $200 you’ll spend for the machine will be well spent.?
        And most importantly, running Windows as a virtual desktop on a Mac will let me surf porn on my Mac
        with reckless abandon! Just fire up that trusty MS Desktop and start clicking away! And, when I’m
        done, clean up is a snap, just like with me and my trusty Kleenex box. No lingering guilt, viruses, or
        other glop on the machine; just delete the OS image and back to work you go. Sure I can do this on
        my PC, but watching that smooth skin looks sooo much better against a chic aluminum flatscreen.?
        pung!
        And for the gang that argues that PCs rule because of bus architecture, my Dad can beat up your Dad because?
        he drives a car with a Bosch onboard computer!
      • #3269944

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by rob.chang ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Your point about applications has some merit, but remember that MacOS penetration is still in the single digits compared

        to PCs so the high-order bit is to get more Macs out there in the first place.. By adding dual-OS capability you remove
        a key barrier for many customers to switch to Apple. And, for any mainstream application, a marketing message saying “It’s supported on
        Mac; just run it under Microsoft Windows” isn’t a viable long-term message if they’re seriously targeting that platform?
        [it adds a tax, and provides an opportunity for the competition].?
        Parallels/BootCamp will bring the greasy nerds back to the Mac camp; they’ll be able to run Windows, Linux, and Mac
        on their machines. That will spark more innovation on the platform as well as the explore what can be done with
        this new OS model of virtual desktops. Jobs will make it work for the rest of us, and Gates will come out with a version
        a few years later with a lot more menu selections, clippy ™, and a new strain of viruses. It’s all good, sort of. True, you
        can do all this on PCs, but just imagine how many more dates you’ll get when you hang at Starbucks, surfing
        the web on a chic looking Mac.. The women will think you’re a trendy graphic artist and, when you show ’em
        the virtual Desktops, hang on! The extra $200 you’ll spend for the machine will be well spent.?
        And most importantly, running Windows as a virtual desktop on a Mac will let me surf porn on my Mac
        with reckless abandon! Just fire up that trusty MS Desktop and start clicking away! And, when I’m
        done, clean up is a snap, just like with me and my trusty Kleenex box. No lingering guilt, viruses, or
        other glop on the machine; just delete the OS image and back to work you go. Sure I can do this on
        my PC, but watching that smooth skin looks sooo much better against a chic aluminum flatscreen.?
        pung!
        And for the gang that argues that PCs rule because of bus architecture, my Dad can beat up your Dad because?
        he drives a car with a Bosch onboard computer!
      • #3269914

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by crazyfun ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Your point about applications has some merit, but remember that MacOS penetration is still in the single digits compared?to PCs so the high-order bit is to get more Macs out there in the first place.. By adding dual-OS capability you remove?a key barrier for many customers to switch to Apple. And, for any mainstream application, a marketing message saying “It’s supported on?Mac; just run it under Microsoft Windows” isn’t a viable long-term message if they’re seriously targeting that platform?[it adds a tax, and provides an opportunity for the competition].?

        Parallels/BootCamp will bring the greasy nerds back to the Mac camp; they’ll be able to run Windows, Linux, and Mac?on their machines. That will spark more innovation on the platform as well as the explore what can be done with?this new OS model of virtual desktops. Jobs will make it work for the rest of us, and Gates will come out with a version?a few years later with a lot more menu selections, clippy ™, and a new strain of viruses. It’s all good, sort of. True, you?can do all this on PCs, but just imagine how many more dates you’ll get when you hang at Starbucks, surfing?the web on a chic looking Mac.. The women will think you’re a trendy graphic artist and, when you show ’em?the virtual Desktops, hang on! The extra $200 you’ll spend for the machine will be well spent.?

        And most importantly, running Windows as a virtual desktop on a Mac will let me surf porn on my Mac?with reckless abandon! Just fire up that trusty MS Desktop and start clicking away! And, when I’m?done, clean up is a snap, just like with me and my trusty Kleenex box. No lingering guilt, viruses, or?other glop on the machine; just delete the OS image and back to work you go. Sure I can do this on?my PC, but watching that smooth skin looks sooo much better against a chic aluminum flatscreen.?

        pung!

        And for the gang that argues that PCs rule because of bus architecture, my Dad can beat up your Dad because??he drives a car with a Bosch onboard computer!

      • #3269909

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by crazyfun ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        Your point about applications has some merit, but remember that MacOS penetration is still in the single digits compared?to PCs so the high-order bit is to get more Macs out there in the first place.. By adding dual-OS capability you remove?a key barrier for many customers to switch to Apple. And, for any mainstream application, a marketing message saying “It’s supported on?Mac; just run it under Microsoft Windows” isn’t a viable long-term message if they’re seriously targeting that platform. [it adds a tax, and provides an opportunity for the competition].?

        Parallels/BootCamp will bring the greasy nerds back to the Mac camp; they’ll be able to run Windows, Linux, and Mac?on their machines. That will spark more innovation on the platform as well as the explore what can be done with?this new OS model of virtual desktops. Jobs will make it work for the rest of us, and Gates will come out with a version?a few years later with a lot more menu selections, clippy ™, and a new strain of viruses. It’s all good, sort of. True, you?can do all this on PCs, but just imagine how many more dates you’ll get when you hang at Starbucks, surfing?the web on a chic looking Mac.. The women will think you’re a trendy graphic artist and, when you show ’em?the virtual Desktops, hang on! The extra $200 you’ll spend for the machine will be well spent.?

        And most importantly, running Windows as a virtual desktop on a Mac will let me surf porn on my Mac?with reckless abandon! Just fire up that trusty MS Desktop and start clicking away! And, when I’m?done, clean up is a snap, just like with me and my trusty Kleenex box. No lingering guilt, viruses, or?other glop on the machine; just delete the OS image and back to work you go. Sure I can do this on?my PC, but watching that smooth skin looks sooo much better against a chic aluminum flatscreen.?

        pung!

        And for the gang that argues that PCs rule because of bus architecture, my Dad can beat up your Dad because??he drives a car with a Bosch onboard computer!

      • #3154762

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by galtroarc ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        There is some basic lack of insight in this article.

        “The usual reason given for this desire is the ability to do work at home on a Mac and then be able to transfer it to work where the user usually has a Windows workstation. With the introduction of OpenOffice 2.0 for the Mac, NeoOffice, and Microsoft Office for Mac OS, you would think that those products would take care of that work-at-home requirement”

        Are you kidding me? You think “work” is office applications? There are genre-specific applications that are designed for Windows that are used everyday for work. Office is fine for some very high level management functions but day-to-day work requres more than that..none of which runs on Mac OS for obvious reasons.

        You give a person the option to run Windows on her Mac to get her work done and then return to what she really prefers for everything else – her stupendously superior Mac, you bet Macs are going to sell more because of this.

        It confounds me that you can miss this basic tenet and also makes me wonder if you have ever used a Mac before?

        Lets get another thing clear. OS/2 is not Mac OS – not in quality, not in aesthetics, not in adoption. Don’t just pull up an example for the sake of it bro. Do your research and think about it.

         

        “If you?re a Macophile, just say No.”

        Really? I’m sure that works for a guy who works with some kind of word processor all day to shoot out shrill postings based on a general superior disdain and little else – but for the rest of us, especially for Macophiles, say Hell Yes!

         

      • #3145927

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by shadowdao ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        I am not even going to start with how rediculious this post was, and how all these people that know nothing of how the software industry works, feel the need to make thier predictions known.  I am telling you, being a person that is both in college (Computer Science/Network Security; Major Business Minor) and working in sales, Macs are here for the long run, and your going to start seeing alot more of them.  I have had over 50 mac mini systems leave the store for one government facility, and many others are following suit for thier workstations.  The big advantage that Winodws running on mac does for these places is that there are programs, that were written for Windows, that will not work on mac OS, either cause the user used a Windows only language, thus not leaving an option for mac support, or the company just saw no reason to provide support for the mac OS.  Also, what I am seeing as a trend in the mac sales in my store at least is that, people will buy the mac version of a software over staying with the PC version, either due to thier version being older, or they just simply love that fact that when they are working if something crashes or hangs, it is far less likely to take thier work taken with it.  Home that want to run Windows, tend to be gamers, and what is funny is the 20″ IMac handles games better out of the box then ANY of my desktop PCs in store.  And thats with the standard graphics card and the standard 512mb of ram. Anyway I got off on a side tangent, but the point still remains, the Mac OS is not going away. One more thing, the current Macs are “Vista Ready”. When ever Vista is released.

      • #3270665

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by robocso ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        The PC is superior to
        the Mac in every way because of the wide support base and well-funded research and
        while lovers of the Mac have their place in the sun if you deviate from the
        herd the predators get you.  

        Apple overpriced the
        Mac from day one and have only themselves to blame that it never became a mainstream
        option for the average computer user. 
        All you Macophiles, drink your cool aid that you?ve been handing out all
        the years and throw your hammers at the nearest PC screen so that the rest of
        us can compute in peace knowing that Microsoft is looking after us. 

        The Redmond cool aid looks way tastier than the old
        stuff from Apple anyway, cheers.

        CyLex

      • #3271201

        Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        by rlevick ·

        In reply to Why running Windows apps on a Mac is a bad idea

        I’ve been hearing about Apple’s imminent demise for fifteen years now. Last time I looked, they posted record sales. Mac people are excited about running Windows on their hardware because there certain are applications that are OS specific. The dual OS machine allows you to perform the Windows specific tasks, and do the majority of your computing with the Apple OS. That way you don’t have to worry about the Windows OS becoming hopelessly corrupted because you opened an e-mail, surfed the internet, or connected to a network that is speading viruses. When the Windows partition becomes useless, it can be reimaged without losing your valuable data, because you kept it on the Mac partition. If Apple stopped making an OS, where would Windows get ideas for their new OS (take a look at Vista)? The prediction of Apple’s death is premature, again.

    • #3163062

      My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Admittedly, I?ve been on a bit of a tear lately about all the
      hype surrounding the new MacIntels. Rather than just being viewed as the nice
      machines they are, and a logical upgrade path for Apple development and Apple
      customers, anymore they?re being viewed as practically the Second Coming. With
      an Intel chip stuffed inside the box FINALLY the Mac will take its rightful
      place at the top of the computer world and Windows-based computers will be
      relegated to the ash heap of history. Or so we?re lead to believe.

      I?ve tried to point out that one common hysteria point is the
      ability of a MacIntel to be able to run Windows natively and why
      that didn?t matter
      . I?ve also pointed out that even the ability to run
      Windows applications under Mac OS is a bad
      idea
      . There are just a few more things about the Mac left I?d like to talk
      about.

      I read an article by famed computer pundit John Dvorak where
      he said that what Apple needs to do is to open-source
      Mac OS X
      . The theory was basically
      that with the Mac being able to run Windows, Mac users may decide to run Windows on their
      Macs rather than OS X. Therefore the only way to save OS X was to release it
      into Open Source where it would take hold, be rewritten to run on PCs, and
      squash both Linux and Windows in the process because it was so much better.

      Missing in the article is any reason why doing so would
      benefit Apple at all. At its core, (no pun intended) Apple is a hardware
      company, not a software company. Mac OS X provides the proprietary operating
      system that Apple needs to justify the higher prices for its computers over
      anyone else. As I?ve said before, if
      Apple is put on a level playing field with Dell (or HP, or Lenovo, or Toshiba
      for that matter), it will be squashed. Apple?s profit margins would have a bigger
      bite taken out of them that its logo.

      This is the main reason why you?ll never see MacIntosh clones
      as was suggested by someone who commented on of my blog posts. Don?t forget
      that once upon a time there were indeed Mac clones such as Umax, Radius, and DayStar. In the mid-90?s
      Apple hoped to grow market share on the backs of clones making the Mac OS more
      acceptable. What really happened was that Apple?s profits crashed because they couldn?t
      charge enough for royalties to offset the lost hardware sales. One of the first
      things that Steve Jobs did when he returned was to pull the plug on Mac
      clones. He won?t be revisiting that any
      time soon.

      Steve Jobs doesn?t want to be Michael Dell. Dell creates large profits, but does so by
      selling large quantities of machines with a slim profit margin. Jobs wants
      those profits too, but he wants a larger profit margin on each machine to do
      so. In order to have a larger margin, he must differentiate the Mac enough to
      justify the higher price point.

      That?s why you have Macs running different hardware, a
      different OS, and constantly being redesigned to be eye-catching. Yes, they?re
      probably even engineered better than your run of the mill Dell under the hood
      too, but they HAVE to be in order to justify the price.

      The Mac is always going to be a niche machine. As such, Apple
      can command a higher price for it and a higher profit margin. Doing anything to
      make the Mac more mainstream, whether it?s running Windows, Windows apps,
      creating clones, or open-sourcing OS X, threatens the bottom line and risks
      pulling Apple down to Dell?s level.

      Steve Jobs knows better and wouldn?t let that happen to his
      baby. He?d much rather have Apple command 5 ? 10% of the marketplace, keep what
      he views as Apple?s high standards, and let everyone else fight for the rest.

      • #3162065

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by fr_gough ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        I’ve long come to the conclusion that Dvorak is simply insane.

        Mac users WANTING to run Windows? Good grief, they bought a Mac so they wouldn’t HAVE to run Windows. The only reason we run Windows at all is because there is some program out there that we have to use because we’re stuck in a Microsoft world. But as far as wanting to run the OS? Please.

        I suspect that even Windows users don’t really want to run Windows, they either don’t know any better, can’t afford a Mac, or feel they have to for compatibility/support reasons.

      • #3152465

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by ironfist03 ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Until apple/mac’s have a 3 button wheelie mouse and a command line don’t count on anyone ditching opensource linux or windows anytime in the future..  Sure the graphics are superior to windows machines but if you are using any publishing or presentation software such as photoshop, pagemaker, or powerpoint on a windows platform and then start using a mac regardless the swiftness of the os and hardware your work thruput will suffer at least 20% because you no longer have the right click and its myriad popups and selections.. oh, and did i mention how netadmins loath mac’s because of no command line to trouble shoot connectivity problems.. oh to be able to do even a simple a ping from a mac.. the ability to do an nslookup from a mac would make netadmins positivily giddy..

      • #3152455

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by rpmyers1 ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        ironfist, what are you smoking?

        Macs come with a three button scroll Mouse, at least iMacs do.

        As for command line:

        $ nslookup techrepublic.com
        Note:  nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
        Consider using the `dig’ or `host’ programs instead.  Run nslookup with
        the `-sil[ent]’ option to prevent this message from appearing.
        Server:         172.16.1.1
        Address:        172.16.1.1#53

        Non-authoritative answer:
        Name:   techrepublic.com
        Address: 216.239.115.148

        $ uname -a
        Darwin Eris.local 8.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.6.0: Tue Mar  7 16:58:48 PST 2006; root:xnu-792.6.70.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

      • #3152390

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by pcg-system ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Hi,
        Your conclusions are correct. The underlying reasons for them could use
        a deeper analysis. While the economics of higher margins & lower volume
        make a lot of sense,at Apple is it the driving force or is it the enabling
        force? Success allows Apple (under Jobs) to continue to focus on innovation,
        integration and usability. It would appear that other companies first consider
        what market they want to be in, then what product they must have to dominate
        the market, then design it. Apple has provided a counter example to
        that strategy, where something well thought out and implemented can
        be sold at a profit without having the enormous volume. The volume may
        come (can you say Toyota?) You point out that they couldn’t compete with various
        companies on a level playing field. Except for Dell, every company you mentioned has not
        turned a meaningful profit on their PC products in some years (and Dell just announced it’s first profit decline)
        For Toshiba, laptops are like a loss-leader at the grocery store. If Lenovo didn’t buy IBM,
        they probably would have bought HP’s PC business; they aren’t making a profit, they are protecting
        the pipeline for their manufacturing output. HP’s printer division is the cash cow and commercial
        server support pays the rent for the cow barn. The PC business is break even at best.
        Apple is aware enough of their place to make sure QuickTime, iTunes & iPod support
        programs are windows compatable.
        Oh well, back to work. thanks for the chance to think about something for a bit.
        hurf

      • #3152384

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by pickleman ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Honestly, who really cares about Macs or Apple anymore?
        Let it go already.
        If they haven’t been able to get beyond a 5% market share over the last 25 years, they sure as hell won’t be doing that now.  By making their “MacTel” machines, they’ve basically admitted defeat and have announced to the world that the only way they can stay in business is by abandoning the whole Mac design and essentially just building an “IBM clone”.  But this isn’t really new, seeing as how Apple has been slowly but surely making this shift over the last 10 years.  Remember how Apple has always touted their “superior” machines because they always had SCSI drives?  And how every Machead mocked the PC with its IDE drive?  How many Macs have been built with SCSI drives within the last 10 years?  Exactly.

        So now we’re going to have a “Mac” with the internal guts of your everyday Wintel machine.  By definition, those machines will no longer be Macs.  Period.  They’ll be just another over-priced PC, much as an IBM or HP.  The only thing that will give people any indication that they’re using a Mac is the fact that they’ll still undoubtedly have the multi-colored Apple logo on the machine, and they’ll be running OS X.

        A logo doesn’t make a machine unique, so that leaves nothing but the operating system.  Apple will no longer be able to tout their “superior performance”, because the performance of a Mac will be no different from any other PC on the market, seeing as how they’ll be using the same processor, same motherboards, same memory, same hard drives, etc etc.

        So what’s really gonna change?  In my opinion, nothing.  Software will still be scarce for as long as MacOS is the operating system of a Mac, and Apple’s market share will remain in the single digits for as long as they continue to sell overpriced machines that are 99% hype and 1% unique.

        Yawn.

      • #3152372

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by fvrba ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        One of the biggest Mac clone company’s was Power Computing.  Apple bought them and shut them down.  They changed their Web site and bashed Apple for about a year afterward.  I bought two of their computers from Mac Warehouse.  At the time, our rep from Mac Warehouse said Power Computing was outselling Apple branded units by at least 10 to 1.

      • #3154507

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by cpalmer ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Apple has always been misunderstood, it seems now more than ever. I agree there will never be clones and that they will never open source OS X. They have too much to lose to do so. Apple “at it’s core” is a computer design company not a hardware company. They actually have more software products than they do hardware. They are unique in that they are the only consumer computer company that makes the software and the hardware.
        Their strategy IMHO is simple. Apple creating hype to allow users the capability to run windows on a Mac brings curious customers into the Apple retail stores to check out the new Macs allowing their highly trained sales staff to educate them about the value in the Mac platform. Apples primary focus lately is clearly centered towards retail customers, i.e. opening stores all over the world and building brand awareness with the iPod. The average consumer who doesn’t know the difference between a computer running windows vs. one running OS X, wants to buy a computer for some or all of the following reasons: Making home movies, printing digital pictures, making a homepage, playing games, surfing the web, listening and/or making music, burning CD’s & DVD’s, sharing files etc… Apple does these things very well, their iLife software makes it easy and that is where the real value in the Mac lies. Dell, HP, Gateway and the like all bundle software with their computers but the software they provide is low end garbage and the applications don’t work together in the same way that the iLife apps do. Apple has already won the hearts over of many music lovers with the iPod and they aren’t stopping there. Meanwhile millions of frustrated, average computer users are sufferening from slow PC’s running windows laden with spyware, viruses and crappy software. The average computer user is losing trust in MS as a result of this. Apple is IMO doing exacty the right thing at exactly the right time. Vista is lagging, people are bored and frustrated with their windows boxes and Apple is a cool and realistic alternative. Add to that the ability to run existing windows apps is a HUGE plus. It eliminates the “I can’t buy a Mac cause it doesn’t run my CAD program” problem. People can continue using the software they are familiar with while being in a more stable, less frustrating, easier to use operating system.

      • #3154495

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by kaysveistrup ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Insert comment text here Have read your comments of late regarding Apples demise if they move to an Intel processor and the logic of your arguements are undeniable. If they move into the cesspool of standard computer manufacturers I fail to see how they will still be able to command higher prices for a product that is similar to the rest. PLEASE Apple, don’t do it, remain different to the rest and maintain your high standards, reliability and looks. The world wants a choice.

      • #3152254

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by chief125 ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        right on target

        increasing profit and market share each quarter can be a path to ruin

        bigger is not always better

        being satisfied with product, service, profit and market share is not a

        disservice to share holders.  it is a fallacy promoted by “business wizards”.

         

         

      • #3151988

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by bart ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Absolutely bang on Brother. Apple can command a premium because they make a better hardware, then integrate it seamlessly with OS X. All the while sticking to standards and offering the best network interconnectivity tools posible.

      • #3153497

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by jjpengr ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Good comments and right on the mark. As a long time Mac user (at home) who deals with Windows at work, the Mac is clearly superior. The only reason for running Windows on a Mac is to be able to use Windows only applications. I currently use Virtual PC to run a couple of engineering apps that are Windows only on my Mac Powerbook, and it works fine. But, for everything else I use Mac applications.

        You are right about Apple serving a higher end niche, but they also provide a far better integrated hardware / software solution than the Wintel machines.  See Walt Mossberg’s column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.  By integrating hardware and software to handle music, video, and photos in an easy to use manner, Apple blows away the commodity mix of items that are harder to integrate in Windows.

      • #3153495
        Avatar photo

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by Erik Eckel ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Yes, Apple is a hardware company. Most people forget this when they begin comparing Apple’s market share to Microsoft’s. Microsoft is a software company (for the most part, although there are exceptions such as keyboards, mice, gaming consoles, etc.). Apple built its success mostly on its hardware (iMacs, PowerBooks, the new MacBooks, iPods, etc.). That’s why hardly anyone complained when the company moved to OS X about six years ago (and how could they; it’s a better OS).

        The Intel-powered machines are still Apples, just much faster Apples. Bootcamp will enable Apple to capture an additional percent or two (maybe) of the market by pulling a few more Windows users over that otherwise wouldn’t have switched (fearing they still need to be able to run a proprietary Windows program). Considering the development costs, and the value of another percent or two of market share, the move will prove wise.

        Does that make the new Intel-powered Macs the best new technology out there? No. But with continued delays in the release of Microsoft’s next desktop OS, it’s encouraging (at least to me) to see hands-on proof of continued tech innovation available now to consumers.

      • #3153389

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by yobtaf ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        Face it pal, you’re another Windows user who’s envious of the Mac OS and the success of Apple and Steve Jobs (who is now a major player at Disney). Windows only became the OS monopoly it is, because of the proliferation of inexpensive PCs during the price wars of the 80s and 90s. If you look at the who the 5 – 10% of the market that Apple has, you’re not talking about the average home user. It’s mostly people involved in the arts and media. Average home users don’t want to spend the extra money and businesses are too deeply invested in Windows to even consider changing.

        If history had been different and IBM had not been so hasty to get into personal computing, we may have had other OSs to choose from. I don’t want to belittle Linix but it came along too late and I suspect that it too will always have it’s own small niche market. And I don’t know enough to explain Commodore’s failure.

        Monopolies are bad for everyone and Microsoft is one of the worst probably because it’s the biggest. Like all monopolies Microsoft will fall some day. Until then you will just have to rant and wait for Microsoft to come out with its next belated version which is always heavily influenced by what Apple already has.

        That’s my rant.

        By the way, I have both a Mac and a PC, and will keep it that way.

        Viva la Difference

        Message was edited by: admin

      • #3153387

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by doogster ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        I’ve never been all that great at predicting how a dramatic change will affect a company, but I hope that Apple does whatever it needs to help increase its market share, because competition is almost always a good thing.  I use Windows at home and and work, but I’d love to try a Mac and check out the differences – I bet it’s more intuitive and fun to use… it’s gotta be.

        Why do I stick with Windows at home?  Mainly because I can’t afford the Mac’s higher prices (hey, I have a family and live from paycheck to paycheck).  I like the fact that I can slowly swap out cheap PC parts as needed to upgrade my system.  Sorry Apple, I just can’t afford your alternative!  If price wasn’t an issue I probably would be using a Mac at home.

        If Apple would really, truely, offer some type of a program to assist us cash-strapped folks to switch over to a Mac, I’d definately give it a go.  Some type of deep discount for PC users combined with a trial-period Mac would be awesome, albeit only a dream.  I’m tired of the Windows world.

      • #3152852

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by davemori ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        During my days in high tech in the Silicon Valley, I often had occasion to feel as you do about Dvorak and the industry pundits.  They frequently “don’t get it” or don’t completely understand because they have never had to be a manager or director in a company that built and shipped computer hardware products.

        The MacOS is Open Source based.  It does not need to increase that level and become freeware.

        Apple’s purpose is not a Microsoft-like total 100% domination of the market.   Apple’s purpose is simply to be profitable and create products which generate value to its customers and shareholders.   It can be profitable without massive market penetration and dominance.

        Dell isn’t doing so hot, lately, and companies like Gateway are right on the border of disappearing.  At least Steve Jobs does not have to cook the books and falsify results.  Apple is profitable and has a strong stock price.

        The reason that Apple pulled the plug on clones in the late 1997 was not so much that they competed for hardware sales.   Lost sales were a complaint by Apple field sales, for sure, but the rather fixed supply of PowerPC processors meant that clones could not really eat up that many sales.  There was a far bigger issue as far as Apple was concerned.  The biggest issue was that clone manufacturers were tweaking the hardware and violating the specifications for the Common Hardware Reference Platform.

        Their contracts with Apple said that if a Mac OS licensee deviated from the design specs, they had the responsibility to do whatever engineering and testing was required to create enablers, patches, etc. that ensured that their solution was stable and did not generate compatiblity issues with the MacOS and third party applications.  The clone makers did not do that.  Some of them simply went out to the local electronics stores, ordered a pallette of shrink wrapped Mac OS 8, and dropped it into the box with their hardware without testing at all.  They just dumped all the support issues on Apple.  I believe that MacWeek said that the tech calls from instabilities create by the clone companies was costing Apple something like $5 million a week.

         

         

         

         

      • #3153706

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by angel.martinez2 ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        I have been working with Macs and Windows for many years.  True, Macs lend themselves to art and media much better than Wintels.  True, Mac has had many connectivity innovations over the years.

        Also true, Apple is a niche company.  Truthfully, if iPod sales went away…so would Apple.  5-10% of a market share is not enough to sustain a company and maintain innovation.

        I think that going with a Wintel platform could be good for Apple, provided that they don’t completely abandon existing successful platforms.

        To all you Macheads, change is good.  Regardless of how you feel, this is a Windows driven world and is not likely to change any more than taxes are likely to go away.  To succeed and grow, Apple must adapt. If you have a problem with Apple’s strategy…you can always buy a Wintel. 

      • #3154249

        My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        by kjkjlaut ·

        In reply to My last Mac OS rant for a while (hopefully)

        I see the Mac on Intel as finally admitting that their top of the line has never been as fast as even a mid level WinTel machine.  Only a few want it, and no one it their right mind would buy one just to buy Windows to put on top of it.  Proprietary hardware makes fixing and upgrading one too expensive and difficult, (don’ tell me they don’t need fixing, I have been there). The only advantage it has is OS X but if it is slower and doesn’t have the software apps as easily and cheaply accessible who cares? I agree, a niche machine for those that like proprietary,  non-customizable, homogenized products, with huge mark-ups.

    • #3162338

      Ignore the basics at your own peril

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      When I?m not producing content for you here on TechProGuild,
      one of the things I like to do is go out on the lake with my boat. It?s not a
      fancy yacht by any means. It?s just a small 17.5 foot Bayliner motor boat. I?ve
      had it for a few years now and even though it?s never the biggest nor the
      fastest thing on the lake, it always gets the job done.

      One of the things you learn early when boating is to make
      sure to follow a procedure when getting ready to go out on the water. You want
      to make sure you have all of the equipment on board and that everything is
      working fine. If you don?t, you?ll quickly have a bad day.

      Recently, I took my father-in-law, who?s also an avid boater,
      out for the 2006 Maiden Voyage. We?ve
      both been boating long enough that setting up and getting ready has turned into
      somewhat of a reflexive routine. We just do what?s necessary to get the boat
      ready, pop it in the water, and off we go.
      This time was no different ? almost.

      We got everything ready and onboard with no problems. We backed the boat into the water, and while
      on the trailer, I fired up the engine. Usually after sitting most of the
      winter, it sputters and complains and never wants to start on the first try.
      This time it fired up on the first crank with no problems. This was a very good
      start indeed. I let the engine warm up a little bit and then backed the boat
      off of the trailer. That?s when it hit
      me.

      ?Did you put the plug in the back of the boat?? I asked.

      “Ummmm. No? didn?t you??

      For non-boaters, there?s a drain plug in the bottom of all
      boats that allows you to drain water OUT of the boat at the end of your trip.
      Normally, you leave the plug out when the boat is on the trailer and then ideally put the plug IN before
      launching so the boat doesn?t sink.

      In the midst of all of the routine, both of us had forgotten this
      key step. We’re both pretty experienced boaters and should have known better. But we just overlooked it.

      Fortunately, we were able to get the boat back on the trailer and out
      of the water before the water got TOO deep in the back. After a few minutes of
      draining and then putting the plug in properly, we were off for a good
      afternoon.

      It?s easy to fall into a routine and miss key steps when
      doing things. This is especially true when it comes to IT. Even when you?ve done something a thousand times, it?s important to
      follow a
      careful procedure and go through things step-by-step. This is just as
      important whether you’re an experienced IT Professional or if
      you’re looking at a system for the first time. If you don?t you,
      could wind up with computer
      viruses, spyware, malfunctioning software, or worse. You could even wind up at the bottom of a lake.
      You can
      never tell.

      • #3153578

        Ignore the basics at your own peril

        by xrisimix ·

        In reply to Ignore the basics at your own peril

        Insert comment text here

      • #3159063

        Ignore the basics at your own peril

        by sprogg2001 ·

        In reply to Ignore the basics at your own peril

        lol 🙂

        This reminds me my 14 footer twin hull/engine boat has twin livewells ( for the non fishermen/women these are storage areas in the boat that you flood with water to keep fish in alive&well 😉 until you release them.

        Well after a productive day fishing, we tied up on the jetty and boasted about the days catch over a few cold beers, that were quickly offered. I forgot to check the livewells were properly sealed and drained, and the next morning waking up after way too many beers we went out to load the boat only to find it was GONE! before I started screaming thief at the top of my lungs I noticed the mooring line was still attached to the jetty and disappered straight down into the murky depths, the boat had sunk overnight!

    • #3152883

      Flirting with Fedora

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I’ve been kicking around Linux in the form of SuSe
      Professional 10.0 for some time now. I’m running it at home about 80% of the
      time now on an old HP Omnibook 900 laptop. It has been a pretty good experience
      overall, but as I’ve related here, it hasn’t been completely without
      problems
      .

      I’ve used Red Hat 7.0 ? 9.0 before and have always walked
      away from Linux shaking my head. I chose SuSe Professional 10.0 as my Linux
      distribution of choice primarily because of its relationship to Novell, whom
      I’ve always had a good opinion of, as well as those bad Red Hat experiences.
      However, Scott Lowe recently finished a series for TechProGuild about the Red
      Hat?derived Fedora
      Core 5
      , so I thought I might give Fedora Core a look.

      Having a spare hard drive for the Omnibook laying around that
      wasn’t being used, I decided to download and install Fedora Core 5 on it. That
      would give a fair comparison ? running SuSe Professional 10.0 and Fedora Core 5
      side-by-side.

      I was initially very impressed with FC5. It runs like a charm
      on the HP. The installation was even better than SuSe’s YAST installer. I also
      noticed that FC5 was faster than SuSe 10.0.

      There are probably several reasons for this. First FC5 uses a
      different Linux kernel than SuSe 10.0.
      FC5 uses the 2.16 kernel as its base while SuSe uses the 2.15 kernel.
      I’m sure that the programmers working on Linux are constantly tweaking the
      system to improve performance.

      Secondly, FC5 defaults to GNOME 2.14 as its window
      manager. KDE 3.5.1 is included and can
      be used as an alternative. Conversely, SuSe 10.0 uses KDE as its default desktop.
      As I’ve chronicled
      before
      , the included version of KDE with SuSe 10 is a dog, but it has been
      quite tolerable after upgrading to KDE 3.5.2. SuSe 10.0 ships with GNOME 2.12
      as an alternative.

      The choice of a window manager is relevant because of the
      overhead they place on the system. When booting FC5 under GNOME 2.14, the
      system instantly consumes 88Mb of the 384Mb RAM in my laptop. By comparison, SuSe
      10.0 with its default KDE window manager gobbles up 245Mb RAM, leaving only 140Mb
      for applications before hammering the swap file.

      Interestingly enough, if I swap each distribution to its
      alternative window manager, the difference remains. SuSe 10.0 under GNOME consumes 115Mb while FC5 under KDE takes up
      225Mb. In both distros, GNOME is more efficient than KDE. Also, under identical
      window managers, FC5 seems to be more efficient than SuSe 10.0.

      I’m sure I don?t have either distribution tuned properly to
      maximize RAM usage and am running some needless services. For example, until I
      started going through some startup files and removing some entries, KDE 3.5.2
      took up 323Mb of RAM after bootup. Therefore, I’m sure there are somethings I
      can do to both distros to make them more efficient.

      So after using Fedora Core 5 almost exclusively for 3 weeks,
      what do I think of it as a Linux distribution and compared to SuSe Professional
      10.0? More on that later.

      • #3152763

        Flirting with Fedora

        by justin james ·

        In reply to Flirting with Fedora

        For that type of RAM usage, you might as well be using Windows XP. Where I come from, your UNIX is command line only, no window managers allowed, unless it’s thin clients connecting via X. Even then, 90% of the time they are just using it as a glorified way of having a bunch of shell sessions open, so why bother?

        J.Ja

      • #3153941

        Flirting with Fedora

        by eric.talbot ·

        In reply to Flirting with Fedora

        For home usage FC5, is much better than FC1-4. The Hardware support looks more efficient. My TV adapter on previous version was not working at all and now it is perfect. Same thing for my 2 sounds adapters. Furthermore for those who uses non-ascii character, it now works well. On previous versions i never been able to get this to work as an XKB message appeared on each and every login but it is no longer true. This is certainly the best Fedora ever.

        Regarding RAM utilization, if you do not customize the installation, lots of things are installed and therefore uses RAM. You cannot compare RAM utilization between SUSE and FC if you just don’t make sure the same packages are installed.

      • #3153724

        Flirting with Fedora

        by hopefulcoder ·

        In reply to Flirting with Fedora

        Fedora is the worst linux distro i have come accross.!!! Ubuntu and suse are a lot better …..thats my experience

      • #3154130

        Flirting with Fedora

        by crake ·

        In reply to Flirting with Fedora

        Hi John,

        I appreciate you sharing your experiences with Linux. It is great to see more exposure to these distributions. Yes, Linux has its share of issues, but I cannot think of a single flawless system – although AS/400 and Novell are pretty high on my list 🙂

        After you kick the tires on FC5 for a while, you should also try CentOS – another Red Hat derivative. I have found it to be quite cooperative and robust. We have been running our Oracle DB on it for about a year now and it has been nothing but reliable and well-behaved.

        I’d be interested to know the particulars about Linux that have you shaking your head.
        If shaking your head refers to stumbling blocks and/or shortcomings in Linux as an operating system, they can easily be turned into opportunities to improve the system, especially as they relate to the particular distribution with which you are working.

        That is the beauty of open source. You are free to submit bug reports, collate with other developers, and even discuss issues with the original authors of their respective applications or components.

        Not every issue has a resolution. Many applications written for SuSE Linux 8.0 have fallen by the wayside because they could not adapt or not enough bugs could be resolved for the application to remain a feasible. This means, with several exceptions, usually only “best of breed” applications will thrive over the long term in the OSS community and beyond.

        Several excellent examples of this include the Apache Web server, Mozilla Firefox & Thunderbird, Shorewall/BSD Firewalls, OpenSSH, Sendmail/Exim/other MTAs along with Spamassassin & Razor, Squid Proxy Server/Squidguard/Dansguardian (many schools use this), N-able (commercial), Nagios, mrtg, Ethereal, and many more.
        Of course, one would expect most of the bugs to be worked out by the time we are offered a release candidate, but I have come to realize that this is not always the case. I, for one, am willing to deal with that and happily accept the challenge to help the OSS community. I like the fact that I can contribute both fiscally and technically. It is well worth it to me… especially considering the alternatives.

    • #3152978

      Getting files from Point A to Point B safely

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      I got a call the other day from a company that I do
      consulting for from time to time. The lady in charge of Human Resources had
      lost some data that she needed recovered. It was a very important interview
      with someone who was filing a sexual harassment complaint for the company and
      she had gone to a remote site to perform the interview.  She used a computer onsite to type up the
      interview and was bringing it back to the office.

      How did she bring it back that cause her to lose data?  Drop
      her laptop?  A corrupt attachment to an email? A scratched
      CD-R? Maybe she accidentally poured a soda over her USB memory
      stick.  Nope, none of the above.  She had lost data the old
      fashioned way ? by
      storing it on a bad floppy disk. Fortunately, at least it was a 3.5
      inch floppy
      and not a 5.25.

      I was prepared to have to take the disk home and maybe use
      some utilities I have to revive dead sectors on floppy disks, but I didn?t have
      to go to that much trouble. She had tried copying the files from Windows
      Explorer, which failed when it hit the bad sector. Dropping to a command
      prompt, I was able to move the file using the old COPY command. I did have to
      Ignore and Retry a few times, but eventually the file moved over.  There were a few formatting issues, but she
      didn?t lose any of the important parts of the interview so she was lucky.

      It had been a while since I got a call about a bad floppy
      disk. You don?t see them around as much as you used to.  Once upon a time, 1.44Mb seemed like acres of
      space to store data on, but with today?s ever larger files, floppies just don?t
      cut it. Combined with the ubiquity of writable CDs and USB memory drives at
      ever falling prices, floppy drives are definitely Last Millenium.

      I still have a couple of boxes of floppies at home. They?re
      mostly actually old 360K 5.25?s for my Tandy 1000. Surprisingly enough, those
      old floppy disks don?t go as bad you?d think even though none of them are less
      than 10 years old.

      I stick to the memory sticks for most portable storage things
      although a CD-RW is pretty universal. It will be interesting to see what comes
      out next.  In a few years, we?ll be
      chuckling about the people that are still using USB drives.

      • #3159047

        Getting files from Point A to Point B safely

        by leonard.rogol ·

        In reply to Getting files from Point A to Point B safely

        The company I work for writes Managed File Transfer (MFT) software.  As long as an Internet connection exists, this is by far the quickest and safest way of moving and managing files. See –> http://www.iqswift.com

         

      • #3158880

        Getting files from Point A to Point B safely

        by petedude ·

        In reply to Getting files from Point A to Point B safely

        I dunno. . . I still consider floppies useful for VERY small file transfers, but yes, they’re becoming less and less common– not to mention increasingly less reliable as you point out.

    • #3158923

      Fedora Core 5 frustrations

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      As I mentioned in a recent post, I?ve started
      playing with the Fedora Core 5 Linux distribution
      . I?ve been running SuSe
      Professional 10.0 for several months now and decided maybe I should take a look
      at Fedora Core 5 as well. This was mostly prompted by some articles that Scott Lowe has
      recently done on the topic, but also has to do with wanting to get a first hand
      look at what?s driving the Number 1 Linux vendor Red Hat. 

      As I said before, Fedora?s installation went great. And being
      based on GNOME 2.14, the interface is fast and reasonably friendly. Compared to
      KDE, it?s restrictive, but it gets the job done. Linux founder Linus Torvalds
      once described GNOME as being ?developed by interface nazis, where consistently
      the excuse for not doing something is not ‘it’s too complicated to do’, but ‘it
      would confuse users’.? He may have overstated the point, but it IS a little
      restrictive.

      Fedora?s PUP updater works really well. It?s even better in many
      respects than SuSe?s YOU updating utility. Both of course make Microsoft?s
      Windows Update look silly by comparison and do much more than simply update the
      operating system. Both of them will check installed application packages as
      well and help to make sure you?ve got the latest versions.

      My one main gripe about Fedora Core 5 is what?s missing. I?ve had to
      jump through a lot of hoops installing additional RPMs left and right to make
      FC5 do the most basic of tasks. First, FC5 ships with the Helix Player which
      doesn?t do a very good job of playing RealMedia files. To fix that problem I
      had to download the actual RealPlayer 10 for Linux.

      Although I can?t fault FC5 for it specifically because SuSe had the
      same problem, I had to download a ton of RPMs in order to get any of the
      players to recognize WMV media files. In both distro?s cases, I also had to
      upgrade the installed media players to newer versions which meant scrounging around
      the Internet. Fortunately, I discovered PackMan which was a big help for
      SuSe and RPMFind
      which helped find the latest versions for FC5.  

      What was probably most annoying in FC5 was its complete
      inability to play simple MP3 files. The first time I tried to play one, a podcast from
      TechRepublic
      , I was greeted with a reasonably irritating message saying
      that due to licensing and patent restrictions in some countries, MP3 support
      wasn?t included. This, of course, had to make me run around and find additional
      RPMs to get around that problem.

      Now, as a computer guy, stuff like this can be annoying, but
      you know how it is. You?re not going to let the machine stop you from doing
      something, so often you?ll go the extra mile to make it work. For typical end
      users however, things like this present a barrier to entry and cause people to
      go fleeing back to Windows. It?s also a reason, which I?ll discuss later, why I?ve
      given up on eCommStation.

      There are several other minor annoyances which have caused me
      to pull the FC5 hard drive out of my laptop. (Such as its infuriating tendency
      to wake up IMMEDIATELY after you try to put the laptop in to Suspend.)  For now, I?m back to using SuSe Professional
      10.0. SuSe
      10.1 has recently been released
      by OpenSuSe and I hope to see what?s new
      with that soon.     

      • #3161127

        Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        by jnhannah ·

        In reply to Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        I have been playing around with various Linux distributions for some time. I am primarily a Windows user, and have been for many years now. I would class myself as an advanced computer user, who likes to dabble with different operating systems.

        My main OS is Windows XP home.

        I installed Fedora core 5 on my machine a couple of days ago. As you mentioned in your article, the install was a breeze. My HP printer PCS 2100 was discovered and set up correctly. However, I got the impression that Fedora 5 appears to be for those people who don’t necesarily need to play around with additional settings or advanced configurations. I am far from being an expert Linux user, but I felt that I didn’t really have as much control of the OS as I might with either Mandrake or Suse.

        The major problem I ran into with Fedora 5 was that I could no longer dual boot and start Windows. I still have to have the ability to use Windows because of my wife.

        Fedora had me running back to my version of Suse (9.0), which I like, apart from the fact that I have a problem with my all in one printer scanner. Perhaps a later version of SuSe was resolve this problem.

        I do like using Linux, don’t get me wrong, but I just want the thing to work. I don’t really want to have to go chasing additional RPMs and spend hours trying to get a printer to work. This is primarily why I tend to go back to using Windows – everything just works. I know that a lot of work is done by th entire Linux community in the writing of all the various flavors of Linux along with all the various packages within these distros. The work is admirable, but for me it still just mises the mark. I would put Fedora into this category. It’s close, but no cigar.

      • #3146879

        Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        by eldergabriel ·

        In reply to Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        I agree that fedora’s out-of-box experience leaves a little to be
        desired (especially compared to PCLinuxOS), but once properly
        configured (by a friend or a pro), linux newbies will find it enjoyably
        useful, meeting their day-to-day needs.

        From a root shell, just (copy and paste) do:

        rpm -ihv http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/5/i386/RPMS.freshrpms/freshrpms-release-1.1-1.fc.noarch.rpm

        This will add the freshrpms repository to the GUI package manager, at
        which point, adding all the “cool” stuff becomes a breeze. I would also
        recommend the livna repository, which includes the mplayerplug-in (a
        god-send for streaming videos):

        rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm

        In regards to the out-of-box mp3 support, it’s interesting to note that
        not even MS Windows had this for the longest time, also for patenting
        and licensing reasons. There was a 3rd party plugin for windows media
        player that had to be purchased separately. At that point, i used to
        just go download and install winamp to be able to play mp3s in windoze.
        It’s been a while since i’ve tried to play an mp3 file on a default
        windoze installation via windows media player, so this may have changed.

      • #3146869

        Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        by crake ·

        In reply to Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        Hi John,

        Thank you for mentioning the PackMan repositories. PackMan has become an invaluable resource for putting together a complete, fully operational distribution, including SUSE and FC (and CentOS as well) and their being media savvy. Using PackMan, I installed MPlayer, proper DVD, Windows, and Apple codecs, and all dependencies for these – and other packages – in just minutes instead of having to scour the Internet.

        Fedora Core and SUSE should just include PackMan in the list of update resources.

        Regards

      • #3146247

        Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        by sir_cheats_alot ·

        In reply to Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        Well you Obviously had better luck then i did with FC5 after install.   My install wouldn’t even boot from grub like it is supposed to.  I had to do this manually.   I checked my CD’s before the install process as it recommends, and they checked out fine.  NOTE TO OTHERs Don’t install on secondary Hard drive.

        I have recently aquired a copy of SUSE (10.1 i believe) i haven’t had a chance to install it yet.  so i’m going to check that out in a week or so.  After that i might see what Mandriva now has to offer.  I migh settle with Ubuntu, SUSE or Mandriva…we’ll see how things go…i have also heard some nice things about PClinuxOS, so i might give that a look as well.

      • #3229607

        Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        by juanderful01 ·

        In reply to Fedora Core 5 frustrations

        I am very new to the world of Linux.  So new that I can count the number of times I have logged into Fedora with both hands.  I thought my frustration with getting applications to work was only because I do not know the system.  After reading some of your comments, it may be more than that.

        Currently I am running a dual boot system: Windows Server 2003 and Fedora Core 5.  I figured that best way to learn these systems are to actually use the OS’s.  Now in regards to setting up the dual boot.  Once gentleman said he had a difficult time setting it up.  The only complaint that I have would be the instructions that I received from the download site.  The install was nothing like the instructions.  Likely I fumbled my way through it and had positive results, except the whole password thing for the adminstrator.  I was prompted to enter a password for the administrator then prompted to create another account that would not need admin rights.   Basically a user account.  After these two tasks, I was again prompted for another password.  One for the root.  The password that I made up for the admin account did not take.  Now I am only listed as a user, but I have some root capability by means of entering the root password from my user account.

        Now about playing video and sound on this OS.  Everything I have tried to play is not supported.  I have looked around for the “plugins” or codecs but most of what I have found does not make sense to me.  I am going to try some of the links posted in the other comments.  Perhaps all will work out in the end.  I would rather not go back to using just Windows.  So I need to continue with learning Linux, maybe trying out some other flavors.

    • #3151584

      My first computer: A Tandy 1000

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Last week, Jason Hiner?s blog mentioned that his first
      computer was a
      Mac Classic
      . He also created a
      discussion
      that asked other TechRepublic members what their first computers
      were.

      My first computer was actually a TI 99/4a. This was a
      computer that my parents bought when I was still in high school. It was a nice
      little unit. Texas Instruments actually sold a lot of them in the early 80?s
      but got scared when IBM entered the market with the PC and bailed out.

      As you can see from the image below, the TI 99/4a was all
      integrated in once piece, kind of like the Commodore 64. Mine had a whopping
      16Kb of RAM. I forget the speed of the processor, but I don?t think it was over
      1Mhz.


      There was a cartridge slot on the front that you could use to
      play games with. You could attach a joystick to it. For external storage your
      basic choice was a cassette recorder.
      (Yes, like the kind you record voice on.) To get any real work done however, you needed
      to drop several hundred dollars on an expansion kit that would take you to a
      phenomenal 64K and could host full height floppy drives. We never got that.

      The first computer I purchased with my own money was a Tandy
      1000. The Tandy 1000 was Radio Shack?s first successful IBM compatible. Its predecessor, the Tandy 2000, was actually
      more advanced than the IBM PC at the time but wasn?t compatible enough and
      died a slow lingering death.

      The Tandy 1000, shown below, was actually a clone of the
      ill-fated PCjr. As such, it ran all of
      the regular programs for the IBM PC, but had an enhanced sound chip and better
      graphics than the basic IBM PC. You could run 16 colors at 320×200 where the
      basic IBM CGA graphics limited you to 4 colors. It wouldn?t be until the mid
      1980?s when EGA became more popular that you could run that many colors on an
      IBM compatible.

      Tandy 1000

      I went ahead and bought some of the extras for it. An
      internal 300 baud modem ($175 ? 1200 baud was just TOO fast and TOO
      expensive). A 2d half-height 360K Floppy
      drive ($150 ? no FULL height floppy drives like those PCs). I didn?t
      immediately get the color monitor – I stuck with a green screen.

      I also didn?t get the extra memory at first. The Tandy came with 128K of memory which displayed in
      giant numbers when you booted the machine. My roommate who was a Computer
      Science major took a look at it the first time it started up and said ?128K?!
      What are you going to do with THAT much memory??.

      Actually ? nothing. You could do hardly anything in 128K with
      a PC-compatible. The first thing I did to buy an expansion board to
      take
      it to 640K. Then I got an external 10Mb hard drive. And a color
      monitor. When I outgrew the 10Mb hard drive, I put an internal 40Mb in
      it which is still there.

      My last major purchase for the computer was a 286 accelerator board for it that sped it up
      about 6 times. The card had an 8Mhz 80286 with a ribbon cable on it. You?d disconnect
      the 8088 CPU that came with the computer and plug the cable in. Then you?d put
      the card in an available slot, load the DOS device driver in CONFIG.SYS and
      zoom? off you went.

      I still have my old Tandy 1000. It?s sitting on my desk in my
      home office. It?s a great little machine and it still works. I also use it as a
      baseline to remember how things used to be and as a measure against modern day
      computers.

      For example ? I have a copy of Windows 2.03 installed on it. I
      can turn on the Tandy, have it go through its startup routines and boot
      DOS and Windows 2.03 before my 3.0Ghz Dell here at the office boots Windows
      XP. How?s that for 20 years of progress?

      • #3146900

        My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        by tech locksmith ·

        In reply to My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        Remember the 1000 well, I think I still have mine in the barn sitting next to my PS2 Model 80 and some other antiques most of which ran when I retired them.

        But the first one I actually bought was even earlier, the CoCo.

        In fact, I used to write for the magazines which supported the CoCo and 1000 (Rainbow and PCM) but my very first was a 4K Radio Shack terminal which later grew up and became a CoCo.

        Still, they seemed like a great advance after having to work with punch cards and time-share.

        BTW, the Tandy-oriented magazines were based just north of Louisville in a small shopping mall – small world, I still write for a publication in Louisville.

      • #3147144

        My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        by petedude ·

        In reply to My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        That gets me too. . . how more “modern” PCs take so much longer to start up. . .

      • #3157044

        My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        by rickdesigndad ·

        In reply to My first computer: A Tandy 1000

        My first computer was also a Texas Instruments TI 99/4a.? It was also a gift from my parents at about the same age as John – upon my graduation from high school.? It was really great seeing the photo in John’s column – it brought back a lot of memories.? I remember staying up all night trying to program basic sound and graphic presentations – something we take for granted today, but that was so difficult and time consuming back then.? This would foreshadow my career as a graphic designer and a film editer 25 years later.? I also, like John, never was able to get the “expansion kit”, which would add a floppy drive and additional enhancements.? It was prohibitively expensive, but was something I was always hoping and praying for.? I was, unfortunately, relinquished to using the TI 99/4a’s default cassette drive method the the data recording of my reports, creative writings, studies, etc.? This was a seriously flawed system, as it required saving every few moments – the TI 99/4a was not a particulary stable system – and the cassette method was slow – requiring the recorder the spin the cassette back and forth over and over again.? But this was the early days – the Macintosh (my second computer and the first I purchased myself) was several years off – and the TI 99/4a got me through college without too many lost papers!

    • #3156936

      Intel follows AMD?s lead again

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Don?t you just love provocative headlines like that? The
      first thing that pops to mind might have been ?Ah, he?s talking about the new
      dual core CPUs that Intel is shipping.? or ?Oh, that?s probably a something
      having to do with lower power CPUs for laptops”.

      Nope. In this case, I?m talking about Intel following AMD?s
      lead in abandoning 386 and 486 CPUs. AMD abandoned their 486 and 586 line back in 2002.
      Intel recently announced that they would no longer be producing 386, 486, and
      some other RISC processors after
      September 2007
      .

      Although not an earth-shattering announcement nor one that
      will probably shock the computer industry, but it?s interesting from a couple
      of angles. First, there?s the whole history and End-Of-An-Era thing that the
      production end means. Secondly, there?s the Wow factor that Intel has still
      been able to sell these CPU classes 15 years after their peak popularity.

      From the historical perspective, the 386-class CPUs changed
      the entire PC industry. Back before the first George Bush was in office, the
      386 CPU ushered in the era of 32-bit computing that we?re only now starting to
      see the end of. By adopting the 386 before IBM, Compaq put itself on the map
      and lead to the overthrow of the entire IBM PC empire. Mated with Windows 3.1
      and then Windows 95, the 386/486 entrenched Microsoft at the top of the
      software industry.

      People long forgot about those CPUs. Before the turn of the
      century the Pentium line and its successors had made the 386 and 486 CPUs
      essentially obsolete. The CPUs have lived on as embedded processors, still
      crunching data bits inside of devices such as network controllers and data
      acquisition devices.

      So, even though Intel will still be cranking out the creaky
      silicon for another year, the end is on the horizon. While we?re pounding away on dual core
      processors and looking forward to 64-bit and quad-core processors for every day
      use, all we can say is ?The King is Dead! Long live the King!?

    • #3157806

      OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      Microsoft finally
      ships
      its long awaited subscription security tool OneCare Live tomorrow.
      OneCare Live is Microsoft?s entry into the security realm dominated by third
      parties such as Symantec and McAfee. It combines a firewall, anti-spyware, and
      anti-virus tools along with such things as backup and performance tuning. Not to be outdone, both Symantec and McAfee
      are offering
      their own new tools
      .

      Jason Hiner has previously
      mentioned
      in his blog that he?s excited about OneCare and plans to use it
      at home once it ships. I?m still very skeptical about OneCare.

      Oh, I?m sure that Microsoft has done a good job with the
      product and that it does exactly what it?s designed to do. I?m also reasonably
      sure that it will drive Symantec, McAfee, and others out of the market,
      especially when the corporate version becomes available. I also don?t buy the
      argument that just because Windows has a reputation for being buggy and full of
      security holes that you can?t trust a security product from Microsoft.

      So why be skeptical?

      I guess it doesn?t have anything to do with OneCare itself.
      Rather, releasing a security product for sale like this makes me trust
      Microsoft as a whole less. The reason for this lessened trust comes from a parallel
      argument made by those people who wouldn?t trust Microsoft with security because
      they think Windows is so bad. My reason is based on the inherent conflict of interest that a vendor has
      selling an operating system and then charging you to keep it secure.

      In selling a subscription product that secures its systems,
      what incentive does Microsoft have to truly build security into their
      products to begin with? Sheer altruism? Ask Netscape, Lotus, IBM, Corel, Novell,
      Ashton-Tate, Borland, and Computer Associates how altruistic Microsoft is. The answer is there is no incentive.
      Microsoft gets to play lip-service to security with Vista and other products and
      then offer to take more of your money via OneCare for you to be truly secure.

      It makes much more sense to me to have security products like
      antivirus bundled with an operating system. By including it for free, I?d be
      more willing to trust the system as a whole because the company wouldn?t be
      profiting from their own mistakes or the willful destruction of others.

      Why is it more important to bundle something like a media
      player which is completely irrelevant to an operating system, but not something
      like security? And it?s not like
      Microsoft doesn?t have a history of bundling anti-virus with its operating
      systems. DOS 6.x came with anti-virus, but it mysteriously disappeared in Windows
      95.

      Of course the reason they don?t bundle it is because they can
      make a lot of money from it. If there was a way to get a revenue stream
      directly from a web browser or a media player, then you?d be paying for IE and
      Windows Media Player as well.

      Here?s another thing that confuses me. If Vista is supposed
      to be so secure, to the point that as George Ou advocates in his
      blog
      you don?t even need
      anti-virus or other security products, then why is Microsoft now entering the
      market? Could there be something about
      Vista, Longhorn, and Office 2007 that Microsoft isn?t telling us? What are we
      supposed to believe?

      See? This is what I mean by the conflict of interest and the
      questions that OneCare raises leading me to trust Microsoft a little
      less. I want a system that I can trust to be secure or at least backed
      by a company that won’t profit from its own mistakes.

      • #3157069

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by ss ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        “If Vista is supposed to be so secure–to the point that, as George Ou advocates in his blog, you don’t even need antivirus”

        Oh, I can’t wait for that one to come back and bite him on the butt … not since the infamous ‘640k should be enough for everybody’ quote, has anyone set themselves up for such a big fall.

        Spencer Steel

      • #3157651

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by psomerset9 ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Once MS sells a copy of Windows, the revenue stream stops. They accept the obligation to issue updates to correct vulnerabilities and to fix bugs. If they were to bundle security software into the OS, would we expect them to provide virus definition updates into perpetuity? That just doesn’t seem fair.

        The existing model is (in these representations, the parentheses enclose a purchasable package):

        (OS)  +  (Third-party security with annual subscriptions)  (1)

        Microsoft is proposing this model:

        (OS)  + (MS Security with annual subscription)  (2)

        I believe the correct model should be:

        (OS with Security software) + (annual subscription)  (3)

        You might argue that (3) is the same as (1), but it is conceptually different, and it makes clear that the annual subscription pays for the additional work in researching, tracking, developing countermeasures for viruses, worms, Trojans, spam, etc., and issuing updates for these threats.

        W/r George Ou’s comments, I think it’s right to expect MS to make their product resistant to hacks, buffer overflows, DoS attacks, etc., but the fight against malicious software will probably never stop because there will always be clever goofballs out there who just like to break things.

      • #3157648

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by cmbowe01 ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        I agree that MS has to be careful to avoid conflicts of interest but we’ve already seen what happens when MS bundles programs or features with their OS. If they are successful then they are hauled into court to defend their choice to integrate and possibly forced to unbundle. The courts attempt to protect and argue for the customers’ best interest but they don’t really seem to consider what the customers want. Microsoft’s case in the EU is a prime example. Practically no one there wants to buy a Media Player free version of Windows yet Microsoft is still required to provide it. It may be good for competition but it’s not what the customers want. So now it seems MS has learned from all its time and expense in court and has chosen to keep its security bundle separate from the OS. Can you really blame them.

      • #3157394

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by conceptual ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Just as an extended warranty becomes most valuable to the seller when it’s never needed, OneCare is most valuable to Microsoft when the operating systems covered are most secure. It’s simple, the idea is to do the least amount of work for the money. The less secure the OS the smaller the profit. Time alone will tell if they made the right bet, but securing the perimeter is usually better than depending, solely,on a panic button in your bedroom.

      • #3157389

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by bud fields ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        My thrust, originally, has been already (it seems) written in the responses. I would like to point out, however, that if one were to look beyond the native fallability of MicroSoft’s code crunchers, and objectively take a look at the violent shift in direction the entire corporate structure has taken in the past three years, there are some important determinations to be made here.

        No system operating software is impervious to malicious attack, save the one that sits in a locked firebox in the safe. And, there is not much room to argue that the Windows OS family is the most prevalent system in use.

        No OS group has been more of a target for malicious attack, regardless of size, configuration, capability, or price point than MicroSoft’s products.  Let’s set aside the reams of paper it would take to list the reasons,  possible reasons, or even imagined conspiracies behind this fact, for this discussion anyway.  The fact remains that MicroSoft has been, is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, the attack-point of choice for anyone wanting to write, test, or deploy malicious programs.

        If, for no other reason, MicroSoft has achieved the lowest trust rating in the industry for its code.  Would you agree?

        From ’95 forward, the corporate mentality has been “response” – oriented to every threat that has been targeting Redmond.  How many security patches do you think the MicroSoft guys have created in that time?  Could we agree, as well, that they have gotten pretty good at identifcation, threat assessment, and innoculation?  I think it is also valid to say that, at least in this instance, they went outside their own capability and sought the knowledge, capability, and effective solution-building of the very best anti-virus, firewall, and spy blocking teams in the world to assist them. 

        They have learned a lot about system security since ’95.  In several cases, they paid what could be legitimately considered (even for them) unrealistic costs for their education (Anti-trust, unbundling, etc).  Their arrogance notwithstanding, this is a lesson that has not come cheap.

        About two years ago, I noticed a very barely, yet suspiciously point-specific change in direction from the boys in the Norhwest.

        They started talking about things like “predictability”, “advance-warning”, (I love this one) “prophylactic programming” in their upgrades and new systems.  Instead of “response”, it was “preparation”.  They began (at yet another astounding corporate financial outlay, I might add-this one voluntary) taking the notion that, since they had the most to lose, they also had the most to gain by creating avoidance strategies.  And, at least to me, the most amazing thing of all is, that they created a new design paradigm around this concept.  “We know you are out there.  We are coming, and we are going to hunt you down.” Okay, perhaps they are too far west, but still….

        When the MSN Premium Service came out, just like AOL and others, McAfee came along as a trusted partner.  Symantec chose to decline the offer, opting to maintain its independence.  This massive response team, writing patch after patch after patch (and still thousands behind, even as we speak), turned direction en masse into a forward-thinking, and forward-looking team.  What will be the next threat?  Do we really believe that people outside this corporation know our programs better than we do?  Why are we accepting that?

        And, they didn’t. And for the past two solid years, MicroSoft has been re-directing their immense but not yet monolithic corporate character to pre-determinant technology.  Yes, there are still malicious attacks that get through, as we have seen even within the past two weeks.  But, what haven’t we seen?  How many threats have been neutralized by, for instance, the seventy-seven security patches that I had to download when I created a new home network last week with software that included SP2 before the updates? One Care Live is a next-generation technology that leaves the known providers somewhere behind.  The McAfee Security Center that is, even as I type this, guarding me (and you) came with my Premium subscription.  One Care is part of the next generation.  I’m going to live to see it (Lord willing), and I fully intend to be a part of it.

        To me, the issue is not us having to pay for their errors.  In the first place, they HAVE paid.  Secondly, the dramatic change in the corporate philosophy (while perhaps a few decades late) is one I can subscribe to. I don’t particularly care why it was made; I am thankful it was made. I do not believe that, to subscribe to One Care is to be forced to pay for the inadaquacies from Redmond.  I believe it is the opportunity to be the first to be protected from the threat we do not yet know about.  You know that those boys in blue do not do anything cheap, or halfway.  Well, okay, Millinieum notwithstanding. Don’t miss my point.

        The amount of resources that MicroSoft has, is, and will be throwing into the concept of “preventative design initiative” is not only, as far as I am concerned, appropriate (and long past due), but worthy of my encouragement and support. Somebody from across the pond sends an email that talks about a potential threat, and what happens today (as opposed to the stream of notices that jammed the inboxes with the ’95 beta)? Not only do they listen, but they invite participation in the solution.  I just don’t know how much more an example needs to be seen.

        No one is more sceptical than I (God, I love Delphi!) of anything MS.  But, to see the evidence before me and ignore it is not reasonable.  Trust, but verify.  So far, the things that I see are worthy, and I am thankful for them.  So thankful, in fact, that I am a One Care subscriber.

        I’ll let you know how my theory obtains.

         

         

      • #3165767

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by automationguy ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        I couldn’t agree more.  I’m not necessarily anti-Microsoft, but it doesn’t make sense for a software vendor to profit from a product that provides blanket security for their own OS security shortcomings.  Build AV functionality into the core OS and you might make me believe that you have my best interest at heart.  Of course, the likes of McAfee, Symantec, Grisoft, and others probably wouldn’t care for that much.  On that note, I don’t think that OneCare will threaten the third party vendors much in the way of market share as long as OneCare remains a seperate subscription based product and not something that is built into the OS core.  People are typically pretty faithful when it comes to a preferred AV product.  Kind of like Mac v/s PC, Linux v/s Microsoft, or Ford v/s Chevy.  Every line has its devout following. 

      • #3165696

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by tmanisback ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Insert comment text here I am in complete agreement.Why not free, to fill the holes in MSN “swiss cheese”, programs, to assist their “customers” ?

      • #3165637

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by garydobbratz ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Why should One care be free when Symantech and Mcafee charge for theirs and in my case norton said i had a virus when in fact ididn’t becuase it miss read a file huuuum buggy Mccafee stops email from tech republic because it may contain harmful material. I have been running one care and so far it seems to work just fine. I add an adress to my docs it tells me I need to back up becuse before I would forget to when busy and have lost stuff because not thinking deleted it with out backing it up, shame on micro soft for reminding me.

        gary

      • #3165628

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by oz_ollie ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        This is just another reason to actually learn about computers and use a secure operating system. Microsoft Windows will be an insecure OS until they start from scratch and write an OS with security in mind. Apple did this with OS X – no applications written for OS 9 or below will run natively on OS X (there is classic mode used during the change over but it was better option to not even install this option). Unix and similar operating systems like Linux, the various BSDs, Solaris, etc have security built into the OS.

        This fallacy that Microsoft is targetted the most because of it’s prevalence doesn’t really hold up. The vast majority of web servers are running Apache on one of *nixes and have 100% Internet connection time – this makes a much more attractive target, and at various stages they have been attacked (including the attack on the root servers a couple of years ago) – and security flaws have been found. However, usually these flaws have not resulted in the entire system crashing – it has affected the particular service that has been patched quickly because of the openess of the source code for these applications or components.

        However tne point I do agree with George Ou on is that anti-virus software shouldn’t be required on desktops. Most ISPs are starting to scan all e-mail before sending and delivering actually takes place – this is the ideal place for virus detection and deletion. Filtering at this level, along with intelligent port scanning/blocking/filtering, should quickly stop the spread of viruses. I believe this practice the major cause of the reduction in wide spread outbreaks like occurred a few years ago with Melissa, Sasser, etc.

        With increasing digital content in the home it will be a necassity to have a “digital media gateway” that connects to the Internet, stores music & videos, receives & sends e-mail, and numerous other functions that will become available with increased speeds ans storage capacities. This “digital media gateway” should filter and protect the internal network from viruses/malware and other inappropriate material (as defined by that house) much the same way that corporate networks are designed to work.

      • #3165591

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by mike ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Thats why i go with a Free Antivirus that is much more powerful than anything Microsoft could come up with. Avast is steadily gaining ground as a great, powerful, free home antivirus, with a paid pro version that is even more powerful. Our campus is swapping over to an Avast site license from a Symantec one.

        Read about how to install the free version here:
        http://computeradvice.mikebinns.net/installAntivirus.php

        -Mike Binns

      • #3165553

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by jrapoport ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        This is essentially the same thing as buying a Microsoft Office product and then paying to have Word – Excel – Outlook included in the package.  I was pretty miffed when Microsoft offered Windows98SE to their Beta testers as long as we paid for the privilege to Beta test the OS for them, but now they want to ship an OS that is touted as being so secure, but you have to purchase the security seperate? Does the inclusion of a firewall in the OneCare package mean that WinXP’s firewall will disappear in Vista?  This makes me mad enough to move to another software package and OS, but unfortunately everything else out there blows worse.

      • #3166435

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by joe90fluke ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        I you take few steps back and look at the entire Microsoft picture about where they are and where they go.

        I perceive this new strategy as a no choice approach and a loosing one.
        For the standard strict user they have to make an other appealing show and they will do it.

        I am not naive anymore and all I can see is poor software coding everywhere in the Microsoft  OS.
        Even at the lowest level, at the base of the pyramid, there are bugs that were still there not long ago if not there still.
        An other model tells me manufacturers are not good in every domain.They normally get very good where they
        developped expertise. Ex: McAfee is one of the top player in AV software, their Internet security suite leaves a lot of headroom for improvement.

        About Windows I have to say the base of the pyramid is very week as they wrote code that works but rarely well polished and you think they will succeed to build something strong over it… I call that day dreaming.
        Microsoft OS design are flimsy due to the existence of 3 major weakness  of design obsolescence: The system32 folder where all the dll’s are placed, this is a real design mess; who is called by who?
        The registry is the second weak point if not the first.
        What is left ? The kernel there is no kernel in Microsoft OS. Yes, not really, it is so full of cracks that it turns into flour
        2 seconds after it is loaded in the memory leak area ( Just playing with the words, but get the message)
        I will be nice and not mention Internet Explorer Gruyere model syndrom. I can not talk about it because there is no more cheese left.
         So, over this mess they will build a security system and make you pay for it , no not for me thank you.

        I have seen enought I am looking  toward a better horizon where security issues are addressed within a couple of days.
        Linux is a new born star and will continue to grow at an accelerated rate, specially in the server application for a while and then in a couple of years the desktop market will start to get confortable with it more and more.

        I now consider Windows to be in a slow phase out concerning my work and should implement a Linux domain controller.
        There is a very interesting Linux compilation called Debian, based on the General Public License this OS  is free (Libre)
        and it is amazing to see what a community of well intentionned people not driven by money and cupidity can do.

        I am going back to my stuff now as I still have still a lot to learn and do.

        By the mean time try to ask you seriously why the 500 hundeds most powerfull computer clusters of the planet are based on Linux (350) Unix about (130) Berkeley System  distribution BSD (13 to 16 ) , 4 or 5 of the rest classified as others

        Why the NASA did use Debian Linux in the Space shutttle… to save money…. I don’t think so.

      • #3166432

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by joe90fluke ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        If you take few steps back and look at the entire Microsoft picture about where they are and where they go.

        I perceive this new strategy as a no choice approach and a loosing one.For the standard strict user they have to make an other appealing show and they will do it.I am not naive anymore and all I can see is poor software coding everywhere in the Microsoft  OS.Even at the lowest level, at the base of the pyramid, there are bugs that were still there not long ago if not there still.An other model tells me manufacturers are not good in every domain.They normally get very good where they developped
        expertise. Ex: McAfee is one of the top player in AV software, their
        Internet security suite leaves a lot of headroom for improvement.About
        Windows I have to say the base of the pyramid is very week as they
        wrote code that works but rarely well polished and you think they will
        succeed to build something strong over it… I call that day dreaming.Microsoft
        OS design are flimsy due to the existence of 3 major weakness  of
        design obsolescence: The system32 folder where all the dll’s are
        placed, this is a real design mess; who is called by who? The registry is the second weak point if not the first.What is left ? The kernel there is no kernel in Microsoft OS. Yes, not really, it is so full of cracks that it turns into flour2 seconds after it is loaded in the memory leak area ( Just playing with the words, but get the message)I
        will be nice and not mention Internet Explorer Gruyere model syndrom. I
        can not talk about it because there is no more cheese left. So, over this mess they will build a security system and make you pay for it , no not for me thank you.I have seen enought I am looking  toward a better horizon where security issues are addressed within a couple of days.Linux
        is a new born star and will continue to grow at an accelerated rate,
        specially in the server application for a while and then in a couple of
        years the desktop market will start to get confortable with it more and
        more.I now consider Windows to be in a slow phase out concerning my work and should implement a Linux domain controller.There is a very interesting Linux compilation called Debian, based on the General Public License this OS  is free (Libre)and it is amazing to see what a community of well intentionned people not driven by money and cupidity can do.I am going back to my stuff now as I still have still a lot to learn and do.By
        the mean time try to ask you seriously why the 500 hundeds most
        powerfull computer clusters of the planet are based on Linux (350) Unix
        about (130) Berkeley System  distribution BSD (13 to 16 ) , 4 or 5 of
        the rest classified as othersWhy the NASA did use Debian Linux in the Space shutttle… to save money…. I don’t think so.

        Posted by Joe90Fluke on June 02, 7:18 AM

         | Edit
         | Remove [-]

      • #3166431

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by blarman ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        The bundling of software products wouldn’t be as bad if there was true independence as with *NIX systems – one program crashing doesn’t bring down the system.  Microsoft’s bundling strategy makes it so that when they bundle in something – say Media Player or Internet Explorer, for some reason they build it into the operating system so that any time there is a worm, virus, trojan, or just plain bugs, it crashes or compromises the entire machine.

        This whole program reeks of conflict of interest, and you won’t find me getting within 10 feet of OneCare.  That’s all I need is to install it and find out about a 0-day exploit in OneCare.  It will happen, too.

        Oh, and Windows Media Player was bundled in for the same reasons that Internet Explorer was bundled – they couldn’t make any money selling it separately but wanted to control the industry’s development of computing.  Why does Microsoft come up with all these proprietary “standards” (like its competitor to OpenXML)?  Plain and simple – Microsoft wants to control the landscape of computing.

      • #3166398

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by benoddo53 ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Trust Microsoft only a lttle less??? How about not at all.

        We are all aware of Microsoft’s predatory business model and the court
        decisions against the software giant for being so predatory. Taking
        that into consideration along with the new revenue stream that One Care
        provides and now a lack of any financial or business reason to fix the
        operating system, how long do you think it will take before a virus or
        malware is introduced into the wild that only One Care and fix?

        If Microsoft wants to enter the anti-virus market, then make the O/S
        open source. With proprietary code Microsoft can easily engineer a bug
        or virus that only their One Care can fix. For a fee of course.

        Perhaps the only way I could trust Microsoft a “little less” is to barely trust them at all.

      • #3166137

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        I have absoluely No Faith in what Microsoft says. IT’s always been the same with them,they take good care of themselves and to hell {Pardon}  with the clientele. Now to add insult to injury, they will charge you to fill the gaps and holes that “They”create and leave behind and call it security. Hypocrisy at it’s highest. All I want from Microsoft is the main product. Nothing else need apply. As or the other “Add Ons” I’ll use my Norton,Add Aware and Spybot 1.4.

        At least, these people have shown that you can trust them.With these people there is never an ulterior motive.It’s quite Simple really,Norton takes care of all viruses etc,Ad-Aware all the add and Spybot takes good care of my system quite well on it’s own. Microsoft is not needed or wanted.

        This is avarice in cheap clothing and Microsoft is renowned for this. Now  they think that we will all dump our long standing and dependable programs and allow ourselves to be roped in by them? [ WRONG]. They have a very low opinion of our IQ.

        As long as I’m paying for the product, rest assured that I WILL be the one who decides what form does what in my system.

        My Norton for Microsoft????? …….it is to laugh!!!

        Regards

        Aaron

         

      • #3165138

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by databaseben ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        I wasn’t impressed with OneCare.  It really didn’t provide sufficient details of the processes it was undertaking and for what reasons, ie, which registry errors, etc…..   After running OneCare and Defender, I always ran an anti spyware and antivirus anyways.  And sure enough, spywares were always found.  Then I would run a registry cleaner, and sure enough the registry required fine tuning as well.  I ran OneCare for a couple of months and figured out it was worth having it on my system.  Who knows, the OneCare could have been collecting data from my system………
      • #3165103

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by darinhamer ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Amen, bruthuh! Microsoft selling security software is like McDonald’s selling exercise equipment. I am not a Microsoft basher, but this is one area where Microsoft has no business being, and I think they should be driven out of the market by people’s refusal to purchase their security products. There are plenty of good alternatives out there we can never hope to have secure operating systems or even good security software if Microsoft dominates both markets. Don’t drink the Koolaid!!!

      • #3165093

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by onthego ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        1)  New definition of “oxymoron”, however, who is the moron?

        2)  Who in their right mind would buy a version 1.0 of anything out of MS?

        3)  Where is the ethical responsibility behind security support?  The other commercial OS developers support security fixes as a maintenance function with the purchase of the OS.  Any other break/fix/feature enhancements come with a maintenance contract. 

        MS has had a history for developing (or some say steal) a good idea and market it well, this is another case for it, though, evident that anti-virus cannot be touted as an “original idea”. 

        This is an example over desparation for maintaining a future at MS, though pitifully desparate.  But then, if the product had no problems, why would the clients pay for the latest-greatest-that-still-does-not-fix-the-root-problem?

      • #3165501

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by worldbfree ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Please folks, save your money, don’t buy Microsoft.  When support runs out on the Win9X running on this machine, I’m gonna format the harddrive and put Debian Linux on it just like the trusty old  I have next to it.  Then I’ll put up the Firestarter firewall package (also free), and find a free anti-virus package which will be scripted to go off at the time I choose and tell me exactly what it’s doing and not doing.  I’ll be doing actual work instead of constantly fretting about attacks and viruses and
        all the other misery that accompanies crappy Microsoft products.  😀

      • #3143755

        OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        by tinybrain ·

        In reply to OneCare goes Live, but it doesn?t make me trust Microsoft any better

        Interesting … I guess if MS added those features you mentioned into their product, we will see a new suit of anti-trust lawsuit going after them, no price for wining the guess.. Symantec,mcAfee,.. etc, … and especially those from EU, so …? there is never a win-win situation …

    • #3165823

      I admit it – I was wrong.

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      If you remember back to the end of last year, several editors
      here at TechRepublic offered their list of the top headlines you wouldn?t see
      in 2006
      . I pitched in with my Top
      5 Pick
      and I?m happy to announce that I was absolutely wrong on one count:

      3) Novell returns to profitability

      This
      one pains me because I?ve long been a Novell and NetWare fan. The problem is
      NetWare market share is dropping like a rock at the same time Novell is trying
      to sell a free operating system that has a version dominated by RedHat. Novell
      has a solid record of selling operating systems to business and understanding
      networking in general, but so far it hasn?t been able to turn this reputation
      into profits. Being squeezed by Microsoft, RedHat, and The March Of Progress,
      Novell is in a whole world of hurt. I hope this one turns out to be wrong.

       

      Turns out that Novell just announced that they returned
      to profitability
      in the last quarter. It wasn?t by much ? only 1 cent per
      share. And the revenue wasn?t huge, only $278 million, but even so, a profit is
      a profit.

      It?s worrisome that Novell turned a profit on lower revenue
      than a year before. Their revenue has been dropping slowly now for years which
      is a scary prospect. But at least a return to profitability is a step in the
      right direction.

      So, like I said at the end of last year, I was hoping that
      prediction was wrong. As a longtime Novell fan, I?m more than happy to shout a
      Mea Culpa on that one.

       I?m still right
      about Vista missing its ship date however…

      • #3165573

        I admit it – I was wrong.

        by shorne ·

        In reply to I admit it – I was wrong.

        As an old CNE I follow the decline of Novell with interest as well. I wonder if it’s telling that you posted at 2 in the afternoon on Thursday and by Friday morning there have been no posts to discuss. Maybe I’m reading too much into that, but could it be that the tech community has just lost interest in Novell? I sensed an uptick in interest when they bought Suse, but the don’t seem to be generating much buzz.

      • #3165282

        I admit it – I was wrong.

        by cooks ·

        In reply to I admit it – I was wrong.

        I just converted my last Netware customer to MS Windows SBS 2003.  Works great and is easy to manage.

      • #3144884

        I admit it – I was wrong.

        by cellmis ·

        In reply to I admit it – I was wrong.

        Got sick of all that nasty stability, ‘eh cooks?? 😉

        I’m in no position to talk…my datacenter’s all Win2k/2k3 too, although I still try and convert the IT manager regularly.

    • #3164921

      TechRepublic in 3D

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One of the new features in Windows Vista that you hear a lot
      about is the Aero Glass UI and how it?s supposed to add 3D elements to the
      desktop experience. Because the Vista machine in the TechRepublic test lab doesn?t
      have a video card with Vista drivers yet, I haven?t had the chance to fully
      check it out yet.

      3D graphics have been making inroads into everyday aspects of
      people?s computing for some time now. In the world of Computer Aided Design and
      gaming, 3D is very 20th Century.  For regular desktop applications however, 3D
      is still relatively new.

      In the browser world, some Web sites employ VRML and X3D to embed 3D images, but it never
      has caught on very well. Recently however, I stumbled across a complete 3D
      browser called uBrowser which will render
      any Web page in a 3D window. For example you can render TechRepublic as either
      a cube, sphere, or a rotated flat page. Appropriately enough, you can also
      render it as a flag.  Below are some
      samples:

      TechRepublic rotated

      TechRepublic cubedTechRepublic rotated

      Spherical techrepublic

      TechRepublic flagged

      What?s uBrowser good for? Well, that?s about it really.
      Unfortunately, there are no real added benefits in the current version to
      viewing a page in 3D versus viewing in a regular browser. It would be cool if
      you could spread tabs across different faces of a cube for example and rotate between
      them, but this version doesn?t do that.

      The author admits that the browser is only for experimental
      purposes. It?s still kind of cool though and may yet point the direction to
      where we?ll be browsing in a few years.     

    • #3144670

      What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      With the Vista Beta 2 now
      open to the general public
      , lots of people are getting the change to kick
      the tires around. A lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised, while
      others are in for a rude shock I?m sure. One of the areas that are going to
      surprise people is the amount of hardware necessary to get Windows Vista
      running without being annoying.

      To help judge how Windows Vista performs on a given machine, Vista
      includes a Performance Rating Tool that gives a general number you can use to
      assess a machine?s Vista capabilities. Steven Warren discussed
      his results
      recently when trying out a test laptop with Vista.

      When I installed the February CTP of Vista on the test
      workstation in the TechRepublic Test Lab, I was extremely disappointed
      in the results
      . With the release of Beta 2, there were some new video
      drivers available that supported the nVidia Quadro card in the workstation, so
      I thought I?d check to see how the machine checked out now. Here are the results:

      Vista performance

      The test machine went from scoring a 2 to scoring a whopping
      3. What?s really interesting is to compare how Vista USED to judge the machine
      versus how it does now. Remember: The only change in the machine is that there
      is now a supported video driver.

      February CTP Beta 2
      Processor: 3.6 3.7
      Memory: 5.5 5.0
      Hard drive: 5.4 3.8
      Graphics card: 2.0 5.9
      Gaming graphics: 5.4 5.3
      Overall: 2.0 3.0

      Clearly Microsoft has fiddled with the algorithms or else
      everything would score the same from one build to the next. It?s still
      surprising that many elements of the workstation would score high, but overall
      the machine only scores a 3. Talk about grading on a curve.

      Seeing as how the Performance Rating Tool can give an overall
      high score of 5, it?s still scary to think what kind of machine you?ve got to
      be running to actually score a 5. We?ll have to see what future betas hold to
      see if the ratings change again.

      • #3144167

        What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        by stress junkie ·

        In reply to What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        I don’t know if you are interested, but today I read an article about how SuSE Linux has included a new graphic system that allegedly screams on old hardware. Here is the link to page 3 of the article. Page 3 discusses graphics of SuSE Linux 10.1.

        http://madpenguin.org/cms/index.php/?m=show&id=6899&page=3

      • #3144886

        What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        by cellmis ·

        In reply to What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        Don’t feel bad…I built a new AMD64 3700+ system in October, 2G RAM, 72G Raptor, and topped it off with an ATI X1800XL and I get a 3 as well.  

        I guess it makes sense…they’ve gotta leave room at the top-end for new hardware unless they plan on ‘depreciating’ your hardware with a patch to the Performance Ratings every 3-6 months.

      • #3270987

        What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        by anleath1 ·

        In reply to What does it take to get a good score in Vista?

        Just installed Beta 2 and after finding drivers for the Ac97 audio ran the performance tool. Overall rating achieved was 3, with the following results listed

        Processor Pentium D 3.0ghz   5.0

        Memory 4gig                          3.8

        Hard Disc (WD SATAII)           3.9

        Graphics Radeon X1300          4.4 

        Gaming Graphics 256mg         4.2

        So what they require to achieve the so called perfect 5, has left me wondering

    • #3145553

      Putting XP under Glass

      by j sheesley ·

      In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

      One of the most heralded changes in Windows Vista is the
      inclusion of the Aero Glass interface. The interface change in Vista is almost
      as big of a change as XP?s Luna interface was over the old Windows 2000
      Professional interface. Of course, to
      get Aero Glass working properly, you?re supposed to have a ?Gaming Graphics?
      card with at least 128MB of RAM. And naturally you have to be running, or
      waiting, for Vista to get it.

      Or do you?

      Recently I stumbled across the Vista Transformation
      Pack
      . This is an integrated set of utilities that will modify Windows XP to
      look and feel very much like Windows Vista. It will also do so without a huge
      investment in computer horsepower. You can transform Windows XP into a Vista
      lookalike with a graphics card with as little as 8MB of RAM. Best of all, the program is free.

      How does it work? The author of the Vista Transformation Pack
      integrates the Glass2K utility to allow translucency on Windows 2000/XP along
      with some other programming magic to completely change the interface.

      I?ve created a Photo Gallery that shows you what the Vista Transformation Pack does to your
      Windows XP system. It?s not a complete transformation. You can still see the difference
      in a few places, but overall it does a very nice job of emulating Vista. If you
      want to get a taste of Vista without completely installing Beta 2, this might
      be the way to go.

      • #3269904

        Putting XP under Glass

        by jminshal ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        And the point is?

        Personally, I just don’t see the point. Sure it’s pretty, but what do I gain for myself in ease of use or productivity increase?

        Thanks!

        JAM

         

      • #3269856

        Putting XP under Glass

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        That’s part of the point actually. It doesn’t do a whole lot other than
        pretty up the interface somewhat.  But what it really does is
        raise some questions about why Microsoft would have you invest in the
        level of hardware necessary in Vista when you can do the exact same
        things on your old Windows XP machine?  Why do I need a 3Ghz
        computer with a gaming graphics card when I can run the same basic
        interface on a 1Ghz machine with an old ATI Rage Pro card?  Is
        this what we’ve been waiting 5 years for Microsoft to produce?

        Glass is one of the few features that have survived the cut in the long
        road to Vista. Other features such as WinFS have long been tossed over
        the side as ship dates recede into the distance. If you’re looking
        forward to Glass effects on a Windows machine, you don’t need to wait,
        and you don’t need to make a huge hardware investment. The
        Transformation Pack does it for you with what you have now.

      • #3269842

        Putting XP under Glass

        by lastchip ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        To be honest, Vista has left me very unimpressed and if all a user wants is a new pretty interface, you’ve struck gold! (though I can’t say the full transparency appeals to me).

        While I can see improvements in security in Vista, I doubt it will be long before it is hacked.

        When installing Vista beta2, I noted a clean install takes around 14.2GB of drive space. With many laptops having 30GB hard drives, install the “Office Suite”, some odd and ends and it doesn’t take much working out it’s not long before you’re running out of disk space. Bloated or what! Add to that the hardware requirements and one has to question; Why?

        Seems a lot of hype about very little to me.

      • #3268507

        Putting XP under Glass

        by luc_andre ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        I am one of those Laptop users you mentioned and you are so right. Losing a large portion of your hardrive for the new OS is pretty unintelligent. The hardware requirements are overblown and as mentioned in this article, what’s the point when we can achive the user interface without the ridiculous requirements?

        Also, after using the beta for two days I got rid of it and put XP back on. Sorry to say but I felt the usability of Vista too dumbed down for your average IT person. And with all the changes I make on my system on a regular basis, that confirmation pop-up was tiring.

        I’m going to stick to XP until I *must* switch OS, and will have a little fun with this little utility to make my XP look like Vista. (I was tiring of the MacOSX theme I had going….. for those interested, check out flyakiteOS theme)

      • #3145923

        Putting XP under Glass

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        My own system is as follows.

         
         
      • #3269452

        Putting XP under Glass

        by vetch_101 ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        Aaron – as I understand it, most of the security features lauded by
        pundits will be pretty much redundant if you run as administrator…
        That’s the point – you shouldn’t have total “nuke-the-hard-disk”
        control of a machine when you’re doing simple things like browsing the
        web…

        I think it may be a case where “Windows Vista is not Windows XP” – but then perhaps that’s when it’s time to make the change…

        I don’t know – I haven’t loaded up the new beta, because I’ve pretty
        much come to the conclusion that all the benefits in security are
        already there in Linux and *BSD – and they aren’t frustrating, they’re
        how you use the OS – and so embedded that it works well.

        Plus – I can have the latest applications running on a PII-233 at a
        pretty adequate rate… Seems like it’s the way to go to me…

        Jx

      • #3269267

        Putting XP under Glass

        by vetch_101 ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        Aaron – as I understand it, most of the security features lauded by
        pundits will be pretty much redundant if you run as administrator…
        That’s the point – you shouldn’t have total “nuke-the-hard-disk”
        control of a machine when you’re doing simple things like browsing the
        web…

        I think it may be a case where “Windows Vista is not Windows XP” – but then perhaps that’s when it’s time to make the change…

        I don’t know – I haven’t loaded up the new beta, because I’ve pretty
        much come to the conclusion that all the benefits in security are
        already there in Linux and *BSD – and they aren’t frustrating, they’re
        how you use the OS – and so embedded that it works well.

        Plus – I can have the latest applications running on a PII-233 at a
        pretty adequate rate… Seems like it’s the way to go to me…

        Jx

      • #3164135

        Putting XP under Glass

        by vetch_101 ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        Aaron – as I understand it, most of the security features lauded by
        pundits will be pretty much redundant if you run as administrator…
        That’s the point – you shouldn’t have total “nuke-the-hard-disk”
        control of a machine when you’re doing simple things like browsing the
        web…

        I think it may be a case where “Windows Vista is not Windows XP” – but then perhaps that’s when it’s time to make the change…

        I don’t know – I haven’t loaded up the new beta, because I’ve pretty
        much come to the conclusion that all the benefits in security are
        already there in Linux and *BSD – and they aren’t frustrating, they’re
        how you use the OS – and so embedded that it works well.

        Plus – I can have the latest applications running on a PII-233 at a
        pretty adequate rate… Seems like it’s the way to go to me…

        Jx

      • #3111212

        Putting XP under Glass

        by defo1 ·

        In reply to Putting XP under Glass

        I like the idea of this but the download site seems quite shady. I don’t like having anything to do with shady websites especially ones that warn you about phishing activity on their own site and constantly try to con you into buying something to get something free. I think you should screen sites like this before you invite innocent people to come to such sites as victims. Shame on you, this is too unprofessional to be on a Tech Republic site/article.

      • #3154979

        I didn?t believe it until I saw it

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        If you surf around the Web long enough, you find all sorts
        of little things that people have done to break Windows. Recently, I was
        checking out a blog and saw this title:  How to Break Windows Notepad.

        It seems like if you type the string ?this app can break?
        (No quotes) into Notepad, save the file, and then double-click the file to
        reopen it in Notepad, all you get is a string of boxes. You can see the results
        below:

        Goofy notepad

        It?s an actual bug, not just cosmetic. If you do a search
        for any of the words in the string, you won?t find them. Changing the font won?t
        help either.  The boxes won?t disappear.  However, if you try the same trick but type ?this
        app can?t break? everything works fine.

        Do you know of any other Windows quirks and bugs
        like that? Let?s see how many we can list.

        • #3154968

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by georgeou ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Cool!  My computer displays the following chinese phrase.

          桴獩愠灰挠湡戠敲歡

          Looks like a secret feature that someone put in.  It can’t be an accident.

        • #3268784

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by leee ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          George, do you know if it’s an actual phrase? (My Chinese is rusty, er… nonexistent.)

        • #3268758

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by steve.davis ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          The “answer” has been posted on a few sites and has to do with a failure of a DLL to recognize the text as Unicode or not.

          It seems to be linked to starting the sentence with lowercase “th” and making it exactly 18 bite long, any more or less or starting with anything other than “th” makes it “work” right.

          Interesting.

        • #3142023

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by mordacity ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          It’s not just the string length and “th”, because ‘this man will show’ doesn’t produce the same results.

          As far as quirks.. try making a new folder called ‘con’

        • #3269743

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by hutchigw ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          I tried the Notepad quirk above, but did not get boxes, I got Chinese text below:

          桴獩愠灰挠湡戠敲歡

          When I opened the file using MS Word, the original text was restored.

        • #3269734

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by trevor ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          This link not only starts out with reference to ‘this app can break’ but goes much much further.
          http://digg.com/software/_this_app_can_break_Are_there_any_other_forbidden_strings_in_Notepad_
          So grab a hot chocolate, sit back and enjoy the ride.  I love the .LOG in a notepad file personally

        • #3143985

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by leoofmars ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          One of the folks in my department tried this and got chinese characters instead.

          I tried. That is interesting and weird.

          I got ?桴獩愠灰挠湡戠敲歡? instead of a string of boxes.

        • #3269042

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by jr.switlik ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          in the Polish Notepad(Notatnik) under win98 it seems that it does not  work.

          jul

        • #3268983

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by jmontgomery ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Like George said, It was absolutely intentional. That, my friends, is called an easter egg. How fun!

        • #3268936

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Of course you can’t create a folder named CON.  CON already exists; it’s the designator for output to the CONsole (screen).  PRN (default printer) and NUL (bit bucket) are the other two I remember.   These and many other leftovers from the DOS days (and mainframes before that) are why every IT tech needs to know basic DOS operation.

        • #3268935

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          mordacity…

          You can’t create a folder named CON because CON already exists.  It’s the designator for output to the CONsole (screen).  PRN (default printer) and NUL (bit bucket) are the other two I remember.   Those DOS leftovers will get you in trouble if you don’t know about them

        • #3268934

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          mordacity…

          You can’t create a folder named CON because CON already exists.  It’s the designator for output to the CONsole (screen).  PRN (default printer) and NUL (bit bucket) are two other destinations I remember.   Those DOS leftovers will get you in trouble if you don’t know about them

        • #3268819

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by gopap1 ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Well, I think this is most intresting:

          1.) Open an empty notepad file
          2.) Type “Bush hid the facts” (without the quotes)
          3.) Save it as whatever you want.
          4.) Close it, and re-open it.

          Intresting!  isn?t it?

        • #3142753

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by suzitech ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          The Babelfish translation of the Chinese “this app can break” phrase comes to : 桴 □the worried thoughts ash 挠 □□knocks □ (simplified Chinese)

          In traditional Chinese: 桴 獩 □the ash □湡戠 knocks happy

          “Bush hid the facts” came back as : □□□touches □□reflects picks □

          Maybe it’s hidden poetry, like the Mac hacker poetry 🙂

           

        • #3142675

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by wdmilner ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Out of curiousity I tried it using Notebook on a WIn98SE machine I have
          here – it doesn’t break at all for either “this app can break” or “Bush
          hid the facts” so it appears to be specific to the newer version.

        • #3142584

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          At a guess, I’d say that what’s probably going on is this: Notepad is translating the text “this app can break” into a message in Chinese Unicode, whether intentionally or as an Easter egg (I can imagine some conditions under which it might misinterpret something as intended to be Chinese using Unicode). The reason it shows up as boxes on some systems would have something to do with missing support for Chinese Unicode in the font and/or on the system you’re using for Notepad (probably related to the font package version on your Windows system, which might in turn be related to the minor release version of the Windows OS itself).

          Since I don’t have a bunch of Windows systems lying around to test it, however, that’s all just idle speculation.

        • #3142428

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by anandhms ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Just went through the post..Well, the first one being:
          this app can break”
          and the second
          “bush hid the facts”
          I just tried with the 4335 combination
          “love you swt heart”
          “what are you doing”
          “come and see mommy

          ….anything will work….Couldn’t find out what 4335 really is?

        • #3164060

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by esalkin ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          I hope that this *IS* a bug and not an “easter egg.”  Suppose you needed to save some important text that fit the pattern?   

        • #3112580

          I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          by mr. e ·

          In reply to I didn?t believe it until I saw it

          Never fear: Notepad saves all the original bytes in the file.  When Notepad opens such a file, even one created by some other program, it automatically interprets them using a Unicode encoding instead of the default ANSI encoding.  The resulting characters may or may not be displayable depending on what fonts are available on the particular PC where this is done; hence, boxes or Chinese or whatever.

          It does not seem to matter how the bytes get into the file.  To see this for yourself, create such a document, open it in Notepad, and select “File > Open…”.  At the bottom of the Open dialog box you will notice that the Encoding is Unicode.  Change it to ANSI and click the Open button.  Voila!  Your original text reappears.

          Shorter strings and other patterns exhibit the same problem.  For example, try “as asd asd a”.

          Apparently, Notepad applies a heuristic to the first few bytes of a file to determine the file encoding.  With the right bytes, it sometimes comes up with the wrong answer.

      • #3141929

        Packing up the ThinkPad Tablet PC

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Well, as the old saying goes, ?All good things must come to
        an end.?  Such as it is with my Lenovo
        ThinkPad Tablet PC.  Today I packed up
        the trusty little Tablet PC and shipped it back to Lenovo.

        Ever since I saw Lenovo debut it at TechEd 2005 last year, I was
        looking forward to seeing an actual unit go through its paces. Initially, I was
        disappointed with the unit?s performance, but after
        overcoming those problems
        , the machine worked like a charm.

        Compared to some other Tablet PCs we?ve had come through the
        office so far, the Lenovo was the best of the bunch. It?s just the right size with
        all of the right features. By putting the traditional solid ThinkPad quality
        into a Tablet PC form factor the X41 Tablet PC was a winner.

        If you?ve never used a Tablet PC before, it?s easy to dismiss
        the concept as being kind of silly. However, now that I?ve been kicking one
        around for several months, it?s going to be hard to go back to a regular
        laptop.  One thing I?ll have to learn not
        to do is to reflexively twist the screen and lay it back as soon as I lift the
        lid.  That will take a little bit of
        retraining for sure, but I doubt I?ll try to do it more than once.  

        • #3112540

          Packing up the ThinkPad Tablet PC

          by mrtgrady ·

          In reply to Packing up the ThinkPad Tablet PC

          I’d never give up my TravelMate unless it’s for another Tablet PC – I’ve come to prefer this way of working so much that when I joined my new company and they offered me a laptop to use I told them not to bother and promptly opened up my Acer.

          Needless to say all the clients, suppliers and solution partners who see it are intrigued and often jealous. Now I just need to convince the management of how really useful these things really are and get them to start investing in them – shame they just splashed out on a bunch of Dell laptops, though …

      • #3142658

        Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        I?ve been kicking around Beta 2 of Vista for a few weeks now.
        Now that this beta includes video drivers that support the workstation in the
        TechRepublic Test Lab, it?s been a much more enjoyable experience.  It still
        leaves much to be desired
        , but Microsoft still has a few months left before
        it pushes the shipping date back again?. Er ah? 
        I mean work the bugs out.

        I came very close to writing another blog complaining about
        disappointment I?ve had with Vista?s performance on that PC.  The computer is lightning fast when running
        XP, but is a dog under Vista.  And I?ve
        been able to get many
        Vista features running under XP
        by using third party and Microsoft tools.

        So what made me decide to NOT go on a Vista Performance
        Rant?  Ed Bott.  Specifically a blog that Ed Bott posted on
        ZDNet a few months ago that pointed out, quite rightly, that every version of Windows has been a
        bloated pig
        .

        It?s not Microsoft bashing by any means. Think about any
        version of Windows ? Windows 1.0 thru XP. Whenever the operating system first
        shipped, you would hear major complaints about what a dog it was. A couple of
        hardware generations later, and then the operating system would become
        tolerable. It was just a matter of waiting until Intel caught up with Microsoft.

        Naturally, this relationship always created the appearance of
        collusion. The moniker ?Wintel? has long been associated with the
        Microsoft/Intel relationship because the apparent symbiotic relationship between
        the two.

        So? What do we do? One of two things as far as I can tell. First,
        we can wait until we finally get Quad Core CPUs from Intel and AMD. Secondly,
        we can lobby Microsoft that when they?re creating new operating systems that
        they allow programmers to only use 486-based PCs. Then maybe we?d get something
        tolerable.  

        • #3112327

          Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          I’m beta testing Vista right now and have been for a couple of weeks.

          I find it refreshing in that the menus “For once” don’t look disproportionate to the rest of the system. The visuals are absolutely stunning and you can easily see that there is craftsmanship involved here. The big Problem I have is the same one I’ve always had with Microsoft, their menu structure. Frankly, it’s lousy, always has been. Win 98,98Sec Ed,Millenium,now XPPro, I find these abhorrent

          They don’t look good, they are out of whack , i.e.  a Programs folder with icons as loose ends at the bottom when they should be in their own proper folders also. The same with accessories, you get a few folders and the rest are Icons, i.e.loose ends.

          I don’t know who the genius is that thought this up but he should definitely get back to the drawing  board and try to think of the user.

          I like everything to be Neat and tidy most especially in my menus. I hate a cluttered Desktop. I have nothing on there.

          If I have a filling cabinet, I don’t like loose files between the folders. Same thing here and we’re still getting this from Microsoft.

          This so far is my Biggest beef.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m in love with Vista,  {I never thought I’d say that}  :8} , but the fact remains that they must start thinking of the public and the users and not the MS Image. Their menu structure is a disaster and that just for openers.

          In Vista, you can’t even use the “Windows” Explorer in the proper way. i.e. Seeing your entire computers Drives folders and all as in XPPro. Something every accepted Admin should have the right to do.

          So I’ll close in saying that so far, “In my opinion”, the good far outweighs the bad and I just love it’s response.

          I just feel that it could be far more orderly and above all, when an Admin signs in, ALL the doors should open, not just a cubby hole.

          Thank for your attention.

          Regards

          Aaron

        • #3210365

          Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          by nico baggus ·

          In reply to Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          I think management and testers should work on 486 PC’s.
          Developers testbeds should also be, by all means use the latest & greatest
          for compiling. Otherwise they probably can push back the release date a couple of years…
          (OTOH, maybe programmers learn to do their job right in the first place
          they have time to think about security along with features etc.
          Y’re right after all, all MS employees should work on 486….)

        • #3211625

          Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          by ivefallen ·

          In reply to Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          What do I think?  I think I’m going to unsubscribe from Sheeshley’s newsletters.  3 out of every 4 is nothing but Microsoft hate-mail. 

        • #3211524

          Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          by g.hight ·

          In reply to Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          The comment about having Microsoft use a 486 as a base has some merit.

          Each time a new Microsoft OS comes out it drives the hardware business…

          UP.  Memory and CPU requirements seem to double.  But, is that not

          part of the Wintel story?  I would like, as others have articulated, to see

          Microsoft write efficiently and not have such blotted code.  Just because

          the cost of hardware is “reasonable” does not mean that everyone wants

          to, or can afford to, buy new equipment every 2 years.

        • #3206790

          Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          by alxnsc9 ·

          In reply to Vista Performance: It is as it ever was

          Dear author,
          The quotation following is taken from the link on slow Windows performance. “It was just a matter of waiting until Intel caught up with Microsoft.”
          That is it. Everyone has to adapt himself to Microsoft… Hardware manufacturers have to invest money and time to let MS software function with user bareble speed. Not software is created for the machines – machines are created for MS software… Well, that is why MS software is worst dealing with processors, memory and periphery. The rest is OK, namely: 640k and hard disk capacity barriers, memory (physical and virtual) fragmentation, hard disc fragmentation, BSODs, perfect manuals, restarts, cool sites, etc. By the way, I remember their Pascal-like MASM, BASIC-like FORTRAN, etc. I remember the Works package thrown away as the end user have had the posibility to create a simple application himself and, even after all these showdowns a mentor book about speedy business – how all the havoc is to be done.
          Stop it please. Enough is enough! Hardware builders do not have to catch up with MS, but just to catch it and throw away.

      • #3142562

        Shuffling the deck chairs at Novell

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        As I mentioned in a recent
        post
        , I was excited when I saw that Novell had finally turned a profit for
        the previous quarter. Sadly it looks like not everyone was happy about it.

        Novell?s board of directors recently
        decided to replace
        both the CEO, Jack Messman, and the CFO of the company. Jack Messman took over
        from Dr. Eric Schmidt, who took over the reigns at Google a few years ago.

        Messman had his work cut out for him.
        While trying to milk the last dime out of the NetWare cash cow, he had to
        quickly get the SuSe Chameleon producing money by attempting to build a
        services company out of a free operating system. Clearly, it was a huge
        challenge. Now, Novell?s new CEO Ron Hovsepian has those duties.

        Of course, Novell?s not alone in the
        C-level Shuffle. Microsoft has gone through the
        same thing
        , and has the 2-year Long Goodbye from Bill Gates to contend
        with.  

        When a company changes a CEO,
        major changes occur shortly thereafter. Maybe Novell will place added emphasis
        on Linux. Maybe it will put itself up for sale. I guess we?ll just have to wait
        and see.

        • #3110733

          Shuffling the deck chairs at Novell

          by jerome.koch ·

          In reply to Shuffling the deck chairs at Novell

          Novell continues its attempt at supporting both Netware and SuSe to the detriment of both. Recently its stock has gone up from a paltry 5 per share to over 6; but its decline in revenues and anemic profits (1 cent per diluted share) indicate many internal problems. The new CEO should boldly go where no other Novell CEO has gone before, and sell off its Netware biz entirely – the entire kit and kaboodle. Right now its main competitor is Red Hat, not Microsoft. Its efforts should be totally in the Linux market concentrated on one competitor. Novell, once an industry giant, has fallen hard. Instead of competing against a multi-billion dollar corp such as Microsoft, it must battle a comapny with less than 1 billion dollars in market cap. So be it. You have to start some where.

        • #3111861

          Shuffling the deck chairs at Novell

          by robbi_ia ·

          In reply to Shuffling the deck chairs at Novell

          I don’t see Novell’s hanging onto Netware so much milking a cash cow but staying true to the faithful customers.  At many events over the last few years, during discussions of Suse, the murmers of concern were heard in the audience.. until the loyal customers were told that NetWare was not going away.  At one BrainShare event, they even cheered. 

          Novell might not have the largest market share, but they have the most loyal… unless they take away what the customers really want. 

           

           

      • #3210946

        Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Today, Microsoft finally dropped support for Windows 98. Although most technical support for Windows 98 dried up years ago, Microsoft has at least still been supplying updates for security issues that have cropped up with the operating system. Not anymore.

        Microsoft actually continued support for Windows 98 much longer than it originally planned. Microsoft traditionally abandoned support for products about 5 years after their follow up version shipped. That means that support for Windows 98 should have stopped after 2004 ? 5 years after Windows ME shipped. Windows 98 proved to be such a popular operating system however, that Microsoft was forced to hang onto Windows 98 until now.

        By definition, Windows 98 is an 8 year old operating system. In Internet Years, that’s more like 80 years ? archaic and long obsolete. The problem is of course that an estimated 50 million people still use Windows 98. W3Counter Global Statistics, a tracking site made up of reports from over 1300 websites, shows that Windows 98 is still as popular as the Mac.

        Windows 98SE was arguably the most popular version of Windows until Windows XP shipped. It even took Windows XP several years to exclipse Windows 98 in popularity. Many businesses sat out Windows 2000 Professional completely and stuck with Windows 98. Windows 98SE was probably also the best DOS-based version of Windows, being more solid and reliable than any version, including the ill-fated Windows ME. Even as little as 2 years ago, I wrote an article giving reasons why sticking with Windows 98 was still a good idea.

        Of course, there are probably still lots of unpatched bugs inside of Windows 98. Security holes have appeared as recently as the last few months. More are bound to be discovered. The only difference is now, 50 million plus users can’t rely on Microsoft to fix them.

        Microsoft is expecting users to upgrade to Windows XP, and hopefully ultimately with Windows Vista. You can’t really expect Microsoft to support an 8 year old operating system, and they should probably be praised for hanging in there so long. At the same time, Microsoft can’t really think people will upgrade directly from Windows 98 to Vista or XP. Most 98-class machines can’t run XP let alone ever hope to run Windows Vista. Most Windows 98 users will continue to run Windows 98 and just be vulnerable to whatever comes along.

        Windows 98 represents the penultimate version of Windows 95. As Windows Vista’s ship date recedes into the distance, you constantly hear comparisons between it and the ‘revolutionary’ Windows 95. Remember that when Windows 95 shipped, people were out at stores at midnight to be the first to purchase it. It will be interesting to see whether Windows Vista gets the same welcome.

        • #3210764

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by benjamin.rhoads.ctr ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          Insert comment text here Windows 98 is still used on computers that are used as print servers…We no longer use Windows 98 that work with the internet…Too much of a security risk…For now I will not upgrade to Windows Vista…It is too slow on these older computers and for now it requires too many hardware upgrades that work against it for a lot of people…Windows XP second editon will still be the best operating system out there and used by most until people start using the newer PC’s.

        • #3210758

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by joe.faletra ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          Go to Vista?  Are you kidding?  Why spend potentially hundresds of dollars upgrading a machine so I can run an operating system that, at this point, merely adds eye candy?  And when you are responsible for 4000 workstations that is terribly hard to justify.

          I think I will stick with WinXP and Linux for some time to come. 

        • #3210722

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by nobby57 ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          Not me! I think it was around 18 months after Windows 2000 was introduced before Gartner was able to recommend it for business use. Remember the jokes about the name meaning that it had 2000 documented bugs? Anyway, it will take a year or so for PC hardware to catch up to Vista. I’m in business, and my business is not beta testing. Reid

        • #3210698

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by darkpawn5 ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

           

           

          I personally will not be switching or jumping on the Vista bandwagon when it comes out.     I have 3 computers at home – 1 is running WXP, another W2K and 3rd 98SE, quite happy with how everything is right now, besides I don’t see a need to switch to another O/S if I am going to switch it might be to Linux.    Vista I think is overrated, too much memory is required to operate it effectively and I don’t want to have to switch H/W if Vista doesn’t like it.

          Yours Truly,

          Iain Webster

           

           

        • #3212325

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by azcomplady ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          Having been in the computer business for more than 25 years, I don’t ever jump on the bandwagon for the first release of a new operating system. I stuck with Windows 3.1 until I was sure about 95! I have many customers (e.g., older people on fixed incomes) who can’t afford a new system. I will continue to do what I can to help them.

        • #3212267

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by philaaa1 ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          IMHO,

          All I can say is Vesta is software BLOAT, what ever happen to clean
          tight code!! What I would like to see is a MS packaged 380MByte base load
          of XP that loads modules AS YOU NEED THEM not all at once, like BartPE-XE horsepower
          with PnP, or what I have done with XPlite and some other GNU software and
          talk about XP running fast, it even faster than Win98 on a current class machine,
          but outside of us enthusiast this will never see the masses. Why should it NOT,
          besides the planed obsolesces model. Phil

        • #3212080

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by mcj.email ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          I’m sure MS would love a similar hype about Vista as it received about 95. That would be a triumph of hope over experience.
          The reality is however, that most people who are on 2k or XP will wait until post Vista SP1 before considering shifting.
          Even those with the resources to be a part of MS extended beta testing would struggle with the business case/ROI.
          I would say that hardware lifecycles are going to be a larger factor in the takeup of Vista then the feature set of the OS. 

        • #2492667

          Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          by hgear ·

          In reply to Microsoft bids adieu to Windows 98

          after ME, 2000 had some redeeming virtues.

          Should we be looking forward (or backward to VISTA) for personal use ??

      • #3212130

        Technology and the Revolution

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Over the July 4th holiday, we went to Philadelphia to see
        Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and all of the other historical things in
        the area. Being someone who?s steeped in technology, it?s fascinating to stop
        and think how much people at the time of the Revolution were able to accomplish
        without the assistance of the technology we have today.

        We take for granted such things as computers, printers, web
        sites, cell phones and so forth that it?s difficult to remember how things were
        done before these things existed. A while back ago, I posted a blog that asked what
        we did before computers
        and got some interesting responses.

        But in that day and age, they fomented a revolution that
        defeated the most powerful empire in the world. It took 8 years to do, but even
        so they were able to accomplish it. Communication between major cities like
        Boston and Philly could take a week one way, and communicating across the ocean
        could take months. Pamphlets and newspapers were printed using a printing
        press, but by hand in a slow process. And they weren?t easily distributed.

        Even though communication was slow and difficult, I think
        that helped the Revolution more than it hurt it. Because not only did poor
        communications slow down the patriots, it also slowed down the British.  The British didn?t know what was going on in
        a timely manner in order to be able to react quickly enough to either diffuse
        the situation or crush it. Having the home court advantage, the soon-to-be
        Americans could use the time-delay to help spread their word faster.

        What do you think? With 21st Century technology,
        how would 1776 have turned out?    

        • #3277392

          Technology and the Revolution

          by d.belford ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          I guess the much heralded WAR ON TERROR would have epitomised the British response. And how is that going eh!
          Not to bad I wouldn’t think. USA has just about caused the total war to break out – much like the Brits vs Napoleon. Still Chinas standing out just like that time. And India, hmm, Pakistan & Israel – just the agreeable peace loving allies to have in this situation.

           

        • #3277383

          Technology and the Revolution

          by bphill ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          M-16 and night vision would have helped.

        • #3277375

          Technology and the Revolution

          by bphill ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          Insert comment text here

        • #3277356

          Technology and the Revolution

          by sbeighle ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          If we (the Americans) had 21st Century technology, then it would be safe to say that Great Brittan would as well.  In light of this, I think that we’d still be saying God Save the King.  I don’t think that King George would have had any problems tossing a few intercontinental missiles our way. 

          But then, if America had never separated from Great Brittan, would we even have such things even in the 21st Century?  It was the pioneering spirit of Americans that has driven the invention of so many of the things that we have in the world today.  If the free spirit of Americans was stifled under the rule of Great Brittan, would invention also have been stifled?  Hmm….

           

        • #3279327

          Technology and the Revolution

          by dsusysmgr ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          The war would have been very different. Washington realized after the battle of Manhattan that the Idea was not to defeat the British. But not to loose the war, the longer Washington and the Colonies could hold out, the more britain would feel the fight was not worth fighting (the goal of any guerilla war). Washington had to fight large scale traditional battles because the time between battles could be weeks or longer. When you fought the enemy you had to make it count, and that means a large scale “meeting engagement” but modern communications means enhance situational awareness. Which translates to knowing where your target is ( which could work both ways) and being able to hit him when you want with the minimally effecting fighting force required to hurt the enemy. He would have been able to split his army up making it harder to find but yet able to communicate and mount coordinated operations. The pressure against the British would have been unyielding and continuous, and all without the need for large scale meeting engagements that kill hundreds if not thousands of troops.

          If you look at modern war you see that the meeting engagement is a last resort, When the US Army puts Large numbers of troops on the road, the goal is massive envelopments(OVER KILL) against inferior forces that have been half defeated by the heavy bombing. Modern technology has changed the tactics of war, but the strategies remain the same. The guerilla must only avoid detection and thereby destruction. The conventional force must find and defeat the enemy, and somehow out last an enemy that has devoted their life (even to the point of committing suicide) to not losing.  

          So the advantage even today would be to the Washington ( the guerilla ) and not the British (Large Scale foreign invader)

        • #3279312

          Technology and the Revolution

          by rdeschler ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          With 21st century technology King George would have been able to:

          • Use tempest technologies to electronically snoop on the founding fathers communications
          • Freeze their assets
          • Electronically monitor their meetings
          • Maintained the database of incriminating evidence necessary to hang them for treason

          We’d all still be wearing powdered wigs and paying tribute to Her Majesty.

          Rich

          Houston

          ,

          TX

           

        • #3279290

          Technology and the Revolution

          by arahigihs ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          It would depend on whose scientists or inventors could turn out the new technology the fastest. Both the British and the Americans have turned out vast amounts of technology in the last 230 years. The Revolutionary War may have been over in a matter of months, maybe even weeks with the technology that we have available to us today.

          Ponder this, if todays technology was available for the Revolutionary War, then what would the death toll have been for the Civil War, America’s bloodiest war?

        • #3278998

          Technology and the Revolution

          by bphill ·

          In reply to Technology and the Revolution

          Insert comment text here

      • #3277488

        Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Last week, I mentioned that Microsoft was finally dropping
        support for Windows 98
        and posed the question about whether or not
        Microsoft really intended organizations to make the jump to Windows XP as a
        result. Apparently it does ? at least partially. Microsoft wants to turn
        Windows 9x-class workstations into dumb terminals.

        Microsoft is releasing a new program called “Windows
        Fundamentals for Legacy PCs”
        . Microsoft understands that many Windows
        9x workstations are still in use in business. It?s also aware that these
        workstations are underpowered to run XP full blown and that many organizations
        don?t want to spend the money necessary to replace this equipment. At the same
        time, by abandoning support for Windows 9x, businesses are now left vulnerable
        to attacks that may appear in 9x. WFLPC is meant to address all of those needs.

        WFLPC is built on Windows XP Embedded Service Pack 2 code.
        As such, it?s supposed to have the smaller footprint necessary to make it run
        on older Windows 9x workstations. To use WFLPC, the workstation will need as
        little as 64MB of RAM, a Pentium processor and 500MB of hard drive space. It
        will also need a network card, because essentially what WFLPC does is turn the
        workstation into a dumb terminal.

        WFLPC gives businesses the ability to continue to use
        Windows 9x-class machines while maintaining security on the system. Because of
        the terminal aspect, the systems can be even more secure because you?ll be able
        to centralize control over them in ways not possible in Windows 9x.

        Unfortunately, your run of the mill small business or home
        owner won?t the get the chance to use WFLPC. 
        You can?t just buy if off the shelf. Instead, it?s included as part of
        Microsoft?s Software
        Assurance program
        . Plus, naturally you have to have Microsoft software
        running on the back end for the WFLPC workstation to talk to.

        So is Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs the
        way to go with old workstations?  It?s
        hard to tell. With Windows 9x remaining unpatched in the future, continuing to
        use it will be a gamble. I?ve always thought terminal-based machines can make a
        lot of sense from both a security and a management standpoint. What?s your
        take?

        • #3277464

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by mark miller ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          This uses Windows’s Remote Desktop technology to allow users to log in to something like Windows Server 2003. From a performance perspective Remote Desktop is passable in terms of performance and response, but not great. A lot of data gets passed back and forth over the network, to update the GUI on the terminal. If Win98 machines are just being used as web terminals, this will slow down the apparent responsiveness of the terminals. Yes, this’ll allow places to keep machines longer, but I imagine users won’t be pleased with it for long.

        • #3278053

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by nacromancer ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          I know from experience in the field that there are some smal compnaies that still run those older OS’s even as far back as 3.1, DOS, Fortran, and Cobol. But mostly that is because they are using those older OS’s for machine equipment that still require it in order to work.

          Wielding the power over manufacturers to upgrade their entire systems in order to keep their business moving along is abusive. But most company’s I have worked on all have their software backed up, and using websites like bootdisk.com and others, updates to the currrent is not an issue. And most of thse systems are all behind a massive amount of networked firewalls, antivirus’s programs, and anti intrusion applications that it would be stupid for someone to even try. What so some box gets packed with the green eggs and ham instead? What kind of joy would a hacker get out of doing that?

          Besides usually I can convince them to use those old systems and create hardware firewalls out of them using smoothwall. Then they can network them to internet connected and public access computer stations as added protection. Then get them to upgrade their systems to be able to run XP and still be able to run those older apps in an emulated enviroment. Not a problem, unless it is something so old that needs to be run in an isolated disconnected eniviroment through a network monitor and switch controller that will still allow access to the systems state, but with out control capabilities accept from that applications directly connected server or work station.

          You make it sound so bad and so manipulative that things can not be forced to change. thnings can be adopted and made to work together if you know what you are doing, without all the negative speculations. As you should appreciate I use the line from Star Trek’s John Luke Pecard…”Make it Happen…”     

        • #3278012

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by tshrink ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          Old mainframe guys like me always liked terminals for most purposes.  A big advantage to client-server was the ability to use desktop office software like Word that was familiar to the everyday computer user.  How will the WFLPC interact with Office?  If it uses Office hosted on the server, then we really will have gone ’round the circle; just without the mainframe’s awesome stability and processing power.

        • #3208655

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by unni_kcpm ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          Here in India(few of our Offices) has an equipment that can be connected to the Switch. The functionality is that, a Monitor, Keyboard and Mouse can be connected to it which will in turn configured on any other PC(Minimum P4 with atleast 512MB RAM desirable) can work as a workstation. The OS on the Main PC can be XP Home or above.

        • #3208200

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by oromis ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          I would rather see M$ provide a ‘Win9x Final Service Pack’ CD to allow re-installs to update to the last official patch level, then have the Open Source community or some other concerned group take over the updating. While WFLPC may be adequate where use of semi-intelligent terminals is appropriate, lots of users would prefer to continue use of independent Win98SE or other Win9x OS on their older and still adequate systems.

          My own response will be to switch to Linux. WinXP’s inclusion of DRM bugs, ‘activation protocol’, and bloatware features makes it useless to me. The discontinuance of Win9x support is the end of my support for M$’s bad policies.

        • #3206049

          Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          by xwindowsjunkie ·

          In reply to Dumbing down Windows 9x workstations

          I suspect that the WFLPC is offered as a crumb to mollify those potential customers that the WIN9X hardware won’t become instantly obsolete at least in minds of those reluctant customers.  

          I design WIndows XP Embedded devices and I answered a survey request and all of the questions had to do with what would I use or recommend a stripped down version of Windows Embedded as a desktop OS.  The survey also tried to determine which components of WinXP Embedded were the ones that I felt were most inportant for a desktop.  Well now I know what the results of that survey were for!

          Yes if you are careful and work at it, you can make a Windows XP Embedded load that will load up on a 64 MB or 128 MB RAM system and that will run on a P1. What I found especially funny though was that a XP Embedded OS image created for an AMDK2-266 run actually fairly well.  Images created for P2’s were a pain in the butt to make work right.

      • #3277914

        When life imitates blogs

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        About a month ago, I was talking about the performance of
        Vista Beta 2. In that entry, I mentioned how even though Vista seems a little
        sluggish right now, every
        version of Windows was been slow
        when it first shipped and that eventually
        hardware manufacturers created powerful enough CPUs and systems that the
        operating systems worked smoothly. At the end, I quipped that perhaps all we
        needed to do was to wait for AMD and Intel to ship quad-core CPUs in order for
        Vista performance to be acceptable.

        Well, lo and behold ? Intel just
        announced
        that its quad-core CPUs, the Cloverton for servers and Kentsfield
        for desktops, would appear in late 2006 rather than in the first half of 2007
        as originally planned. This timing means that quad-core processors will be
        available just in time for Vista?s final release.

        By shipping quad-core processors this year, Intel also gets
        the jump on AMD which won?t have its quad-core processors ready until next
        year. This will be the first time in quite a while that Intel has beaten AMD to
        market with an advanced chip.

        Once interesting thing to Intel?s quad-core CPU is the fact that
        the article notes that the CPUs are essentially dual-dual-core CPUs and not
        true quad-cores. What Intel is doing is configuring two dual core CPUs in such
        a manner as they fit into once CPU socket. AMD?s quad-core is supposed to be a ?true?
        quad-core.

        So what I originally wrote in jest turned out to be fact.
        Quad-core CPUs were always coming. It was just a matter of time, but Vista was
        supposed to beat them to the market. Now it looks like there will be at least a
        few quad-core systems waiting to greet Vista when it ships. I guess I should
        have just said something about needing octo-core CPUs or something like that
        instead.

        • #3110629

          When life imitates blogs

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          I noticed this trend back in Windows 3.1 days. I had started in the field with 8 bit microcomputers. I found a small company that had a real vision about using computers in business, way ahead of most businesses. We were able to do a lot of good work with those computers. When Windows became popular and 286 computers became available it was clear to me that the perceived speed of the computers was no faster than the perceived speed of the 8 bit computers running CP/M or Xenix or MS-DOS. I blamed the software. I still do.

          The computers that we have today are so amazingly powerful that I get sick when I realize how much hardware power is being wasted on poorly written code. I know you will say that graphical environments take more processor power just to create a display. I know and I agree. But you can write a graphical environment to work efficiently or you can write it to waste a lot of CPU cycles. I think that the latter is the case with software that is being created today. And this isn’t just in Microsoft products. The X window system is just as bad.

          The hardware that we have today exceeds the power of the most expensive supercomputers that were available twenty years ago. Just having more than one processor and a gigabyte of memory was out of reach of all but the biggest corporations. Don’t even talk about clock speeds. We have CPUs that run at gigahertz speeds with memory that runs at megahertz speeds. That’s amazing. But our hardware is spending all of it’s time executing poorly written code. The screen updates are no faster today with the lastest graphic software than we saw twenty years ago. It took many years before the Wintel platform came close to the graphic performance of my Commodore 64. That was in part due to the fact that the Commodore 64 divided the work between dedicated chips and in part due to better written code. The tri-state bus that allowed “simultaneous” communication between the RAM and the graphic chip and between the RAM and the CPU was an excellent design and allowed a lot of data to flow over the 1 MHz data bus.

          The affection that the software community has for object oriented code is, I believe, a big part of the speed problem. Another part of the problem is when people write APIs to handle thousands of possible conditions. Both of these characteristics create software inefficiency.

        • #3206815

          When life imitates blogs

          by sandym ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          Good one John!

          However “things were always thus”, I remember someone making a quip about undelete and unformat – in the 80s – introduced in the following version of DOS!

           

        • #3206773

          When life imitates blogs

          by georgeou ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          Vista is still in debug mode.  They still need to tweak the boot times and the install times to what they promised nearly a year ago.  CPU performance isn’t the problem and that’s not where it’s slow right now.  My 3 year old Pentium 2.4 works just fine from a CPU standpoint.  Speeding Vista up will depend on getting a cheap gigabyte flash card working and 1 GB RAM a lot more so than a quad core CPU.

        • #3206741

          When life imitates blogs

          by plumley9 ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          Horsepower versus efficiiency – given a choice we would drive sports cars, but like the space shuttle, we get stuck with trucks. VISTA has to be everything to everybody and is bloated code and legacy modules and kludged work-arounds. If adding more cylinders was the answer then we would all drive v-12s. The benefit of dual, quad, or octo cores depends entirely on the achievable paralleling of the code. Maybe the ‘Quad’ core will be a good fit.

        • #3207487

          When life imitates blogs

          by jcmoffitt ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          I wrote a review on my Vista Beta 2 install on my laptop and within that review I noted that the OS was pretty sluggish. I have a 2.4 ghz cpu with 512 mb of ram.  That is just not enough if you are considering upgrading to this OS.  Of course this OS is still in beta and the final release has not come out yet so maybe that will change, but I doubt it.  The software industry has always driven the hardware industry to a certain degree.  I think that there are a LOT of computer users that just bought a new PC with XP Home or Professional loaded on it and they are not going to want to dip back into their pockets for more hardware just to be on the bleeding edge of technology. 

        • #3208691

          When life imitates blogs

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          I can’t help but think, “Where’s the END?” At what point do we say “Enough is Enough “already””
          First it’s 32bit architecture,then on to 64bit Architecture, then from multiple use Processor to multilevel, “Different level of built in ram, then we go to Dual Core, now we’re headed for Quad.
          Just where is the need for all this speed? or is this some Psycho adventure just to see far they can push.
          If so, what does Quad do for me other and speed.
          Does it make my computer better, easier to get along with?
          Already there are a great may program that don’t get along with 64Bit and now were talking Quad.
          The question is inevitable, what is the purpose, are we headed for the moon,?
          What is the point, Speed, we’ve seen what unbalanced speed can do.
          Just what is the use then, of having a 64 Bit, or Itanium or Quad if no other program will get along with it.
          What the Rush? Far more important, What’s the point?
          The trick is to get the client to think that they can’t possibly live without it, regardless of how absurd.
          I’d say it’s working well in some quarters.
          Thank you
          Aaron

        • #3206027

          When life imitates blogs

          by still_learntoo ·

          In reply to When life imitates blogs

          How can you continue to call this a quad-core cpu, when you have said it is not.
          If an investors only reads headlines, you are doing a dis-service to both Intel and AMD.
          Investors buying on your statement that Intel is going to ship quad-core in 2006.
          But we know that is not what you said in the body of the story when you noted that
          Intel is making a dual-dual-core cpu. But you repeated the ” . . . Intel is shipping
          quad-core” in your 27 Jul story.

      • #3207448

        Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        For a long time now, AMD has been a thorn in Intel?s side.
        Just the other day, I mentioned how Intel has started to strike
        back
        by shipping quad-core processors. It has also started to squeeze
        AMD earnings
        by lowering prices on its CPUs. So if AMD is starting to have a hard time
        beating Intel to market with faster processors and can be sent into the red
        with a wave of Intel?s hand, how can it compete?

        One good strategy is to hit em where they ain?t. Or at least where they ain?t as strong. To
        that end, AMD recently decided
        to buy ATI
        to put itself right in the middle of the graphics card market. Intel
        markets some graphics chipsets, but usually they?re included on motherboards.
        Usually Intel graphics chips aren?t found on separate cards. That?s where ATI
        and nVidia currently rule.

        ATI has been around for a very, very long time. While other
        graphics makers like S3, Diamond, Trident, and others have crashed and burned
        along the side the road, ATI has always been a reliable, if not always
        top-performing, chip maker.

        For AMD?s sake, buying ATI is a pretty cunning move. Beyond
        the talk about the union being able to create a ?computer on a chip?, the
        marriage seems pretty natural. AMD has been chasing the graphics market ever
        since introducing the 3DNow technology into their K6 CPUs. ATI is a perfect
        extension to those efforts. In addition, with the amount of graphics power
        needed in Vista in order to get Aero Glass working properly, ATI and nVidia chipsets
        are both only going to be more in demand in coming years.

        Mergers are always difficult things to pull off however. AMD
        will have to tread lightly in order not to mess ATI up in the short term while making sure that it gets the most out of its investment before Intel can react. That?s probably why they?re doing it before Vista ships.
        Intel has also come close to putting AMD out of business several times by
        cutting prices. So the timing of the merger is crucial to keep Intel?s price
        pressure and more rapid innovation from permanently sidelining AMD while putting AMD in the position to really take off once Vista ships.

        I?ve always liked AMD CPUs. Every computer I?ve built for
        myself at home has used AMD chips. And I?ve always stuck to using ATI video
        cards because you can always be assured that the company will be around to get drivers and support later. I?m
        looking forward to see how AMD/ATI is going to fare against Intel in the
        future.

        • #3208681

          Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          I have always been with AMD. They couldn’t GIVE me an Intel no how many times they Quad them.
          Amd has always proven reliable, dependable and has never let me down in all the years that I’ve used them.
          The Other is of course ATI.
          To me if not “THEE Best”, then certainly one of the top of the line cards in the business.
          I’ve had the others mentioned and then went with ATI.
          I have never looked back. Every time you would upgrade an ATI, that’s what you really got, an actual Upgrade, not the same old thing with a few new toys thrown in. I have also fond them to be the most versatile. Be it Gaming, or serious computing ATI stands very tall in my books.
          I can only hope that AMD will use this to their advantage and make both products better, not sit and ride the wave as so many other have.
          If this is only half as good as I think it’s going to be, it’s still going to be great.
          Congratulations to AMD and thanks for clueing us John

          Regards
          Aaron

        • #3208146

          Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          by gdude ·

          In reply to Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          I too own all AMD cpu’s only. Havent used but one Intel in over 10 yrs. I see this as a good marriage for AMD with Ati. Maybe a few yrs back Intel could have squashed AMD but i think its to little to late for that with their Fab plants in Germany & a union with a overseas board maker. There are haters of Intel as there is of M$, i just thank God for the competition of AMD, if not we would be paying outrageous prices for the CPU’s from Intel..

        • #3208073

          Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          by timbam ·

          In reply to Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          I agree, I have used AMD products before they even made cpus. They have always been the preferred product for me. All of my homebuilds and spec. pcs have been AMD. I also have been very pleased with the ATI and Nvidia products. I hope all goes well for AMD.

        • #3208062

          Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          by slopez ·

          In reply to Can a AA team beat a big leaguer like Intel?

          Same as the author I allways use ATI Graphics
          I liked the Intel motherboards that came with ATI Graphics
          Will Intel continue to use ATI
          I can’t wait to see what AMD/ATI will come out with.

      • #3206134

        Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Back in 1991, famed computer pundit
        Stewart Alsop claimed that the last mainframe would be unplugged inside of 5
        years. He wasn?t alone in that prediction. Many analysts and pundits looked at
        the power of the mainframes back then and the rapid growth of PC-based networks
        and wrote the epitaph for the mainframe. But it?s 15 years later and mainframes
        are still happily humming along as if noone told them they?re not supposed to
        be around anymore.

        Computer?s based on the x86
        architecture grow more and more powerful with each passing quarter. Just
        forgetting for a second what?s in the server room, the computer that sits under
        your desk is probably a lot more powerful than some mainframe computers that
        were sold for millions of dollars 10 years ago.

        When I was a PC Analyst for the local
        county police department we had an IBM 4381 in our computer room. The county
        had paid several million dollars for it on a county bond issue in the mid 80?s.
        By 1991, when we moved to a new police headquarters, we had to pay someone to
        come take it away for scrap. And the bond was still not paid off. The 486?s we were starting to roll out to officers
        were more powerful than that machine. It seemed as if that was the way things
        were going to go. Mainframe computers were the dinosaurs of the 90?s.

        Yet today, they?re still around. Why?
        In an age of dual and quad-core CPUs, blade servers, and the ongoing war
        between Window, Linux, and Macs, why are people still paying huge bucks for
        mainframes?

        Because they work.

        Well, let?s also not forget the fact
        that IBM has gone out of its way to make sure that mainframes stay relevant. By
        incorporating Linux virtual machines inside of mainframe systems among other
        things, IBM has in effect created blade servers without the blades.

        Beyond that however, mainframes are
        solid and secure. They?re also designed in such a way that they?re optimized
        for multiple transactions which is increasingly what blade servers and clusters
        are being built for. Mainframes have already answered the question that these
        new technologies are supposed to be.

        IBM doesn?t break out mainframe
        revenue anymore but according
        to ZDNet
        , analysts estimate IBM takes in about $10 billion dollars from its
        mainframe business. That?s hardware, software, and services together. Not to
        mix apples and oranges, but Apple?s revenue last quarter was a little over $4
        billion. The Mac business only made up about 55% of that. That
        means that over the course of the year, IBM makes about as much money in
        mainframes as Apple makes in Macs.

        The mainframe is kind of like the old
        man from the Monty Python And The Holy Grail ?Bring Out Your Dead?
        skit. As much as analysts and pundits (not to mention PC Vendors) would love
        for you to toss out your mainframe, if you listen closely enough you can
        probably hear it saying ?But I?m not dead
        yet!?

        • #3205942

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by georgev ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

             I studied programmiing on an IBM360, a little later than your unit. I miss the autoclearing on memory allocation, hardware checks on process memory usage, programmable i/o ports, …  My PDP11 the most important interupt is power-fail, not a hung-up internet process.

            The companies have been purchasing PC’s on the basis of reviewers, not people who need real answers to problems, so now they have Fast machines that fail.  The mainframe is still where you start a 30-hour calculation and can expect it to finish with the programmed answer, rather than a crash in any of 295 different fonts.

            Any idea whether there has been a successor to the PC360 that implemented the IBM360 code in a PC-size unit, for development.  It would be nice to get a computer that I could write code for rather than exception handling.

             

           

        • #3214707

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by gordon ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          One thing mainframes have is I/OBandwidth.  I remember hearing over the years that the microcomputer AKA PC is “I/O bound” meaning it’s fast but has to cope with inadequate support peripherals.

          I remember a UNISYS minicomputer we had that was being replaced by a PC (running Solaris).  We had to update everyone to a PC who connected to the machine because the new one couldn’t handle the old serial lines.  The trade-off being about equal in cost.  At the time, the PCs seemed a better deal (You decide ;).

          As the old machine was “scrap”, I bid on it at auction and got to take it home (along with some dandy 9-track tape drives).  Opening it up, I found two 68020 CPUs (what a mac was running those days).  What was striking, however, was the I/O bus.  18 slots!  200-300 Pins on the connectors.  Each serial line board handled 16 lines – each had its own 68008 CPU.  No wonder it was so fast – it was designed for it.

          So remember, I/O Bandwidth is why the “dinosaurs” are still around.

          My humble opinion.

        • #3214626

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by ffg1 ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          As a ‘dinosaur’ mainframe systems programmer who also works in the PC arena, I can unequivocally say the mainframes will never die.  There is no PC or midrange technology available or upcoming in the near future that can challenge mainframes at what they do best; process millions of transactions with subsecond response time and serve terrabytes of data in milliseconds.

          As PC technology grows and becomes more powerful and faster, IBM also enhances their mainframe technology. Imagine the ability to join 255 or more mainframes, each more powerful than any PC or midrange, into a workgroup where a job or transaction runs on any one of these machines based on technology that selects the system with the best thruput and making that decision in nanoseconds. Also imagine that if any one of those mainframes goes down, the work scheduled to run on it being instantly rerouted to one of the other systems. This technology, beginning with clusters of 32 machines, has existed since long before blade servers were a spark in someone’s imagination.

          IBM also far exceeds any PC software company in documentation, debugging abilities,  reliability, and recovery. After all, they started the computing age and have had many decades to perfect their performance. And we don’t even want to discuss security;  have you ever heard of a virus on a mainframe?

          I am a Mainframe Dinosaur and proud of it. 

        • #3214439

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by dsusysmgr ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          I think the big factor in Mainframe’s continued survival has to do with the fact that it works. Companies have invested millions not only in the hardware that still does the job, but is software that nobody wants to destabilize by porting it to an operating system that works on a PC. It is not that hard to distribute data from the nice safe Mainframe apps to the convenient easy to use PCs. I know when I am offered the opportunity to have my cake and eat it too I will choose haveing it both ways.

        • #3215624

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by american_it_guy ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          I think we are missing the real reasons, and has little to do with hardware.

          The manhours over the years that have gone into these processes are almost unreplacable. If not strictly from expense then ability is the next hurdle. Many organizations have tried and are trying. I imagine some regret the move and some do not. A county will never have that kind of money. They seem to typically offshore the whole conversion project to people that don’t have a clue. Which is soooo dumb. Those who try to do it internally pick a platform to move to that has flaws, and when I say this, I mean one of your common high profile winners in the software market. Stuff does not work, projects go wild, and people go nuts over expenses. Still others try to re-write at a higher level, for example, a state will shove the new project down each county’s throat one by one. This is probably one of the better approaches.

          We stink at a couple of things that has kept the mainframe alive, 1) project management 2) reality and focus to conversion. 3) commitment. I am guessing if you add it all up the mainframe is cheaper. Hello? Is this correct?

          If people would have kept life simple, and translated the mainframe environment to the PC’s in a more apples to apples basis, it would have worked better, but only recently with strong servers. Most tried too early. The thoiught of a 486 doing anything is not going to fly, a very young platform. And I saw Windows OS as never part of any of these solutions. An IBM OS with COBOL on INTEL architecture was the only thing I saw ever working. and that just did not happen. Too many competing forces, emotions and eye candy solutions poisoned the barrel of apples.

          Yes, I have programmed in all of these environments, over the years, including POS and AIX. The IBM I5 is the only prayer for people to get off mainframes to a smaller box in a most cost effective manner. The main reason things do not work out is people that don’t know what their doing are in charge. They never asked me.

          The windows marketing machine has cost the industry a lot of bucks.

        • #3215601

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by mvuister ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Comparisons are hard, but here are a few examples.

          I’m an IT Prj Mgr for a data communications provider, converting from an IBM iSeries billing system to a state-of-the-art system on Sun Solaris.

          On the iSeries, we created a 222MB file containing >3.6 million records with acct notes in a minute or so, faster than I could even FTP it to the Solaris server from my PC (2.2GHz, 100Mb/s Ethernet).  I view the first screen of this file on the iSeries within a second or so, with the remainder of the file loading in a few more seconds.

          Contrast this with my failed attempts to view it on my Windows XP PC and the inability of Solaris’ native editor (vi) to load a file this large.  And when vi does load a large file, you have to wait before you get to see any part of it.

          In addition, the iSeries’ DB2 database has worked nearly flawlessly for over a decade and has required minimal maintenance, whereas we struggle monthly with Oracle bugs and performance.  (I don’t think our competence differs that much between the two platforms).

          My take: the big iron still works best for heavy lifting.

          Michael

        • #3215597

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by eddie n ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          “have you ever heard of a virus on a mainframe?”

          The Morris Internet worm doesn’t count, I guess. But of course, there are several reasons why we won’t be seeing Norton Antivirus for Mainframes any time soon.

          • Virus writers target the most popular platforms, and apparently mainframes aren’t that popular.
          • There are practically no standard OSes for mainframes (in the sense that you can’t get an IBM 360 and install an OS from another manufacturer like Prime or DEC).
          • If you are a hacker, you need a machine to test and refine your code on. How many hackers do you know who have a Prime 750 in their basement?

          I must admit that I was one of the ones who predicted the death of the mainframe back in the late 80s. I am also happy to admit that I was dead wrong about it. Without the rock solid architecture and run time reliability of the mainframes that power our utilities, our airline scheduling, our hospital recordkeeping, etc. I wonder what would be happening in our increasingly tech-dependent society.

        • #3215592

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by gorellana ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Only reason mainframes are still running is that it costs to much to remove the data and software and port that process to PC level.  It is being done as cost permits.  Mainframes are not smart enough to compete.  The mainframe programmers are even less.  I worked on both for a long time and believe me it’s much more cost efficient once you are in the PC environment to do processing.

        • #3215589

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by audreyd ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Fifteen years ago, my department moved a large database application from mainframe to client-server.  All of our new applications since then have been developed from scratch on Intel or Sun servers.  I don’t know of any NEW applications going onto our mainframes, but migrating the existing legacy apps would be just too expensive.  I suspect that they’ll end up going to PC based architecture when they become to dated to maintain on the mainframes.

        • #3215582

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by truedinosaur ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          I think one of the main reason the mainframe is still around is that the IBM mainframe OS protects itself better than any MS OS ever will.  Hardware aids in protecting one process from trashing another process.  This translates to better up time.

          Another reason is programming languages.  There has been one popular mainframe language since the late 60’s.  COBOL.  Yes, there was BAL, PL/1, APL, and Fortran but they never took off in the business world.  In the PC world we have had Basic, Pascal, VB, C, C++, VC++, C#, Java, .NET, etc. All major contenders.

          I also blame the GUI.  Too much variability that the user can sit and think about during the design phase.  A 24 x 80 character, 7 color screen minimizes choices. 🙂

              

        • #3214389

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by straightshooter ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          After nearly 40 years in the field, I think the Mainframe still exists because it is the most productive device for the purpose. I believe that there has been more time wasted on the PC than there has been in productive work. Even forgetting the Internet for a minute as the chief time waster, how much time has been spent by distributed PC users developing the same spreadsheet? Or as we used to say, “Re-inventing the wheel”. On the main frame, it’s done once for all users.

        • #3214388

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Ahh the debate rages on…..

          My opinion is that, yes, the core architecture of systems like the zSeries is very robust, the architecture of zOS and it’s related friends (e.g. RACF, DB2) are fairly solid, and the overall direction of mainframe technology has been that ‘it’s just another big server’ which looks a lot more UNIX-like (and may be running LINUX on a partition already).

          However,  all that big-iron carries a very hefty price tag.  The software is costly, the people are costly, the infrastructure is costly. Midrange UNIX and (dare I say it) even AS/400 systems can give you maybe four-nines for 1/4 the cost.  Wintel-based servers have come a  long, long way and, if properly managed, are right up there…and the cost is so low that it costs more to dispose of the stuff than it did to buy it.  

          The Mainframe is a more idiot-proof environment.  Script-Kiddies do not know JCL, RACF, or DB2 (typically). 

          It’s fairly difficult to really screw up the security settings or install software to hose the system. Priviledge escalation, malware, buffer overflows, or denial-of-service attacks are not typically part of the mainframe jargon.  So if you’ve got lots of money, a nice data center, and you need it to be bullet-proof and process gobs of data, the Mainframe is it.

          However, as the Mainframe is ‘improved’ with things like LINUX, UNIX System Services and Apache Web Server, the flexibility and compatibility gained will be at the expense of of reliability and security. 

          A year ago I witnessed a Fortune-100 company knock it’s mission-critical production mainframe application offline for several hours after loading LINUX on a ‘test’ partition (the local router that ate the front-end-processor).  I’ve seen cases where RACF was disabled accidentally, NFS shares were wide open on zOS UNIX System Services, wide-open Windows Shares were found to exist on the Mainframe, or whole volumes of sensitive files were laying out there unprotected (sAMBA for zOS).   So, for every idiot-proof system, there are more clever idiots……    

        • #3214324

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by g.r. ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          I agree with the last poster robo_dev.  The piling-on of more “open” systems functions is ruining the mainframe’s  reputation of reliability/stability.  The MF is not dead, but it’s not getting alot of attention either.  Who wants to write about computer systems that are quietly processing 70% of the world’s data the same way they’ve been doing it for 40+ years, without a hiccup?  The industry is driven by newer, faster.  Microsoft approves of OS’es that are built architecturally inferior.  IBM doesn’t.  People buy Microsoft.  Go figure.

        • #3214230

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by lavinmansukhani ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          In response to TrueDinosaur’s comment:

          I think one of the main reason the mainframe is still around is that the IBM mainframe OS protects itself better than any MS OS ever will.  Hardware aids in protecting one process from trashing another process.

          This is what exactly DEP does on the Microsoft platform.
          Data Execution Prevention (DEP) is a set of hardware and software instructions that performs additional checks on memory to help prevent malicious code from running on a system.

          In response to robo_dev’s comment:

          However,  all that big-iron carries a very hefty price tag.  The software is costly, the people are costly, the infrastructure is costly.

          You forgot to add that even the maintenance is costly.

        • #3214227

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by excorpguy ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          While no system is totally secure, Mainframes are much more secure than any version of Windows will likely be in my lifetime.  Plus, their ability to handle many transactions and disk I/O puts most PC systems to shame.

          No, I am not a mainframe operator either.  Just someone who knows a little about their design and operation.

        • #3214180

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by mdhealy ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Fundamentally, I think the difference between a “mainframe” environment and a “client-server” environment is cultural, like the difference between some small airline in a developing country and a big airline in a major economy: if you are American Express and your main database crashes, or Air France and your jet crashes, you will be on the front pages of many newspapers the next day.  A person who has not worked in a high-reliability organization cannot begin to appreciate how deeply ingrained such institutional cultures can become.

          A similar difference exists between old-line utilities and ISPs.  If my lights are off, or my voice phones stop working, there will be a truck roll within the hour.  Ever try to get such a sense of urgency from your average broadband provider?  Until broadband providers come to CARE about reliability as deeply as old-line utilities, VOIP cannot fully replace voice service.  Until PC makers come to CARE about reliability as deeply as those who have run big financial systems for decades, client-server cannot supplant the mainframe.

          When a PC crashes several times a week, we take that for granted.  When a Linux server crashes several times a year, we take that for granted.  When a mainframe crashes twice in a year, people get fired.

        • #3212988

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by jerome.koch ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          The organizations that use mainframes the most (Large financial orgs, research orgs, and science orgs) require a huge amount of number crunching. The National Weather Service needs to compute in 3-D the forecasts of the entire atmosphere from the surface to 100,000feet AGL globally. These forecast models need to do thier work in under 4 hours. I believe they use Cray Super Computers for this.

          That being said, Pixar was able to build a massive server cluster of Linux based AMD based servers (total 200 servers) for its rendering programs. I read it still took about 2 weeks to render the 2 hour Nimo movie. A mainframe could have do it quicker, but the costs were prohibitive. From a TCO perspective, most orginzations choose server based systems for cost reasons. Again, the organizations that use mainframe do not have to worry about profits/losses.

          JP

        • #3212983

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by wayne m. ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          It’s Not A Technology Issue

          The that mainframes are still around has little to do with technology of the platforms and more to do with the difficulty in rewriting and replacing large applications.

          Replacing a large scale application is much more difficult than writing a new application from scratch; I have seen many mainframe replacement projects spend tremendous amounts of money, overrun schedules by years, and still fall flat on their faces before ever being deployed.  Most try to do a “forklift” upgrade, intending to turn off the mainframe and turn on the new system in one fell swoop.  When rolling out a new application, however, a much more cautious approach is taken with site at a time roll outs with minimal functionality.  It often takes a year or more to complete the initial roll out and years more are spent adding capabilities and improving the system.  The expectation that one can recreate this existing system in a cost-effective manner is simply naive.

          Mainframe applications have had years to be refined and improved.  Yes, the underlying hardware and software technology may be old, but a large amount of manpower has gone into adapting the mainframe to the business needs.  The reason that mainframes still exist and will continue to exist is that replacing them is a difficult task and the effort is really not cost effective.

        • #3214934

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by pickleman ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          FFG says:
          “There is no PC or midrange technology available or upcoming in the near
          future that can challenge mainframes at what they do best; process
          millions of transactions with subsecond response time and serve
          terrabytes of data in milliseconds.”

          After that first sentence, I lost all interest in the rest of your post for the simple fact that you lost all credibility with such an asinine statement.

          Terrabytes of data in milliseconds?  Yeah, may I ask in what universe you live?  Or if you will claim to be from this one, then may I ask in what future decade you reside?  Because it surely isn’t in the year 2006 when “terrabytes of data” can be processed in “milliseconds”.

          When you’re ready to join the rest of us back here in the real world, just follow the yellow brick road, and it’ll lead you out from the Land of Oz.

        • #3214853

          Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          by andy.white2006 ·

          In reply to Why aren?t mainframes dead already?

          Hey reality check;

          In reality it’s a case of horses for courses, if you design WMD for a sane government or calculate my taxes then I hope and pray that you are using a combination of tried and tested hardware and software irispective of the cost but on the other hand I would like my home computer or laptop to be user friendly and afordable.

          Ps please dont try to argue that WMD’s are insane, we all know that the only reason that Mutualy Asured Destruction works is because even a totaly insane meglomaniac knows it’s mad!

      • #3214490

        Seeing how fast data can go

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Graphics-intensive applications have become more and more
        the norm in computers today. Whether you?re talking about the graphics
        necessary to create movies such as Cars, to render 3D objects in AutoCad, or
        the emerging graphic requirements coming in Vista, computers have long gone
        from text-only to basic GUIs to completely graphical in nature. Along with this
        has come an increasing need for faster graphics cards and wider bandwidth to
        process the millions of pixels being manipulated.

        We?ve all seen the progression of graphics in a PC
        environment. The first graphics card that was available for a PC-Compatible
        could display 4 colors on the screen at a resolution of 320 x 240. You had
        choice of a Cyan/Magenta/White palette or a Red/Green/Yellow palette. The first
        cards cards were all 8-bit ISA based with a maximum bandwidth of about 8Mbps
        (Mega Bits Per Second).

        Today, a high-end video card can produce full 32-bit color
        with millions of colors at a resolution exceeding 3480×2400.  AGP8 slots have a maximum bandwidth exceeding
        2Gbps, and newer PCI-Express cards have a maximum bandwidth exceeding 4Gbps.

        So, that raises the question, just how much bandwidth would
        something as complicated as the human eye require? Apparently not much. 

        According to a recent article in New
        Scientist
        , human retinas operate with a bandwidth of about 8.75 Mbps. That
        means you could easily run it on a 16-bit ISA slot or an old PCI slot. As with
        most engineering projects, retina is actually theoretically capable of
        processing about 4000 times as much data as it does in practice, but the extra
        power needed to do so is too expensive. When you think about how much data that
        is, it?s pretty impressive that the eye is designed in such a way to process
        that much information and send it over a data line that today would be
        considered obsolete.

        A better analogy may be the amount of bandwidth consumed by
        streaming media. In that case, it would take 5Mbps of data to transfer video at
        DVD quality. HDTV quality is supposed to take about 15Mbps of bandwidth.  The human retina uses far less bandwidth, and
        produces a much higher resolution picture.

        In any case, whether you?re talking streaming media
        bandwidth or the amount of bus bandwidth needed to process and display graphics
        images, it would seem that man made technology still is pretty inefficient. Whether
        you?re a fan of evolution or intelligent design, the human eye seems to get the
        job pretty well done.    

        • #3214460

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          It’s a matter of focus.

          If you hooked your computer up to an eye tracker, and only had it render what was in the narrow field of focus & vision of the human eye (about 3 degrees or so), then yes, your graphics card could theoretically acheive human eye resolution on well under 8 mbps of bandwidth. But because you could be looking at ANY portion of the screen at any given instant (watch how far someone’s eyes swivel while they read a Web page!), the surface area that a graphics card needs to render is larger (and therefore requires more bandwidth) than the human eye by a pretty high factor. Add in the quest for larger screens and the related increases in resolutions, and it is easy to see why graphics card are so high powered for a resolution (and occassionaly a frame rate) and still do not have the level of detail that the eye can capture.

          It isn’t that the eye itself is marvelously well engineered, it is the control system that adapted to a poor device that is to be admired. The fact that our brains seamlessly compensate for things such as walking (without bobbing our heads like pigeons), filling in the missing details of motion (made you flinch!), and simply being able to read without thinking about turning our heads is the real amazing thing. The eye itself is not anything special.

          J.Ja

        • #3215607

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by eddie n ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          “the eye itself is not anything special”, huh?

          Try telling that to a blind person.

        • #3215604

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by eddie n ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          “the eye itself is not anything special”, huh? Try telling that to a blind person.

        • #3215566

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by leee ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          Interesting about the eye=computer! As a kid (late ’70s) I remember reading something that compared the human brain to a supercomputer (of course, the kind that would take up a few buildings), and of course I’ve long pondered the idea of eye=camera, but never thought to evaluate the connection between the eye and quantatative computer power.

          (Cool.)

        • #3215428

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by pickleman ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          > The eye itself is not anything special.

          Spoken like someone who:

          a) knows nothing about the eye
          b) is a general idiot in his “I’m-so-cool-that-nothing-impresses-me” kinda way
          c) all of the above

          I’ll let the reader decide which.

        • #3214823

          Seeing how fast data can go

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Seeing how fast data can go

          I am actually quite surprised at some of the comments on here to that single sentence, “The eye itself is not anything special.”

          Think about it for a moment before getting up in arms over it. The human eye in and of itself really is not a superb item. In fact, the entire human body is not very optimum for its usage. I read a fantastic article in Scientific American a few years ago (I beleive in was Sci. Am., at least) showing what the human body would look like if it was actually engineered. We would not look very much like we actually do!

          As I said in my previous comment, the eye in and of itself (I cannot stress that enough) is not particularly remarkable. Without an extraordinarily complex set of controls and auxillary systems, it is actually quite poor. We perceive our vision as being fantastic. As I write this post, if I look at one word on the screen, and hold my eyes and head still, I am barely able to make out the fuzzy outlines on lines immediately above or below the one I am looking at. Indeed, for a long word, I am unable to perceive the full word without moving my eyes.

          Have you ever wondered why pigeons bob their heads while walking? It is because their brains are not able to automagically move their eyes and adjust to their walking, without bobbing their heads, their entire field of vision bobs instead. This is a matter of the eye being inadequete for the task, and have compensation systems surrounding it.

          What is truly amazing is when you compare the number of optic nerves to the number of signals that actually reach the brain. Again, we see the incredibly power control system at play here. It filters down millions upon millions of stray signals from the roads and cones to the relevant “significant bits.” Now that is incredible.

          In and if itself, the human eye as a sensor is not nearly as interesting or as well designed as the other systems surrounding it. Indeed, if the human eye was really great, we would not have all of those other systems on top of it.

          J.Ja

      • #3212817

        What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        As I?ve mentioned before, to keep my IT skills fresh I
        maintain a small consulting business on the side of my regular day-job here at TechRepublic.
        An increasingly worrisome trend I?ve noticed lately is just how many problems I?ve
        had to fix as a result of problems arising from Symantec software. Whether it?s Norton Anti-Virus, Norton
        Internet Security or (Lord Forbid) SystemWorks, it seems as soon as the user
        says they?re having problems with their computer and you start asking
        questions, the common denominator is often something Symantec residing on the
        system.

        I?ve always liked Symantec software. I used to think that
        Norton AntiVirus was better than some others on the market like McAfee. And
        back in the days of DOS, Norton Utilities were an absolute must have in your
        software toolkit. Maybe it?s me, but recently it seems like today there?s just
        something wrong with Symantec software.

        For example, a recent customer was having problems with her
        laptop running incredibly slowly. It would take 15 ? 20 minutes on start up before
        she?d have control over her desktop. A quick trip into the Event Viewer showed
        that LiveUpdate was having fits trying to access the update server. Even though
        her Internet connection was otherwise good, the updating service would continually
        try to access the servers, fail, and retry again. Endlessly. In the process,
        the whole computer would slow to a crawl.

        In another instance, an end user had installed SystemWorks on
        their workstation in order to clean up some problems with the registry. Before,
        the computer was running poorly, but afterwards the system was a doorstop. I
        had no choice but to completely reinstall Windows XP in order to undo the
        damage.

        Plus, we won?t even go into the times where I?ve run into
        customers that have had updated versions of Norton AntiVirus on their systems
        and I?ve discovered undetected worms and Trojans lurking about.

        In frustration, I?ve turned to recommending AVG for home
        users and some of my smaller business customers. I also kind of like Trend?s
        software as well. Trend?s online
        scanner
        has been a life saver on several occasions. But with all of the
        problems I?ve encountered lately, it?s becoming difficult to recommend Symantec
        software.

        If this is indeed a symptom of a larger trend, then Symantec
        is in trouble. With Microsoft releasing OneCare on one hand, and then shoddy
        software causing more problems than they solve on the other, it can?t bode well
        for Symantec. I?d be eager to hear about
        the experiences other TechRepublic members have had with Symantec stuff. Am I alone in becoming disillusioned with it?

        • #3212737

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by shaggydan ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No you are not alone. We here @ helpdesk have noticed that oh once a month or so peoples computers play up with weird things. When we check the notes on file you can see that it usall can be linked to a symantec update. ther other one is the turning off symantec for 15 minutes….. the techs ring in and cannot get a connection going and then you ask them ( aftter you have checked everything else, “what virus scanner are you using…. oh nortons… did you disable it…. yeah… can you check to see if its still disabled ……oh its not …disable it and hey presto the connection works.

          cheers

          from the help desk

        • #3212736

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by justin james ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec has always been the worst offender out there. From their goofy “Protected Recycling Bin” to their security holes to how slow the system gets, Symantec has always been lousy. All of Symantec’s good products were actually Norton product (as you alluded to). There was a time, when Peter Norton’s picture on the bright yellow box, sleeves rolled up and arms crossed meant, “this software means business!” When Symantec first bought Norton, they had nothing of their own worth using. and now that they’ve Symantec-i-fied the Norton products, they are not worth using either, except for Ghost. Ghost is the one Symantec product I would still use, and at its current price, it is a complete rip off.

          J.Ja

        • #3212729

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by efam1 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John,  I entirely agree with you !  Your blog about  the
          intrusiveness of Symantic Software are parallel to my own experiences..
          I retired as a Senior Computer Scientist in 1990.. I founded a Senior
          Citizen Computer Club with the objective of teaching Senior Citizens in
          my home town how to use their their computers and have fun doing it…
          What a success it was!  1400 Seniors signed on in Less than two
          years.. And , of course, after the members learned enough to use their
          computers for their own use, some droppted out… We have
          maintained  at about a 600 member rate in ten years and are still
          going strong!

          We used Norton AntiVirus in the beginning for protection from Viruses..
          But, I agree with you, in frustration, I soon had to resort to some
          other AntiVirus SoftWare..Your recommendatio of  AVG worked well
          with some of our members… I have recommended AVAST AntVirus, also.,
          which I use personally..  BobR, San Angelo, Tx

          .

        • #3212724

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by paul.gurusinghe ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Well, i think i am gonna lok stupid 🙁 but i thought I’d add my coment coz it has actually been the opposite.

          I have used Symantec ( former Norton ) internet security 2002 and then 2004 and continue to use it ( call me old fassioned, but i dont seem to want to upgrade to 2005 or 06, i keep on upgrading my lisence for 2004 instead) and our compnay ( ~2500 equipment, in terms of Servers and Pc’s ) use Symantec Corporate Edition 10.

          i have seen on some occasions that a dead slow pc can be brought back to life by uninstalling the Symantec version and re installing it, but that was only 2 in my career here for 3.5 years. it has worked for me and (thank God) continue to work for me without problems. there’s ofcourse differences with this when you compare it to McAfee Security Center, which i run on another pc ( i actually gor a 15 month fre suscription when i bought the PC ) and McAfee seems to be graphically smoother than NIS 2004, but performancewice, its same.

          i didnt mean to disagree with the other comments, just thought i’d voice my prsona opinion about this 🙂 

        • #3215182

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rexworld ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Completely agree with you, John.  Norton A/V came pre-installed on the laptop I bought last year, and the desktop PC I bought this year.  In both instances the performance and stability of the machines improved substantially once I removed Norton.

          Used to be a fan of Symantec’s software, I’m old enough to remember with fondness their Visual Cafe which was an early Java IDE.  And the old DOS Norton Utilities was a wonder.  But yes, they’ve gone steadily downhill and I cannot in good conscience recommend any of their products.

        • #3214939

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by pickleman ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Norton Utilities version 8.0 … for DOS.
          Ahhh, the good ‘ol days.

          Along comes Symantec, and all of a sudden, the entire Norton Utilities product line for Windows 95 (and onwards) has gone from being a life-safer to nothing but a problem creator, a source of endless headaches, and one massive waste of system resources.  I fail to understand why some companies (like Symantec) seem to have this inexplicable need to take a perfectly good product, and completely f*ck it up.

          It used to be that when I had to work on someone’s computer to fix a problem, I would take along Norton Utilities without fail.  These days, any time someone complains about computer problems, the first thing I look for is whether or not Symantec’s garbage is installed, and to what degree.  Most people buy their “SystemWorks” package and just go with the default install options.  BIG MISTAKE.

          If you absolutely MUST have some of these programs, do yourself a huge favour and install ONLY what you NEED.  SystemInfo, SpeedDisk, and their registry editor are the only ones I would ever recommend.  These programs should be offered as standalone software packages that can be purchased separately for a low price, and should not be bloated with typical Symantec bloat.  Remember the days when “sysinfo.exe” was just ONE file that you could put on a disk and run it?  Same thing with speedisk.exe, unerase.exe, diskedit.exe and so on.  Why is it that if you want to run SysInfo or SpeedDisk today, you have to install about 500 MB of garbage along with it?  From a programmer’s viewpoint, there’s absolutely NO reason why these applications cannot be compiled into ONE single executable file.  It would be cleaner, WAY faster, and  would virtually eliminate all problems that Symantec software causes on people’s systems today.

          In its early days, Norton built its reputation by providing software for the power user.  That reputation has been completley soiled over the last 10 years, during which the company has completely ignored the power user and is now targetting the moron class.  This in itself wouldn’t be such a bad thing, except for the fact that their software now creates MORE problems than it fixes.  Yet another fine example of what happens when good software gets bought by bad companies.

        • #3214854

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by andy.white2006 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I am afraid to say that my experiences with Symantec products has been so bad that I also recomend that home users install AVG and use PC Inspector File Recovery instead of “Norton”.

          My loss of faith is the result of problems which I first noticed with systemworks 2003 when the antivirus program kept on being eaten alive by viruses etc, although the program apeared at first sight to be ok it was obvious when I took a close look that it had been crippled. My next horror story with this POS was that the utilities were not able to handle large drives and by that I mean >130 GB, NDD destroyed that much data at a single sitting and Symantec not only didn’t seem to care but insisted upon treating my complaints and requests for assistance as if I was a spotty teenager.

          My experiences on each of their sucessors including the enterprise versions are equaly dire. I am an ex customer who only uses Symantec products when they are the last resort despite the fact that I was formaly a Norton evangelist who started using Norton utilities so far back in the days of dos that NDD was the only way to low level format a hard drive and save the data or for that matter recover the data from a damaged 360K floppy disk.

          Please come back Peter we need you!

        • #3213703

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by wildbear63 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have to agree with Justin — I have been working on
          computers for over 20 years and one of the first times I saw a system
          “die” during an install was due to Symantec. I have had 100s of
          people bring their PC to me because it was slow or would freeze (usually on
          boot up) and found it to be Symantec. I have spent most of my time as a
          “computer geek” telling anyone who asked to avoid Symantec at all
          costs.

        • #3213316

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by splunge ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I used to work for an ISP.  Norton and McAfee were what we called the “evil twins.  We took almost as many calls from those two programs/suites pooching peoples computers than we did regarding virus/spyware issues.  On top of that, everytime Symantec would publish any major updates, we would get inundated with calls, emails, and have to listen to customers whine about how their computers weren’t working anymore.  We ofen ended up taking the heat because of customer ignorance, until we explained where the problems truly originated.  The icing on the cake was having to tell the poor souls that they would have to pay Norton/McAfee $30.00 for a tech support call to a live-human being (as opposed to the corpses that worked for my employer).  Yes…I can honestly say I would rather have railroad spikes driven into my forehead rather than install Norton or McAfee on my computer or take responsibility for putting it on someone elses.  Of course all of this is IMHO, and we all know what opinions are likened to…heh.

        • #3213246

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bluron ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          every once in a while, my email conection will disapear.  to correct this problem i have to close down nortons anti spam program included in there internet security suite of programs.  then i can restart ms outlook express and rec mail again.  then and only then can i turn the anti spam portion back on.  once symantic is on your computer the only way to get rid of it is to reformat your hard drive and pray to the gods of machines, because that may not solve your problems with symantic.

        • #3213244

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ceomoses ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree with you.  I was a user/recommender of Symantec products up until 2003.  When 2004s came out, I started having some major issues; so much that I went back to 2003.  I also tried 2005, but it wasn’t any better than 2004.  By this time, I was looking for an alternative since my friends and I were constantly getting hijacked.  I now recommend AVG to everyone for a free antivirus & if they feel more comfortable paying for antivirus software, I recommend NOD32, which I use now.  After making the switch, my friends (that also switched) and I haven’t gotten any hijacks and pretty much all of the other problems I was having when using Norton basically just disappeared.  Now that I’ve been hijack-free for quite a while now, I’m starting to get rusty on fixing them (maybe I should start recommending Norton again?  🙂  ).

        • #3213228

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ivan.prescott ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I too have noticed an unhappy trend of increasing incidents with Symantec sw.

          I no longer recommend it at all

        • #3213227

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by martin ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I would go as far to say that it isn’t just Symantec Security products, but also a number of the most well known products.  I have had enough of Panda as well, because I have seen this cause as many problems.

          I like AVG, I wasn’t that great a fan before last September when I took on a client with the network version of AVG on 50 PC’s and it works really well.  For home users though I recommend BullGuard as it comes with some on-line back up space.

           

        • #3213226

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by norman young ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          This report is exactly what I have found over the last 12 months and now suggesting, my users use Windows Defender and Windows Onecare

          Wiht these two in place the system seems to have far better response network and Internet access times

          Regards

           

           

        • #3213225

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by badferret ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve got toagree. The lads who developed the early Nortans AV did good, those that followed have somehow lost the plot. The first thing I do when I see system works is uninstall it. This tends to solve lots of problems. My hope is that MS will get the one care product together and I  nolonger have to use the now shaky NAV products.

        • #3213224

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by sandym ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone. I always thought Symantec software rocked, but SAV 10 corporate has given us nothing but trouble and continues to do so.

        • #3213221

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mfarlie ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m about to dump Systemworks from the last 2 of my machines.  A scan of 150GB disc takes over 4 hours and I lose control.  Even shutting it down is difficult.  System maintenance tasks should be background and have a light footprint – Symantec has lost its charms.

          Nor does LiveUpdate work reliably forcing me to download the definitions separately and leaving a neophyte user that I support vulnerable because she cannot use this method.

          And I dumped Ghost after it became implicated in a badly failed SP2 update that obliged me to reinstall Windows.

          There are good alternatives available so Symantec should look to its laurels before there is a mass revolt.

        • #3213220

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by johan ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Same things seen here. On several occasions Internet Security blocking internet access although it was set up not to. Removal of the same is is a pain. Needs a lot of work and a throughout registry cleaning. Cleaning also involved removal of several worms and trojans. not detected by Symantec IS. Am I missing something? I would not expect this from a market leading product.
          Johan

        • #3213219

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bphill ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You?re not the only one.   I make decent money rebuilding systems after Symantec has its way.  I would like to get more of the users before they spend $70+ dollars talking to Rashid at Symantec tech support though.   But, I rebuild it one way or the other most time.  I remember Norton Utilities ver 1, when Peter Norton probably wrote the code himself.  It was beautiful.

        • #3213215

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by r.knol ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone. One of the first questions I ask when customers have problems is: Do you have Norton Antivirus installed? If yes, I advice them to deinstall it. Most of the times it helps solve the problem.

        • #3213213

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by glenb ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No you cetainly are not alone, I myself have also taken to using AVG for the home users and sophos for corporate.

          I have found time after time that there are more problems caused by Norton Internet security and Antivirus in slowing systems down then ever before.

        • #3213212

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by geoff.carter ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Interestingly I have just had to delete Symantec antivirus from my PC and then re-install it (it is a corporate PC).  The main error that exhibited was when I right clicked on a file (to check Properties or Send To etc.), before allowing me to perform the action symantec would try and re-install itself.  I eventually went through Control Panel and tried to get it to repair itself – only to receive a ‘fatal error’ message.  This only left me the option of deleting and re-installing which (30 mins after doing it) appears to have worked.  I can only assume that the software knotted its knickers while doing an upgrade as nothing else had been changed on the system.

        • #3213210

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by brunolopez ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I am full agreement with John Sheesley’s comments. I have similar
          disastrous experiences with Norton Symantec. Additional functionalities
          of Norton have the art of turning otherwise fast running PCs into
          crawling machines gasping for CPU cycles and Ram. Fellow IT Technicians
          I know tend to shy away from it too. Once bitten, forever…

          Yet, in fairness there was a time (long long time) when Norton
          Anti-virus was a very performing product, doing just what it said on
          the tin. I remember those with a certain fondness. I fear though it has
          grown too big for its boots. Supreme irony is that although it started
          life as an anti-virus it is doing a rather poor job at catching them! I
          too recommend AVG 7.0. Much cheaper (free license if you qualify) with
          now an antispyware! Still better a Norton you know than having a PC
          without an  antivirus programme.

          Bruno Lopez
          Middlesex University IT Support Helpdesk

        • #3213209

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by kaysveistrup ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here Hello John. I have to totally agree with your observations. I own and run a small computer shop and over the past 18 months there has been an increasing amount of people come in complaining their  computers are running slow. The main culprit is “NORTON”. I have installed AVG into computers fully updated with Norton and as soon as the basic version is in, it is finding Trojans, Diallers etc that Norton is not finding. Norton was at one time a must for computers especially the system works, but I have lost total faith in Norton and I now too recommend AVG to my customers and instal it on computers that get reloaded. Why pay for something that doesn’t do the job as a freebie, which can be upgraded to the Professional version for similar costs and have support provided too.

          Mr Kay Sveistrup

        • #3213202

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by p4t ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are not alone…

          I am also encountering similar problems with Symantec software.  The problems seem to arise after updating 2005 versions to 2006 but this is not limited to updated versions as I am dealing with Symantec issues on new laptops with 2006 pre-installed!  With a company of this size and formerly good reputation I find it difficult to believe that the product was not thoroughly tested prior to release which leaves me wondering….  Why…?

          Regards,

          Patrick

        • #3213201

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by brett ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m Director of Tech Support for a small ISP in the Santa Cruz Mountains next to the Silicon Valley. Ditto on everything you said. Symantec products have been an absolute disaster for the last 2 years or so. I”ve had to reformat hard drives on two of my own computers after “automatic Liveupdates” from Symantec. At least 150 of my clients have reported serious problems with Norton AV, Systemworks, or their security suite, ranging from serious system slowdowns to corrupted and trashed hard drives. Bloatware grabbing excessive system resources. I also had to return their “partition magic” program after it failed to do its job on 6 (!!!) different drives! Seems it doesn’t like hidden sectors like the boot sectors found on Dell computers or any of severel USB drives I own. Intolerable for a $70 program.

          I too loved Norton Utilities and AV in the past, and used them on hundreds of computers in the past. But now I routinely remove all their products from all my computers (even when they come pre-installed on commercially made computers) and replace them with programs like Avast! AV, Spybot S&D, and Registry Mechanic from PCTools. I also recommend to my 2500 ISP clients that they do the same.

        • #3213199

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jhawkn2001 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve had the same Problems !

          I used to be a Die-Hard Symantec Fan – Norton Anti-Virus used to be the Best there was ! Always Quick to get a Fix Out when the Virus & Worm makers would do their Dirty Work !

          Norton Utilities was a Master of Fixing the Woes of Microsoft’s messy Code & pathetic Defrag !

          Norton Internet Security was as Good as You’d Want for a Software Firewall.

          But Last Year – when I tried to Update my subscription to Norton . . . all I had was problems – after Problems !

          Then it started to not even acknowledge My License ? I couldn’t get LiveUpdate to do it’s behind the scene thing ?

          Finally – Totally Frustrated w/ Norton’s lack of Help to Fix the problem – I completely removed it from My PC & installed AVG complete w/ Firewall ! ! !

          Having bought a so called SmartPhone & not wanting to see Norton Muck that Up – I bought a copy of DefenderPro & installed it on my New PC & SmartPhone ! I’ve been very happy w/ the Interface & the way everything operates ! Lots of good Utilities on DefenderPro – just like Norton Utilities used to have. I still have my copy of AVG handy – if I need it.

          Now – I tell people to stear away from Norton – just because of the Problems I’ve had & know other Friends have experienced Problems, too !

        • #3213194

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by daniel king ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No you’re not alone! Like you I’ve been loyal to Symantec/Norton since the days of Norton Utilities. I have four PCs running at home, each with Norton Internet Security – They’re progressively slowing down! I’m going to have to find another solution soon, something that doesn’t require me to answer support calls from my wife & kids while I’m at work…

        • #3213191

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ali40961 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No ur not alone. i gave up on Symantec somewhere between 2003 -2004. Got fed up with all the issues!

        • #3213190

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by sherwinf ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I am in total agreement! I have not recommended Symantec Products for a year. And it is impossible to to get support. I used to look to Symantec for help in discovering and removing a virus infection, but with all the helpful sites out there this is no longer needed. And, the database yeilds poor and incomplete results. It is diffcult for a company to outlive it’s own success. Perhaps Symantec has a hard time remembering how is got to be so big in the first place. If I were in charge at Symantec, I would get a panel of people from the “real” world to see how our company is doing for the consumer…the TRUE board of directors.

        • #3213188

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by in2cpus ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been using Symantec programs for 15 plus years. as of this far I have only had problems with systemworks premier 2005. when i installed systemworks premier 2005 my pc went into a crawl and this version had too many problems updating maintaining and keeping the liveupdate in working order. I had to uninstall and reinstall systemworks premier 2005 3 times to corrrect the update problems. this is what symantec tech support told me. this was a common problem with this version. It does seem that since windows xp versions came out that symantec products slows the computers down to a crawl and/or seem to take longer for the pc’s to boot up and get a desktop.
          Other than that, symantec products in my years of experience have found, corrected and prevented more problems than any other version I have tested or used in the last 15 years. if memory serves me correctly Mcafee had the slowing resources and boot up problems about 4 years ago. now symantec seems to have picked up the bug. I agree Trends online scanner has found viruses and such on computers that had the antivirus infected to prevent detection and performing any and all updates to the antivirus software. Also AVG seems to be a realiable antivirus solution.    

        • #3213187

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by a_fairb ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve used Symantec software consistently for the past 8 years.  I agree completely.  They have added more and more “helpfull” features over the years untill the whole thing just grinds to a halt. I recommend AVG to anyone who asks.  Its quick simple and has never let me down.  As for System Works I have found it to be completely invaluable – provided you never install it!  Run from the cd it is my standard first step in the de-bug process.  Installed it is a major drain on resources for little extra benefit.  Once again a software vendor needs to learn to do better, not more.

        • #3213185

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by sebastian zdrojewski ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have used Symantec NortonAntivirus Corporate edition time ago (couple of years), uninstalled it after really bad time and computers slowed down to make an old 386 be overstanding compared to new generation computers. Actually each time I got a new computer with Norton Security installed over it I was getting headache and uninstalled it immediately, replacing it with TM or anything else, asking also my vendors to stop preinstalling it on the computers we are getting at work. I use AVG at home and I am really satisfied with its work. Constant security leaches on NAV suites are not helping as well. I hope the other products Symantec is acquiring (like BackupExec) won’t follow the steps NAV did since it was born.

        • #3213184

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by goofytek ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Very true Symantec has been going downhill since 2003 versions
          That is why I only use Norton utilities 2003 version only & do not recommend any other Symantec Software
          except GHOST 2003 as well, stay away from all others since 2003 versions,
          Grisoft AVG 7.0 is a big winner as it was first at looking inside compressed Files, zipped etc,
          that is why Norton was letting items through it could not detect nside ZIP’s
          once that is explained all users can accept Best to look inside Compressed files & locate ALL baddies
          PerfectDisk & VoptXP are biggest winners in defragmenting especially for XP users, Norton speedisk was ok
          with Windows98/ME only but looser with NT/2000/XP
          Best Firewall winner is FREE Zone alarm, for many years now,
          Anti malware looks like Ewido is coming in strong against Windows Defender, but its upto latest Updates
          that is why we all have 3 versions Lavasoft Adaware SE Personal as well,
          Grisoft AVG 70 auto updates is Biggest winner as do not have to remind all to keep Updated antivirus,
          byee Retired Techie Keith

        • #3213182

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by the_m0nk ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John,

          You’re not alone in your thingking, I work for a large Multi-National Distributor based in the UK. We sell NAV among others and I share your pain.

          I was given a NFR (Not For Resale) copy of NAV2006. A frien said that he did not have an AV solution, so I gave this to him after being convinced by the Symantec PM that this is the bee’s knees. After reinstalling XP SP2on my friends laptop, I now reccomend AVG and ZoneALarm. And yes, the last good thing to come from Norton is Norton PCTools. I still have my oringinal disks.

        • #3213181

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by swampdoc ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No you are not! I have had Internet Security Suite mess up small networks and internet connections that I care to think about. We recently ran into problems with the new ersion of PCAnywhere that required me to uninstall and downgrade to get a version that would work. I still like the Corp Edition for larger networks but have started using McAfee and AVG for single PC’s and small networks. Nortons used to be the standard to benchmark against, now it is becoming the standard for how to ship badly coded and designed software (move over MS).

        • #3213179

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by russcarpe ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are not alone. I’ve had some of the same issues  as you mentioned especialy with the Norton System Works. Also I was using AVG but now I am testing the Windows Live One Care.

        • #3213177

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by vetch_101 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec are frustrating on numerous levels, one of the most annoying
          being the hypocrasy with which they supply a registry cleaner in
          Systemworks which claims to fix registry errors left by other
          organisations broken uninstalls, but are completely incapable of
          providing a decent uninstaller for their own application.
          Another is the fact that their “One button checkup” regularly throws up
          errors that when you look them up on the web, actually turn out to be
          false postives.
          The final straw for me was when I found a laptop that had a memory leak
          when updating its parental control feature of Internet Security. The
          Live Update application was taking 2GB of memory on a 512MB machine. We
          resolved it by disabling the parental control feature since it wasn’t
          being used and the update proceeded normally. Nevertheless, was
          demonstrably shoddy coding and enough to guarantee that I will never
          recommend Symantec to anyone, ever…
          Incidentally, it seems to be one of the most detested applications in
          TechRepublic’s discussion of “Worst Software I ever used” (unsurprisingly really;)

        • #3213175

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tnathan ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John,

           

          You are far from alone. I started noticing this trend a few years ago as Symantec started integrating more and more features into their anti-virus. My first problem was with the integrated Office Add-in that would scan a Word or Excel document when you opened it. I was probably fixing this at least once a week. About a year and a half ago, I gave up completely on Symantec. I now use Trend almost exclusively for my clients. It loads without requiring a reboot and is much more easily centrally managed, again not requiring a reboot on the server to install. If you have ever tried Norton corporate edition, you know what I mean.

          I think this is a systemic problem at Symantec and gives me great pause now that they have purchased Veritas. I recommend Veritas Backup Exec to all of my clients if they are using it for local backups. By keeping a common platform, it makes my life much easier. But now, I may have to investigate new software that won’t slow the server down to a crawl or just break for no given reason.

          Ted

        • #3213172

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by elecates ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree we have had all kinds of problems with the Quick Scans even though they were not supposed to run we had to make registry setting changes to ensure they did not run. I too am an avid Symantec fan but am now starting to look at other solutions for the business.

        • #3213169

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by petergooding ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Yes, I have been having huge problems with NAV corporate edition. On one computer in particular, when a Word document is opened over the network (file does not necessarily have to be resident on our file server, it can be on another workstation), the computer slows right down. When I type something into the document, the letters show up 10 seconds later. If I move the mouse in the meantime, the cpu useage climbs to 50% and the letters show up much much later. If I disable NAV, the problem is minimized or even disapears. I have tried to google this problem but it seems that there is nothing else documented about this issue.

          Peter

        • #3213168

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rdubrey ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No, this bloatware has caused alot of trouble for me as well.   I work on servers for Point of Sale systems.  Well not really servers but that is what they function as.   Symantec Bloatware Antivirus takes a system that is running reasonable well and makes it a dog in need of a memory upgrade.   The change in speed on these systems are marked and drastic in many cases.   I understand they are trying to cover alot of territory with their software to try and protect systems.   Can’t we make this stuff run in a smaller footprint?

           

          Rob

        • #3213166

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tgo ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve given up on Symantec.  Currently I use the ZoneAlarm virus scanner and spam scanner, supplemented by Spybot and Lavasoft.  The utilities are not worth the expense.

        • #3213160

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by gigs ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

          I can’t speak on any experiences with the Norton Anti Virus, we have have been using Syamantec Corporate Edition for years, and have been quite pleased with it. Live Updates run well (and often), and are pushed out with no problems. Systems do bog down a little when the updates are being applied, but only for a minute or two.

        • #3213159

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by leisure_suit ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I work in a large university and we also have a lot of problems with Symantec software. It seems that they have gotten away from their core competency. They acquried a lot of other companies over the last few years and then throw everything together and hope that it works. (Full disclosure here: Symantec did LAY OFF my sister in law about 5 yrs ago! when she worked for them)

        • #3213158

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jrevier ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have the same feelings. Many database apps have a problem with the password manager. 2 that we use here in my office allow you to log in but behind the scenes block adding someething to the DB of cause apps not to be put to the screen with tout an SQL error.  

        • #3213156

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by calais_norman ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m in total agreement that there is something amiss with Symantec. The software has always been a resource hog, but the tradeoff was worth it most times. Now it is a problem because being a resource hog out of the box doesn’t leave much overhead to deal with problems that the software creates and then takes over your remaining resources.

          And if that isn’t bad enough, their licensing practices and related customer support have become terrible, especially when upgrading one of their product suites. I know of 3 people who have upgraded and then haven’t been able to activate and get updates. A call to support costs money, but using their chat support is often a lesson in futility. You go back and forth with a support tech trying different things to find a resolution and after an hour you are still nowhere. And while I definitely appreciate someone trying to help me, it is frustrating as hell to be unable to resolve a problem of this type since it seems fairly obvious that this is not a new problem. It seems that when you register your product number with your first product, it is all good. When you upgrade though, you get a new product number (which of course is different than the one they have on record from your first purchase). When you go to register your upgrade, the two keys don’t match and you get an error. The tech provided a tool that was supposed to clean the old product number out of the registry, but it didn’t work on my XP box even though it ran without error.

          Even a compete uninstall\reinstall didn’t work.

          I now have a retail version of Internet Security that I purchased from Sam’s Club that I cannot use and the only option I have is tp pay to get a live tech on the phone and hope they can help me before the phone bill runs crazy.

          Yes, that is indeed frustration and, yes, I am looking at other options!

        • #3213153

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by fxh125 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

           I have suspected Norton to be the cause of many issues on my computer.  Beside running slower than it used to, there is spyware and a virus that Norton has not detected and has run amuck on my computer.  This is not the first time a virus has damaged my computer with Noron installed on it either.  Having to buy other software seems to be the only recourse, making the Norton software a BIG waste of money and time.

        • #3213151

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by joe_carton9 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I had the same problems with Symantec. In fact, I no longer sell their products because of the problems. 

        • #3213145

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by k.schwarzenegger ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree, I’ve seen more and more problems with Symantec. Like you, I do consulting as a way to keep my finger on the pulse of business. I am likewise advising my clients to steer clear of Symantec products. This is becomming troublesome as Symantec seems to be gobbling up other utility software like Partition Magic, which was the jewel of partition utilities.

           

          Karl Schwarzenegger

          Dept. Chair, Computer Technologies Dept.

          SUNY Cobleskill 

        • #3213142

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by deltectechs ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec 10, oops 10.01, oops, 10.02, oops 10.1.

          We had a recurring problem with Symantec 10 that would cause another users home folder to be accessible by another user if the user only logged out.  It was a known issue with the new ‘quick scan’ feature.  They told us we would have to update to 10.0.1 service release to fix the problem.  We followed their advice because we have several ‘general location PC’s’ where multiple people logged in.  We started to notice over time that we had to reenter several registry fixes on a per user basis in order for it to work for all of the users.  We were then told that if we upgraded to 10.0.2 we could change the ‘quick scan’ settings from the console.  We then upgraded to 10.0.2 for this feature and still continued to have some problems with it.  Finally they released 10.1 and it appears to be stable for now, but it is still a very serious resource hog for low-end PC’s. Did I mention that one of our client sites that did the 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.1 upgrade path had approximately 70 PC’s?  We have another client that has PC’s that only need Telnet access for their Line of business application.  We keep Anti-virus on it for network or Internet borne virus. Take a windows 2000 PC with their LOB app that runs fine on 128 MB RAM and Symantec 8.6 and upgrade the Symantec 10.1 and you start needing more RAM and more than likely a computer upgrade because of the cost/availability of EDO/PC133 RAM.  Thanks Symantec…………………..  Don’t even get me started on what they have managed to do to a great product like Backup Exec since acquiring Veritas in the amount of time it takes to release only 1 version.  We are also serious considering changing our recommendation for A/V software.  McAfee with their ‘pay for access to our pathetic knowledge base’ isn’t a good idea either.  One thing about Symante A/V is usually when you encounter a problem with their software, at least it’s a known issue with a fix already identified, or in the works. 

        • #3213139

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rob ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone. I’ve also seen Symantec becoming “bloatware.” Why do so many companies try to expand beyond their core competance? Norton Disk Doctor, Spped Disk, and more recently WinDoctor were indispensable utilities. Perhaps by dumbing down the software and making it automatic and usable by the masses it became part of the problem instead of the solution. I still purchase System Works to use WinDoctor. However, I do a selective install, use the utility, and then UNINSTALL when I’m done. Symantec, are you listening?

        • #3213135

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rorygrubb ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I absolutely agree.  I have been having the same types of problems for some time now.  I’m glad to see someone else acknowledgeing the problem in such a respected forum.

        • #3213131

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by honeycutt ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Can anyone tell me examples of products that *improved* after being purchased by Symantec?

          Mike Honeycutt

        • #3213130

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by dbryce ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

          Nope, you are not alone.

          While, I expect with the number of different software packages and different configuration all installed differently and configured different, any software package could have problems especailly protection software. 

          However I see more problems with symatec than most, mcafee is not much better.  When I get that wierd, unexplainable problem and norton is installed, I will isable it or down right uninstall it.  It is amazing how many time this will fix the problems and how much faster the machines run.  To top it off Nortons Firewall is a horible interface for the end-user who wants file and print sharing but to be protected. 

          Like you my recommendation is AVG, TrendMicro’s PC-Cillin or CA’s eTrust.   

        • #3213129

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by chuck ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have recent experinces also. Clients whose email or Internet Explorer stop working – uninstall Norton and they start working. AVG is good.

        • #3213127

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by m_hornbeck ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been seeing the same thing, I thought that it was just the web download version but the retail cd was the same.

        • #3213126

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by markh927 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone.  I have Norton Internet Security.  Over the past several weeks it has had trouble updating itself.  It keeps saying I’m in need of performing an update but when I click to update, it just sits there.  I have no trouble getting to the internet and my Windows updates work just fine.  Other times it will begin the update process but it then seems to “hang”.  It takes over the system at that point, not letting me abandon the task, reboot or shutdown until it has completed its task.  In one instance I let it keep my machine at bay for an entire day, it never completed.

        • #3213124

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by wrackley ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree with you 100%.  A few years ago (more than few actually), Symantec Norton AV saved the day at my site.   We were using McAfee and it “allowed” us to infect our clients with our contract deliverable documents.  The switch to Symantec solved the issues and it became the standard for the entire corporation.  Because of the issues you mention, and the rising costs, the corporation switched to Trend Micro.  We are very satisfied with that change.

           

           

        • #3213122

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by genes89 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I completely agree. The problem is that even the others create probems from time to time. Unfortunatly, the one that seems to work best is the one that home and small business users can’t afford – Symantec Corporate Anti-virus. Using your own update server make the process much smoother. I get angrier and angrier with needing to use security software at all.

        • #3213121

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by briwlls ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree 100%.

          Another issue with the software is the bloat, huge install files with equally large footprints.

          I also install AVG for the home user on a budget, and Nod32 for Small Business and the home user who’s willing to pay a little money for a good product.

          I think these companies are spending their R&D dollars on lawyers to sue Microsoft instead of focusing on making a good product.

        • #3213119

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by dstaub ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I stopped using Symantec software a year and a half ago for the same reasons. I actually found that Trojans had an impressive ability to display the gif image of files being scanned when you launch the virus scanner. This gives the impression that the scanner is working, however on closer inspection I noticed it wasn’t even reading the hard drive! I have encountered many problems simular to the updater one you mentioned in your article. But on a different note, Symantec software has become very intrusive and bloated on systems, it gets deep into the registry and is quite tedious to remove manually. I discovered AVG with a lucky Google search and the rest is history.

        • #3213116

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by chisel ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are not alone. As a fulll time On site Technician I see this all the time. I recommend AVG as well as Avast for home and Business users. I have had little problems with these programs and find them in cases better then mcafee and Nortons. I think this is another case of a company getting so large they have lost focus and think that people will buy their product no matter what. Nortons 2006 is even worse then Nortons 2005 and so it goes…

        • #3213110

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mnedrow ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Sadly I feel the same way as you do John. I have “pleasant” memories of how wonderful Norton Utilities was and over the years I have recommended Symantec products extensively. I can’t, unfortunately, say that anymore. If I see Symantec on a computer I know that it is a very likely culprit in any problem. Symantec needs to either start over, or close up shop.

        • #3213108

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by wmlundine ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Yes John….yes as far as I am concerned you are alone and while I agree with a lot of what you have said (like AVG for home users) I seriously doubt your unsubstantiated complaint about SystemWorks. Starting around 2004 security vendors have been adding features (ostensibly to attract users) and end up overloading system resources but that is not just Symantec! OneCare is not the answer (unless users want less autonomy) and I would not call any Symantec product  “shoddy”. Users need to learn how not to try to stuff 125lbs of malware protection into a lightweight computer (and no…I am in no way affiliated with Symantec…I just disagree!)

        • #3213101

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by btyng ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I think you are right.  I’ve been using Norton Antivirus for years, regularly updating to the latest version.  I bought the three user Antivirus 2006 software and on one of the machines (the newest XP machine) it runs antivirus but constantly fails to install some of the software updates, fortunately the antivirus files update without incident.  The error is LU1812.  Re-installation (three times) hasn’t fixed it and Symantec tech support is stumped.  This wouldn’t have happend a couple years ago. 

        • #3213098

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by johnnyt ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          These issues aren’t totally new with Symantec Software.  We have seen multiple problems with legacy apps when Symantec products are installed  and, most recently, we discovered that PcAnywhere does not, and apparently will not ever, support modems over a USB connection.  This includes modems with a usb interface and those accessed via usb to serial adapter. 

          Let me add that the Trend Micro PCCillin product has caused it’s share of difficulties as well.  Most recently I found it was bringing a local system to a halt after the user made a connection to a remote Citrix host over TCP/IP.  On another occassion, I found that Trend was keeping a desktop Win XP system from booting at all.  The desktop would blue screen when the system was booting.  In each case,  a Trend Micro PcCillin “auto-update” apparently caused the problem.

        • #3213096

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by popkat ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec was installed on both my computer and the one my husband uses for his homebased retail business.  When we did an update about a year ago, both of our systems crashed.  After going through the hassle of removing the Symantec software and installing another protection package, we are not having any problems and our systems are secure.  If anyone asks us what protection software to use, we definitely tell them to avoid Symantec.  

        • #3213095

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by catlawson ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

          I have seen Symantec running with QuickBooks installed bring the system to a crawl.  Uninstall Symantec and all is well.

        • #3213094

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by n.bowness ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No your right! I have helped out two people in the past 5 days who upgraded to NIS2006 via download it sent their machines haywire, gave no warning that they should uninstall previous versions and failed to do this automatically as part of the installation process…configuring it was a nightmare for them, they gave up and called me, it blocked their internet connections, on the older machine everything slowed to a crawl and on both occassions it took ages and many restarts and a lot of work to purge their systems of it….they were VERY unhappy having forked out $60 + for this and Symantec were not helpful from their perspective….once I got rid of it, I swtiched on the XP Firewall, installed AVAST Anti Virus, Windows Defender and Ewido along with Spybot 1.4 and AdAware which cost them nothing! Bear in mind that both people already had a previous version of NIS on their machines with up to date definitions, you can imagine their horror to find that AVAST detected several Trojans during a boot scan and Ewido even found a Key Logger! Needless to say, in a follow up call a few days later both clients were expressing how delighted they were especially with AVAST and EWIDO and they are both dealing with their Credit Card Companies to get the money they wasted on Symantec back..

          Symantec products used to be great but now there is ‘freeware’ and other rival products out there that do the job better they need to get their act together….clients want something that works and is free/cheap they don’t care about ‘integrated’ suites….

        • #3213086

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by junkmail9999 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          These products have been crap for years and continue to get worse with every major release.  We remove all Symantec products from our clients computers without exception (unless they refuse).

        • #3213079

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by megasurfer ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I used to think that Norton was the best, but over the last few years I have had all of the problems you discussed plus some. New versions of Norton AV, or Symantec IS use outrogous amounts of system resources, and very rarely protect the computer from the threats that they are suppose to protect from. When Norton gets “broken” if you could just uninstall it that would be fine, but NO. It hardly ever uninstalles properly. So that means either redooing Windows, which just the mention of freeks most people out because of the task of reinstalling all of there programs and getting everything back the way they had it,or manualy uninstalling it, which is neither easy or quick. I have taken to recomending AVG Anti Virus to home users. People who are a little more computer savy and want something more robust, I recomend Panda Platinum Internet Security. It protects a system from all types of internet threats, and does a very good job. The only problem that I have had with it involved the fire wall, but I have never used a firewall that I haven’t had quirky problems with occasionally.

        • #3213077

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tpsnyder ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Trend is not the answer, we went there when symantec released the 9.0 version of their corp antivirus product and have come crawling back.  The consumer versions of Symantec products, especially systemworks, are really bad.  However, Symantec Corp 10.1 is a good release.  They got rid of the licensing lockdown introduced in 9, so it works a lot more like 8.0 (which was a very good release) and the antispyware component works reasonably well.  You need to spend time making sure you really know how to deploy the product.  We just had one engineer spend three days doing nothing else but developing a S.O.P. for deployment and he found some things which 10 of us, with 90+ yrs combined exp., did not know – you really really want to be sure you know how exclusions are set, what exclusions are required, what causes settings to propogate and what does not.  However, having done that we are now managing 2000 desktops across 40 clients and just do not have virus or spyware problems to speak of.  We only use the basic antithreat (virus / spyware) engine, we don’t use the firewall or anything else.

          Tom Snyder, COO, Xantrion Inc.

        • #3214070

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mpatton ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John, I think you may be late to the party.  I reached that very conclusion a decade or more ago, and things have only gotten worse since.  In my estimation, Symantec is still alive only because they have mass and momentum, and that is the same for Microsoft.  I agree with you on Trend – they have yet to let me down.

          Mike Patton

        • #3214056

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by dkroger9 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Why are so many people misusing the word ‘anymore’. ‘Anymore’ is intended to be used as part of an expression of negation. “We don’t sell bananas anymore.” Also, if you look in most dictionaries, ‘anymore’ is not listed. If it is listed, it is usually refered to as slang for ‘any more’. If you intend a positive use, then use ‘nowadays’.

        • #3214055

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by pro1200 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m an IT Pro by day and spend a lot of time nights and week-ends helping friends, relatives, and neighbors with PC problems.  From my experience, the last good Symantec product was NAV 2003, anything newer than that is guaranteed to cause problems.  I too have switched to AVG.

        • #3214049

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by popkat ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec was installed on both my computer and the one my husband uses for his homebased retail business.  When we did an update about a year ago, both of our systems crashed.  After going through the hassle of removing the Symantec software and installing another protection package, we are not having any problems and our systems are secure.  If anyone asks us what protection software to use, we definitely tell them to avoid Symantec.  

        • #3214048

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by azcomplady ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been experiencing the same problems for about a year now. Several of my customers have complained to Symantec (when they could find a phone number that would connect them to a real human being!). They have had their money returned with no questions asked. It seems they know they have a problem, but I’ve seen no solutions. I, too, have been referring my home users and small business customers to AVG. I always used to recommend the Norton products, but not any more.

        • #3214041

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by harv ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Like you, I was a Nortonn’s user since the late 80s.  Last November, I switch to Mcafee because my system was slow.  A couple of weeks ago, however Macaffee downloaded an update and my computer may have the same problem.

        • #3214040

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by basil.cinnamon ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Yeah, John! Let’er rip.  I’ve had nightmarish problems supporting a couple of dozen users over the years, and the vast number of the problems has been tied to Norton AntiVirus.

          One particular malefactor is Symantec’s event manager. This has been a problem since about version “minus 99”, and I had been posting it on Symantec’s (formerly Norton’s) site for years, with no resolution.  Basically, about 1/3 of the time one did a Live Update or just downloaded the definitions updater and ran it, the system would hang, crash, not boot or start NAV properly, or conflict with other software.  I have had to remove and reinstall many hundreds of times, about every 5th time or so on any one machine.  On 12/20/04 they issued an update of symevnt that included two files (S32evnt1.dll and Symevnt.386) that really destroyed PCs.  What I now do is to perform a Live Update (or download definitions), then replace those two files with the older ones (timestamped 12/20/04 6:58 PM) to get it to work. But caution: they had two versions time stamped the same 12/20/04 date but with different times.

          Another “feature” is that running LU or updating the definitions does not always replace the registry keys correctly, particularly the ones under HKLM\Software\Symantec\SharedDefs, such that on startup one gets the famous “unable to initialize the antivirus engine”.  I now recognize that problem when it happens, and go directly to edit those keys.

          As well, they have added a couple of components recently, generally SAVRT*.*, that cause tremendous conflicts with all manner of other software;  I usually have to edit the registry to remove them from startup, in the \VXD key.

          It is also the case that “removal” is anything but.  It leaves all kinds of entries in the registry, which I have to remove by search-and-destroy tactics, even after using their NAV removal tool.

          I have recently migrated over to AVG, which is good but lacks some user features that NAV has (like easy scanning of specific files) , so in some machines I carry on with NAV until it is no longer tenable.  

          Bottom line, Symantec has become a dynosaur and not paid attention to the numerous complaints of its customers, and for that they will reap the whirlwind.

        • #3214033

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jjarzabek ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          We got rid of Symantec years ago.  After running into a licensing renewal issue not to mention numerous viruses getting through we just had enough!  Since then, we have been with Trend Micro and have had no issues.  Symantec always seemed more like a “residential” grade software similar to AOL.  It never works the way it is supposed to, updates either take way to long or don’t happen at all, and most of all – the software is “consistently inconsistent” – one day it is working, the next day you need to uninstall to reinstall…  I honestly don’t think symantec cares.  We complained to them for years.  The tech support was a joke then and from what I’ve heard still is today.  All the people I know that run Norton software all have speed issues with their PC’s not to mention pop problems and other “bizarre” behavior due to worms and trojans that go undetected.

        • #3214029

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rcking4 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here I do not know if you have tried the new GHOST v10 (previously Driveimage by Powerquest) the have screwd it up so badly that it take at least twenty minutes(20) or longer to load the recovery disk. Also  bought their internet security it slowed the system to almost a door stop. I had to remove it. It seem that they also have another backup and restore program that is excatly like GHOST. It seems to do the same things. I must agree with you I now use Trend Pc-cillin and AVG.

          Randolph

        • #3214027

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by darl ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

        • #3214016

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by merctech ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John, I have to reluctantly agree. Being an old school tech, I was
          firmly in the Peter Norton is god camp. However, Symantec has slowly
          but surely turned all of the great Norton utils into bloatware.
          Although I have remained a strong proponent of Internet Security, it is
          becoming impossible to ignore all of the problems I have encountered in
          the last couple of years. Presently, I have a network that has been
          broken by the upgrade installation of System Works 2006 over NIS 2005.
          Now the peers cannot see that computer until a computer search from the
          upgraded computer has located the peers. It seems that the firewall,
          that no longer exists, is still blocking peer access. It’s getting real
          hard to justify remaining Symantec loyal. I installed the latest
          version of AVG Free yesterday, by client request, and I was pleasantly
          surprised how complete and well designed it was. Thanks for at least
          trying to send $ymantec a wakeup call.

        • #3214015

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by deepiper9 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No, your not alone. I am not disillusioned with it, but I have had my share of problems with it running on Exchange server. On more than one occasion I have an exchange server stop working, and the culprit has been Symantec. An update didn’t process or something, who knows. It couln’t access the update server, didnt process a signature file or update or whatever. What a pain.

        • #3214013

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by pete ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Wow, I could have written this! It used to be spyware that would cause my clients’ computers to slow down or not even function, but lately it’s been Symantec’s SystemWorks.

          You didn’t even mention how the Symantec Firewall will often block basic usage of the Internet no matter what the settings are.

          I’m now recommending ESET NOD32 as it has a small footprinte, updates daily, and is less expensive.

        • #3214012

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by gonephishing ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          If you’re assuming that the service you’re getting from Symantec is just as good as every other vendor, please revisit that assumption. You can get better antivirus protection and more system stability at a lower cost from almost any other vendor.

        • #3214007

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by dan aquinas ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          It seems that many, but not all, software companies as they grow change from offering good products, solving problems at a fair price to a  more marketing driven approach, endlessly repackaging their “stable of products” trying to maximize their investment.  This change-over, to me, means less value and more confusion for the end user.  Sadly, in my estimation, Symantec has become a prime example of this type of change.  I have used many of their products over the years, starting with the must-have Norton Utilities, but have lost faith in their desire to deliver a technically superior product.  <aside>a current example of a superior product is “Beyond Compare” from Scooter Software, a tool that does its job in outstanding fashion at an extremely fair price.  I *wish* I could own some part of this company</aside>  It would be an interesting survey to see what quality rating a company receives compared to their revenue.

        • #3214005

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by j_t_c ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          My sentiments exactly! You could have written the post for me. I agree with you 100%, in fact just yesterday I had an issue where a simple upgrade to a management server turned out to be 2 reboots and an upgrade (again Symantec) later the system was back online. And that was on a lab interface server! Symantec has caused me grief on more occasions that I care to remember. I have been recommending AVG for over a year now and it has never let me down. When people come to me and say they have popups and slowdown issues, I first tell them to go to Trendmicro’s online scanner and then either purchase the full version, or go to download AVG for free. Most take the free AVG option, but they are getting a great product too! As far as System Works I have never been able to fully recommend the product, it slows down the machines and only causes headaches. I think the only thing that Symantec had in that package was the Undelete that was worth installing. Other than that it was garbage. I certainly don’t recommend Symantec after the whole Sony rootkit debacle. From what I researched on the web Sony and Symantec actually consulted on it. This may be just conspiracy theory, but it sure it believable. In a day when there are so many worms/viruses already we don?t need to have big business contributing to the problems. In short, I definitely do not recommend Symantec for AV software (or any software for that matter), which is a shame because they used to be the ones to count on for AV.   

        • #3213993

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by pumasight ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I install it daily on new computers for Circuit City customers and frankly its crap. It fails to install about 1 out of 4 times correctly and I have to use the symantec uninstall tool to get it off and try again. I see it screwing up all the time and slowing the computers to a crawl that people bring to me to fix. I can’t recommend AVG to customers since we dont sell it but I do use it at home myself. Even worse is McAfee, once it screws up you cant uninstall it and I havent found an uninstaller for it even from them. Trend at least has a emergency unistaller in their program folder. So far I have had no headaches with OneCare, even using the beta for a while on my machine.

        • #3213985

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jjohnson ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have the same isues with Norton, and I switched My customers and myself over to Trend Micro years ago.

          I also feel Norton’s is bloated junk, that eats up to many system resources.

            I recently had client, who after storm lost his internet connectivity.  The ISP verifyed that the there equipment was good and his wireless router seemed ok though a phone check.  In the end it was Norton Internet Security, that was causing the problem.  Parts of it had to be disabled for him to establish a Internet connection.

          Another client is still Norton’s Corporate edition.  After a report of a slow PC.  I fired up Process Explorer and discovered over 7 processes running related to Norton.  For some reason 1 process wanted to hog the CPU.

          I lost faith in Norton years ago.

          My Two cents worth

          John

          Nashville, TN

        • #3213983

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rboswell ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree with you completely.  I service a lot of corporate and government networks and I’ve been relying on Symantec for all my customers for years.  But, you’re right.  Lately I’ve had nothing but trouble.  I’ve always had my share of problems (like a user setting up his own computer on the network with a pre-installed version of Symantec AV and the network automatically installing the corporate Symantec AV client on top of it – this makes a big mess) but these days nothing seems to work right.  I’ve had two “simple” Symantec upgrades crash on me and cause me hours of work to straighten out.  Even the corporate defination update manager fails.  And with Symantec taking over my other staple software, Backup Exec, I’m really getting worried.

          Ronnie Boswell
          Advanced Computer and Network Services, Inc.

        • #3213977

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jjkreps ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Not at all. I, too, have had consistent problems with Symantec products on my own computer and on those of my customers. From my prospective, ever since Symantec bought out Peter Norton the quality of the programs has been on a steady decline. I have a file over two inches thick of information from their knowledge base on correcting various problems and with each new version this increases. In addition, Symantec tries to “own” your computer and is a real resource hog. Once you get Symantec on your system, it is almost impossible to completely remove it without a lot of registry editing. I currently refuse to install any Symantec product on my personal computer systems. For the last couple of years I have been moving my clients, friends, and family to either AVG or Panda Platinum Internet depending on their internet connection type and surfing habits.

        • #3213976

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bshellenbaum ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone. If a client’s machine is having internet related problems and they have Norton ‘Internet Security’ (very secure if they can’t access it), removing Norton always fixes their issue. I was recommending McAfee for the ease in keeping it up to date, but their latest ‘update’ has caused so much trouble, I went to AVG. After Windows 98 came out Norton was no longer ‘must have’ software, but became must avoid software. 

        • #3213972

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by krweston73 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are definately not alone. I haven’t used Symantec products in many years. The problem I see is computer magazines (PC Mag for one) conatanlty praise Symantec’s products in their reviews of competing products. I haven’t seen as many problems with Systemworks as I have with the antivirus and so called firewall they provide. 

          Here is a link to show what I mean Norton and McAfee are PCMags editors choice. Neither of these would I ever recommend nor use. While two of my favorites Trend and AVG aren’t ranked that highly? They worry to much about ease of use than true detection.

          http://www.pcmag.com/products/0%2C%2Ctqs%3D1BBE044D5854608250E276E34A2877A4B6779BA7%2C00.asp?action=newsimplequery&cid=&sid=1562&gridtitle=Search+Results&googlequery=q%3dantivirus%26start%3d0%26num%3d10%26mt823%3d21143&stpdinglp=1

        • #3213971

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by turtle ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been anoyed with Norton/Symantec for a long time -since the 286 days when they told me that it was too bad that norton utility would not run on a Dell 210 system. They started to make the utility so that it would not run off of floppies, Utilities need to be able to be small and pin point. Now it just trashes the system and it is almost imposable to remove from your system with out major surgry to the registry.

          Uninstalls should remove ALL traces of a program not just what they want to remove.

        • #3213969

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by paula ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are certainly correct on all of your asumptions with symantec software. I have had more problems with Norton than any other virus software, I have told all of my customers to stay away from Norton. It has done nothing but cost them more money in the long run. So with me I prefer McAfee. Anything is better then Norton’s.

           

          Paula
          Computer tutor & Web Site Design
          http://www.ctweb2001.com

        • #3213957

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rubmop ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          We ran Norton Internet Security throughout our network to take advantage of different types of protection bundled in one package. This helped as it was single point updating. We began encountering problems with Live Update and following Symantec’s support links led to a vicious circle and never resolved the problem. After reinstalling and going through the zillion trips to Live Update to install the layers of updates since our version came out, it would work for a while. The last straw was the program giving the Subscription Expired message when indeed it had not and the program not recognizing renewals done online. Symantec?s support on these issues was nonexistent and several unanswered emails led me to uninstall Norton from everything. I too installed AVG but my comfort level is marginal and there seems to be some overhead with it. When I see Symantec acknowledge their problems and third party reviewers say it has been fixed, I may revisit the possibility of giving it another chance.

        • #3213942

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by joedcook ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          It’s not just you John, I have had exactly the same experience and have
          also started recommending AVG for home users. I also have used Trend’s
          online scanner but since it installs an active X control it doesn’t
          work with some browsers. I haven’t been a fan of Symantec for a couple
          of years, but McAfee and Trend have also gotten pretty bad with their
          purchased solutions.  The biggest thing they need is a live help
          desk.  They make it so easy for you to order and give your credit
          card info and practically impossible to reverse the same when their
          software won’t install. They also have all gotten to where the software
          severely impacts system performance.  The biggest comment I get
          from customers when they replace one of the above with AVG is “Gosh for
          some reason my computer is a lot faster”.

          I started in this business in the early eighties and bought every book
          published under Peter Norton’s name. The current programs bearing his
          name bear little resemblance to the utilities that created the
          reputation they are coasting on. Peter Norton deserves better.

        • #3213927

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by billtomlin ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Dear John,

          I have been a systems administrator for over 6 years and I have been using Symantec software for a good amount of time now.  My experience has been that the corporate anti virus NAVCE is much easier to manage thatn the home user equivalents.

          That being said you must also have a technical support contract and call the support folks with a case and ask the guys on the front line which build number to use.  They will tell you the good build numbers.  They will even setup a download of the good builds for you to use. When I have stayed on the recomended only builds they are pretty rock solid.

          Not much help for the home user front but I thought I would add some information to the mix.

        • #3213906

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jhamblet ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No you are not alone in becoming disillusioned with it. Too many bugs, and it costs too much.

          I have several computers at home and currently run Norton / Symantec on all of them and have had

          various problems related to having Norton / Symantec installed. And their tech support sucks. When my

          Symantec subscriptions expire, I’m going to try something else, like maybe MS OneCare and see if it’s

          any better.

          John H

          Michigan

           

        • #3213901

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bkoritko ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Your not alone! For the last few years I have been advising against all Symantec Products except Anti-Virus. And since the release of Norton Anti-Virus 2005 I have been plagued with various problems as well. I now recommend AVG or Avast for home users. I also recommend AVG for my small business customers as the price is for a 2yr license it is a great deal and seems to do as good as Norton.

        • #3213843

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ab troubleshooter ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are not alone.  This weekend I had to repair two computers that were damaged by Symantec’s programs – The biggest culprit is the Internet Suite, and every year it gets worse.  I don’t recommend putting on anything past NAV 2003 to my clients.  I could go on forever about the problems that I found, but I think I’ll leave that to others.  The biggest problem is trying to re-install the program after a system crash – may times Symantec refuses to re-install.

        • #3213840

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mnleblanc ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been using Symantec products for about 7 years now in a networked environment of about 500 nodes.  I use Corporate Edition Anti-Virus, which has been quirky at times in terms of communication between the server and clients, but overall I am very satisfied with the product with regard to ease of deployment, updates, and reliability.  I also use Brightmail for anti-spam and find it to work quite well, as it has dramatically reduced the amount of junk that makes it to users’ mailboxes.  I have not had many false positives either.  I know user experience ultimately drives user opinion and my experience with Symantec’s products has been very good.

        • #3213834

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ljessup ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have had similar experiences with Symantec, specially System Works. The startup time on the machine became terrible. I finally un-installed it and the workstation never quite worked right after that. I cleaned the registry, I optimized and everything.

          I finally did what you did, and re-installed XP. I now use just Symantec anti-virus and Microsoft Defender for Spyware. OneCare looks like a good answer for those that don’t want to deal with multiple vendors.

        • #3213832

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by gscetr ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve seen a lot of the same issues, I’ve seen where they would try to update the software to a newer version and kablewy master, system dead as a door nail, no restarting, reformat time.  I just think that this bloated software is written into too many registry entries and the like and is like a big octopus that is taking the ship down (kind of like the kraken on the new Dead man’s chest Pirate Movie).  Anyhow, I think Peter Norton was a Genius but ever since he sold the utilities, it has gone downhill from there.

        • #3213828

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tuky ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I thought I was the only one!  I had always thought that Symantec
          was the way to go until I had problems with some adware at home. 
          SystemWorks kept identifying problems and then to solve them I had to
          look them up on their Web site.  For each problem there was a
          complicated set of manual instructions to eradicate the problem. 
          However, in each case after going through the instructions
          step-by-step, the problems could not be fixed.

          I tried a eval version of TrendMicro and all was taken care of…except
          I still had the incidious SystemWorks to deal with.  It took a lot
          of different tries but I am now rid of SystemWorks.  I’ve been
          using Trend ever since and it has been very nice – easy to use and
          effective.

        • #3213827

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by scohrs ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve noticed a tendency for Symantec software issues myself — but McAfee appears to be worse, which is a sad thing for someone who saw it become the premiere (FREE) antivirus product at one point. Now it’s a swamp — even experts can’t understand where the dialogs are coming from and they’re so busy trying to sell you a new subscription at every bootup that protectiong your system falls by the wayside.

          As to Symantec, I’ve re-installed LiveUpdate any number of times, and get weird errors saying my Outbreak Alert engine is broken — never anywhere where I could FIX it… Internet Security will suddenly decide to block an application without warning and without any visible recourse to get things going again… Normal users are up the creek without a paddle, since most of them have no idea what the warning dialogs mean in the first place — I know you’ve seen end users click through an important dialog box because it contained gobbledygook… a serious issue when that gobbledygook is a warning that the user needs to deny a threat access to their system. An application that every user should know and use must be SIMPLE, or it is a waste of time to install it! If it takes a tech to find the buried menu that restores access to Donkey Kong, it’s easier to uninstall the antivirus app (and the firewall) in the user’s mind…

        • #3213822

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jjohnson ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Well,  it seems many people feel the same about Symantec.

          I have had some clients question why I don’t like Symantec stuff.  They think NAV is the best!

          They have very little knowledge of how it will actually slow down your system.

          Like many people I have used many types of software.  I use to be a huge fan of Powerquest for there Partition magic and Drive Image.  Since Symantec bought them, I haven’t purchased or plan on purchasing an upgrade.  I am afraid to see how Symantec has f**cked it up.

          I once heard someone say;

          “Symantec, where good software goes to die!”

          When you think about it’s true.

          John

        • #3213808

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by skeene ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Unfortunately you are all too correct.  I have also noted a lot of problems coming out of the Symantec programs in the last year or so.  I have, in the past, sworn by Norton/Symantec but now find I am swearing at it.  I have had to remove and reload the programs on my office computer three (3) times because of failure or some part of the program “breaking”. I had, up until now, thought it was just me and I was getting too critical or expecting too much but I guess I’m not the only one that has noticed it.
          I have also received complaints from my friends and others that I help to support.  In fact it has on occassion been embarassing when I have suggested that get Symantec and they have experienced problems from it. I now just suggest they consider Symantec but also mention other programs that do similar protection.

        • #3213806

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jdaley_1999 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Same problem System works was slowing and locking my machine up constantly, and thier tech support sucks. I to switched to AVG

        • #3213797

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by colin carlile ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I recently purchased two Toshiba Satellite laptops that came with the McAfee suite preloaded.  My main problem with McAfee is that it blocked a link that I have on my Web site:  a link to the Red Cross to donate.  If I accessed my Web site from other locations (not running McAfee), the link showed; it showed in FrontPage while editing the site; but McAfee blocked the link from appearing.  I completely uninstalled all McAfee components and installed Symantec System Works and Internet Security.  This has completely solved all those problems and has not slowed my computer down at all.

        • #3213783

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by lm&w ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          In my dealings with slow computers the first question I ask is if Norton AV is installed.  If it is I “Try” to remove it but some times that causes computer lockups and I have to reinstall Windows. I have had these troubles for at least 4 years.  I recomend CA’s Etrust and their security suite.

        • #3213775

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by it cowgirl ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I agree with you. I have found similar issues with McAfee on home users’ systems. AVG has been the answer for 3 years for my home users. No problems and no virus infections on machines which were attacked often before.

          The question is whether Microsoft’s OneCare will actually protect the users’ computer system. I do not trust that it will.

        • #3213767

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by ggilmour ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John;

          I am not much of a blogger but I cannot agree with you more, Symantec
          seems like they are on a crusade to slow every machine down to a snails
          pace.  Recently I have noticed increasing issues with the retail
          version of the NAV client, the corporate client does not see to have
          the same level of issues, additionally I advise all my clients to stay
          as far away from system works as possible all it does is cause
          issues.  I too have stared moving to the Trend and CA products and
          away from the integrated firewall/security products as they just seem
          to wreak havoc on system stability and speed.

        • #3213763

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rtc79 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John, I hate to agree with you but I must there is definitely a problem with Symantec’s software. I presently have a older licensed copy of System Work and Internet Security on my laptop and my laptop is extremely slow now. And sometimes it just pauses in the middle of a process and I have wait until it finish doing whatever it needs to do at the time.

          R. Clement

            

        • #3213762

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rsmith5 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          As a small biz IT consultant myself, I dread seeing Symantec on new custopmer’s machines. I often run into probelems like you describe.  And you didn’t even go into how hard it can be to uninstall Symantec software or how flakey their software firewalls can be.  My customers have paid me for hours of work just because of buggy, intrusive Symantec software.

        • #3213760

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by paulmarquis33 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          John, your experiences with Systemworks turning systems into dogs mirrors my experience pretty much to the letter. My laptop turned into such a dog that I ended up ripping Systemworks out and replacing it with Trend Micro’s Internet Security suite. I’ve completely sworn off of Symantec products as a security solution. The supposed rewards are simply not worth the pain.

        • #3213759

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rfa ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I support your thoughts 100%. In the Internet security front, I completely gave up Norton Internet Security because my system was so sluggish that I could hardly get any work done. I switched to ZoneAlarm, which has been working extremely well. And the retail version of Norton AntiVirus is a complete piece of junk as well.I have another example: I have been a long time user of Drive Image, the best backup software I have ever used. It belonged to PowerQuest, which has been acquired by Symantec a while ago. Drive Image 7 was immediately renamed Norton Ghost 9 and made an integral part of Norton SystemWorks 2005. When Symantec released NSW 2006, it “upgraded” Norton Ghost to version 10, and the very first time I needed to restore a drive image, it broke with two serious bugs, introduced in version 10. I tried calling Symantec’s Tech Support, but was transferred to a tech in India, which had no clue whatsoever of what I was talking about. Only when after a few hours of screaming and yelling I got a supervisor in the US that immediately identified the bugs and provided me with a workaround. He said the bugs were caused by a change that had the intention of making Norton Ghost “more user friendly”. Shame on Symantec for breaking backup/restore software.It sounds like Symantec has got the reverse Midas touch: everything it acquires and then touches becomes instant trash overtime.

        • #3213753

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mattg ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          We provide IT support for approximately 50 small businesses and I’ve experienced exactly the same issues.  Internet Security causing major problems with file/print sharing to the point where we just disable it…. realtime monitoring and scanning not detecting trojans….liveupdate rendering the pc almost useless until it’s complete.. etc.  Similarly, we now advise people to install AVG and have found this to work very well without the high overhead on performance that symantec has.

        • #3213724

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bdulac ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are definitely not alone in this. I have stopped using Symantec products for the most part and have looked to other solutions for myself and my clients. In the past couple of years I’ve become increasingly frustrated with using their products to point of giving up on them as a company and deciding to move on. Now I recommend AVG for most home users and products from Computer Associates for the business clients.

        • #3231998

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by wenn_chorray ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here I am somewhat consoled to hear that someone of your status have this view about Symantec. I stopped using it quite a long time ago because I found it bothersome. Wenn, Dar-es-Salaam.

        • #3231992

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by wenn_chorray ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

        • #3231990

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by grithanson ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have not had to much trouble with Symantic anti-virus software other than as time goes on, it is much harder to handle, but that is they way it is with all software now-a-days (more viruses, malware, etc and no manuals). But I have had problems with licensing issue with Symantic after they purchase Backup Exec. After 6 months, I have still not heard back from them, even though they have sent me updates to download and the software works fine. They maybe bit off to much to chew, and hopefully things will settle.

        • #3231980

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by blackcurrant ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Symantec’s software used to be great. I was using Norton Utilities to fix MS-DOS 4 PC’s and thought it was a life-saver. But, over the last two years I have reluctantly stopped using all their software. PC’s were being crippled by the software, the firewall was incredibly over-zealous, SystemWorks was impacting system performance so much that it became a liability rather then an asset, and to cap it all, Symantec Client Security. which I had installed on my workplace network was allowing trojans through in email attachtments. A phone call to Symantec’s Technical Support was no use – I was told that I should expect a certain amount of stuff to get through.

          It will be a very long time before I allow any Symantec/Norton software within throwing distance of any PC I am responsible for. They used to produce excellent software, but not anymore. I was amazed by the recent news article in which Symantec ‘threw down the gauntlet’ to Microsoft concerning the possibility that MS might be producing competitive security software. I thought – well, after your very poor performance, I would be willing to try anything, and Symantec should definitely not brag about their ‘percieved’ superiority. Just because they ahve a lot of experinece in the field, does not mean that that experience is proving useful to their end users. Quite the opposite I would say.

        • #3231944

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bryce white ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Trying to find product updates at the Symantec enterprise support site has become darn near impossible – WAY TOO MANY PRODUCTS AND VERSIONS.

          Don’t even get me started on Symantec Mail Security and its grabage web interface.

           

        • #3231905

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by donaldcoe ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You are not the only one, I have four machines in my family all running some kind of Symantec (Norton’s) product. I believe I have identified a problem associated with application upgrades and license renewals plus Symantec folks trying to fix something that was NOT Broke. I believe it stems from a decision to lock down how many application installs would be permitted and the adding of additional hidden applications within their products (example in 2003 I wanted to upgrade my excellently functioning System Works 2003 because my Live Update feature was close to expiration, but a new release of System Works would not install because it detected the older version and required that I un-install that older version before it would continue. Now you can imagine that a user like myself might have many different forms of Symantec products on any given machine, not thinking I un-installed the older System Works for the new. The result was horrific every Symantec product started to malfunction, my registry started showing many different irregularities, I was not able to perform the simplest of chores not even data backup (a Microsoft basic). Yes I to had to wipe and reinstall. Now the problem has attempted to reoccur on the other 3 family workstations when the licensed software started to expire. Burn me once my fault, attempt to burn me twice NO WAY. I have fallen out of bed with Symantec and have chosen other alternatives like Computer Associates, Trend, Microsoft, Lavasoft. My message to Symantec is to “Don’t Fix It If Is Not Broke” and Don’t Assume It’s OK cause when you do your trying to make an Ass out of You(U) and Me.

        • #3231903

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tech1 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Well, Well, Well !!!

          I am glad to know that someone with a voice larger than mine may be recognizing an issue that I have noticed since ’94 when I uninstalled NAV and vowed that no program would tell me that my actions amounted to “a virus like activity” that had to be blocked.

          I have been repairing systems for the general public professionally for the last six years and have found that every system “protected by NAV” that came in either had trojan?s that had to be removed manually or other viruses that went undetected or disabled / damaged NAV protection, with the latter requiring specialized removal tools or manual un-installation from the file system and registry.

          Most people want to user their systems and be protected but don?t know where to look for solutions to problems like these thus they end up paying for NAV and then system service from a local tech. Given the cost of the program and incidental costs (the tech & Trend) ROI is close to buying a new system.

          Trend Micro?s program has consistently cost less; protected better and interfered with the user less than any AV I have run across. It is well known that something, NAV, AVG?. is better than nothing – until it fails.

          As you stated the old Norton Utilities was a must. Professionally developed tools of a quality that is rarely seen today. I can not speak too much to the SystemWorks other than it is overhead that has never impressed me.

          Why has it taken so long for people to notice? Probably because that is the wake that Peter Norton created when he originally released Norton Utilities.

        • #3231879

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tvanholland ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here  I have to admit that I am experiencing the same problems on a large number of computers that are running Norton on them.  The units running AVG boot at least 3 times faster, and a scan running in the background does not seem to use up as much memory.

        • #3231852

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by palmanic ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m usually too busy to say more than “True” and go on with my day, but you’ve hit on something that has been troubling me the past while as well. My customers have been hitting the same types of issues, some with the performance, some with problems accessing programs running on shared network drives, all with the way Symantec philosophy in MAKING them upgrade their 2005 to 2006, etc. and Symantec is singularly unhelpful in all accounts.

          I have always recommeded Symantec in the past. No more. I am actively looking for their replacement.

          End of rant. Thanks.

        • #3231832

          What’s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jeffshmyr ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I also have had all of the problems mentioned above.

          I maintain about 150 computers.

          After spending way to much time trying to fix NAV problems, I decided to give NOD32 a chance and have never looked back. Installing NAV takes atleast 10 mins or more once fully updated. Installing NOD32 fully updated takes about 3 mins(including 1 reboot).

          I also will never recommend any Symantec products to anyone because your going to be wasting your time.

        • #3231821

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by philaaa1 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

           

          From an insider point of view Symantec is more interested in
          using cash funds to buy out good software than to put it back into R&D of
          what they already have.  I have friends
          that work for Symantec that will NOT use NAVCE software till they upgraded the engines,
          and update cycles are to save in bandwidth cost not to provide the fastest
          updates. NAVCE  is a good example of bad
          code, after install Windows kernel no longer had sufficient IRP?s to use for
          other programs unless you altered IRPStackSize value size due to there hoggish use on resources making other services or
          programs fail. Simply put the have milked the programs till they were dry and
          now they are forced to update the products quickly and consequently with many
          errors. Also build on generic libraries that that create bloat code, and very
          little to no custom tight code. As for myself I have given up on Symantec long
          ago, a little spark of hope with NAV2006 but we will let time tell if they keep
          up with the house duties of keeping it updated. Till then I will not recommend NAV
          or NAVCE.

        • #3232019

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by hometech ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I don’t think you are alone. I’ve been working on PCs now for nearly 10 years. And, like you, I have seen a trend almost exactly like yours where the Symantec software just doesn’t work right. My main problem with Symantec software is the Internet Security Suite. I’ve often noticed that customers computers seem to take anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes or longer to boot.  In each instance, I have found that while there may be some malware lurking about or a Trojan Horse in the startup, when you remove the Norton Internet Security, the computer will reboot in far less time than before, even with the viruses and so forth on the system.

          I

        • #3232013

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by hometech ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been servicing computers for end users and some small business owners for nearly 10 years now. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that there are some serious problems arising. And they seem to have been showing up with regularity for about the past four years or so.

          I used it regularly until I noticed viruses and trojan horse infections cropping up on PCs protected by Norton Antivirus.  The Symantec web site provided fixes for those but never incorporated them into their software.  I found that a little strange.

          Like you, I now recommend AVG for my customers.  I also use Trend Micro’s Housecall online scanning regularly.  I also discovered recently another program that works well for removing malware and has partnered with the AVG folks. That’s EWIDO antimalware.  Since I’ve started using them problems have been diminished noticably.

          Thank you for finally bringing this problem out in the open.  I now have some ammunition that can help my customers understand when I tell them about an antivirus program that is better than Symantecs increasingly problematic software.

          Dennis Fivecoate, Owner, Home Technology Services, Rapid City, SD

        • #3276983

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by debodeol ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I too have experienced strange errors that are caused by Symantec.  For example, Word would not start unless I temporarily disabled Norton Internet Security.  We use Mcaffee without any issues.

          Oleg de Bode
          IT Manager
          Kavlico Corporation

        • #3276911

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by johnmaambo ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          About Symantec,indeed they have to do something about their software.They ‘ve  been times when i have had to uninstall the anti-virus because it was slowing down the system.Every time i install a fresh copy of the Windows operating system,it will only last a few weeks before this norton Anti-virus slows it down.Besides it does not remove all the viruses,fine it would detect them but still fail to remove them from the system.I got advice from a collegue to switch to AVG and apperently its been doing fine so far with no problems or slowing down the system.Am glad that someone has opened up for me to believe my claims are not really baseless. 

        • #3276887

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rgacomputerdepot ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          We are a Repair and PC builder shop and recently have noticed similar problems.  Recently we had a customer’s PC in for slow boot up and running.  We turned off all Norton processes and the speed more than tripled.  This was a relatively new PC and our customer took it home.  The customer could not believe that Norton was the problem and re-installed it after calling us and angrily stating that they had spoken with Norton and were told that it was impossible for Norton to cause a slowdown. Wow what loyalty!!!.  We charged them again to remove it and re-install our anti-virus software.

        • #3276769

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by danlm ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I just ordered a new Dell computer, and when reviewing the specs.  I see they aren’t offering either Norton or McAfee.  I was surprised, happily surprised.  But surprised just the same.  I currently use AVG on my current computer, and was planning to do the same.  But because the dell is coming with something I never tried with a 15 month subscription.  I’ll definitely try it.

          I’ve drifted away from Norton over the last couple years to AVG, and have been very happy with the free home edition they offer.  I couldn’t justify to myself going back to Norton for several reasons.  1). Money, got to love free  2). I thought AVG was as good if not better  3). AVG isn’t a resource hog like Norton always was  4). Norton’s automatic update seemed to always break for me, and I’ve never had that issue with AVG.

          So, yes.  I have to agree with you when it comes to Norton.  And for Dell to have moved away from Norton or McAfee, what ever they used to supply.  I think Norton and McAfee both need to wake up and get their act together.  

          Dan

        • #3276666

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mathern ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          You’re not alone! I even had problems with Symantic programs back in
          the days of DOS! The
          Norton software box always makes enclosed programs sound so-o-o sexy,
          and I’m always tempted, but I have been bit too many times. Whenever my
          clients (mostly individuals or small businesses) have stability
          problems, I nearly always find that the solution is to uninstall a
          Symantec program and strip the Registry of anything relating to Norton
          or Symantec. It’s unfortunate, because once-upon-a-time, Norton
          Utilites were quite useful, but now….

        • #3230223

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          No, it’s slowly happening to me too. I’ve used Norton and Symantec forever.
          I still have the Disks that they originally came out with and every other Disk and CD since.
          However now we’re seeing a different Symantec.
          One that is trying to do too many things at the same time.
          If your expertise is viruses then they should concentrate on being the best at that and leave the worm and Trojan business to someone else.
          As an Anti Virus, they were great, but now as a general blanket for just about every type of security breach you an think of, they are tripping all over themselves and making us suffer in the process.
          The more I go the more disillusioned I become and saddened, because the day will come when we will part ways. I will want an Anti Virus, whereas they will insist on being Anti-Everything.
          I don’t care how good they are, they can’t get away from the fact that “You can’t be all things to all people”.
          Although heaven knows they are trying”.
          They should stick to what made them great in the first place, as an Anti Virus Program.
          I’ve already got a firewall, why would I want two, and the same can be said of just about every type of possible affliction for Computer.
          This then is where the real problem lies with Symantec, the fact that they are trying to essentially rule the roost and we won’t let them. I use Symantec, my Windows Firewall, Ad Aware and Spy Bot and I’ve never had any problems.
          It should also be mentioned that in an effort to cover all the bases, Symantec has indeed become a “Very” top heavy program that “must” controlled by the user, or it will eventually slow down your Computer.
          Not a good sign for a Company with reputation of Symantec.
          I hope they put out an Anti Virus only program because what they have now is incredibly overweight and far too controlling. You can’t even remove it from your taskbar? They’ve gone too far.
          Regards
          Aaron
        • #3230174

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rwalter ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve been miffed with Symantec for some time.  Their programs are incredible resource hogs. Of course they have no exclusive on that.  Mcafee is just as bad for performance degradation.  If you want to put an afterburner on your system, give NOD32 a try.  It is super fast, written in assembler and has the smallest footprint of any AV program.

          In addition, when you try to get a message to Symantec that their products are sucking worse all the time, you must first deal with their tech support.  While they are polite, they can’t get off the diagnostic flow chart to do something as simple as “take a message to the product manager.”  I’m eliminating Symantec as each expiration date comes up and never been happier.

           

          Regards,

          RH Walter

          Cincinnati

        • #3230115

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by prof_keith ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have had an ongoing issue with my Symatics software since this spring.  All though I have live update on I do not recieve updates.  I have Systemworks, Goback, and Personal Firewall.  After many online chat sessions with some guy in India.  I down loaded three programs. msifix, symnrt, and symmsicleup.  Theese progams only work after you go through the normal program removal in the control panel.  I can reload the system works and get an update, but It says to go back and check for more.  When I do that it tells me that live update is already running.  I try to do a kill on the process and It won’t alow as it is owned by the system not the user.

          I will be running out on my suscription in October and will look some where else for my protection, I have used Nortons since 2001 and was very happy till all of this started

          I would like to know how many other people have this problem, it all started after I did an udate from Microsoft.

          I saw the article about locking the good guys out, and where Symentic was raising alarms but that does’t do us poor users any good!

        • #3231748

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by alan ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I also agree with most respondents complaints about Symantec’s Norton. We have been servicing computers 20 years now. We never recommended System Works – it was obvious after one bad experience several years ago – but we always did recommend NAV2003, 2004, 2005 etc. However, Norton even spoiled this with NAV2006. The integrated firewall product, Internet Security is so bloated and shouldn’t be run on anything but the latest spec. machines because of the dramatic way it slows them. Last week we even found the product let in the Sasser Worm and Winshost.exe Trojan for one poor client wondering why their PC was running so slow.

          It is clear to us that Norton is now more concerned with upping the yearly cost of subscriptions and in our opinion these fees are now way OTT for the service they are meant to do. Our attitude is the same for McAfee’s Integrated/Firewall products and we have tried and tested F-Secure, Panda, Computer Associates too. We are currently re-evaluating our strategy because we have to make a profit after all – that said though, I can personally see the merits in the free AVG product from the client’s view if not ours !

           

        • #3231736

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by isanderson ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          We also have experienced enormous problems with Symantec, especially Internet Security 2006.  Eventually an admission of problems was forthcoming, along with the recomendation to revert to the 2005 version!  I gather that they have added so much into the 2006 software that they can no longer work out what’s going wrong!  Apparently their ground-up rebuild due later this year will fix everything.  Until then, I’m sterring my users well away from Symantec. 

        • #3231729

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by d_peters314 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          True, I stopped using their products in 2002 for the same reasons – POOR performance and problems. The ONLY software I use and recommend is AVG by Grisoft – it works and does not create problems! If this poor product/service is the trend, anyone selling their stock short should make money???

          DV King

        • #3231724

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by amatory_monty@yahoo.com ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I had been a big fan of Norton products and when they were bought by Symantec I continued my loyalty with Symantec. But, Symantec’s products have deteriorated over the years and I think their Live Update is the worst. And their customer service and knowledge base is absolutely PATHETIC.

          I would recommend NOD32 anti-virus to any one who cares to listen. It’s the fastest and the most effective against all viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, worms……the works……So go for NOD32 and don’t buy Symantec.

        • #3231717

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by kingzanj ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Your opinion is right. I have experienced similar issues. So we are not alone. Thanks.

          Chris. Foya

        • #3231518

          What’s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by daliere1 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I had used Symantec for years, but?after?this?year,? never again. ?This year I took advantage of the rebate baited offer to upgrade to the new SystemWorks. ?Installed on my daughters computer,?the?computer simply could not complete booting up although it worked fine before. ?I pulled out the users manual and saw where it admitted that the GoBack feature would not work on some computers! ?After I disabled GoBack, the ?computer finally worked again.??But?as?you?said??sometimes?it?bogs?down?the?system?trying?to?access?the?update?server.??I?will?never?ever?buy?another
          ?Symantec?product. I?will?never?ever?recommend?Symantec?to?anyone.?The?last?straw?was?when?they?refused?to?honor?the?rebate.??

        • #3231506

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by lgilmore ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve not used Norton products since Windows95 when I found that software developed by a firm they had bought and slapped the Norton name on conflicted with their AV software and downed my machines. I did a lot of research and chose F-Secure, with whom I’ve been since. There are many other players with a better AV-detection success rate than Norton, such as TrendMicro, Sophos, NOD32, Kaspersky Labs, etc.

        • #3231458

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by djhyst ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’m a pro audio consultant and build custom computer workstations for studios and audio clients.  I too have become disillusioned with the Symantec group of security products.  System Works and Norton Internet security are usually too intrusive and can cause performance issues (of some sort), even on some of the top machines I build for clients.  I usually just install the antivirus alone (ce) to keep the computers running as lean as possible, and instruct clients to keep their audio computers off the internet completely if possible.

          I would be interested in hearing what lean-running alternatives for anti-virus protection there is out there that also does the job of keeping the unwanteds away.

          David

        • #3231445

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by george ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Couldn’t agree more about Symantec. I’ve been using PCAnywhere and Winfax for over ten years as well as Norton AntiVirus and Internet Security. Up to the 2005 edition there was never (or very rarely) any problems but Internet Security 2006 is a rear pain. I managed to load it in the end a few months ago but have had to relaod it due to mega computer crash (Windows XP Pro). It refuses to load, system errors, 9999.171, fatal errors etc. I do wonder if there’s any conflict with Windows Service Packs? Anyway, unless anybody can assure me and tell me how to fix the problems (as I’m not very computer literate by comparison to all on this site) I’m going to look elsewhere for virus software. George B. (it.marketing@itmagazine.uk.com) – IT stands for Industrial Technology, nothing to do with computers. It’s engineering design.

        • #3212701

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by pmshah9 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Why am I having a strange feeling that M$ might be behind this. I recollect many years ago PC Magazine had adjudged Quattro Pro 7.0 as the best spreadsheet programme around. From version 8 onwards the troubles for it started. By fversion 2000 it became so unstable I had no choice but to switch to Excel. Subsequently it came out at anti-trust trial that it was M$ action within windows that broke the software & Borland Inc. Strange thing is Quattro 8.0 runs flawlessly on XP.

          With Microsoft itself venturing into security software it would not be surprising to find it is up to its old dirty tricks again.

          BTW I swore off Symantec more than 6 years ago. Used E-Trust for a while. Then found it missed some infection or other regularly. Switched to AntiVir which worked well. The problem came up when daily updates started being too long for dialup network. Ever sice I switched to AVG I have never had a single infection. Currently am using comodo firewall on some pcs & kerio on others. Both are performing well. SpamPal Free is doing a fairly devent job now after initial hiccups of mis detecting.  However I sometimes still depend on bootable Norton recovery cd for dos which incldes diskedit, disk doctor & undelete.

        • #3212662

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by kemosabe18 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          What a wealth of knowledge.  Thank you John and everyone for their input.  I’m definitely not a techie, but I love reading this stuff.  I’m just a regular person who uses the computer and internet a lot, and I want to know what makes my computer tick and why it’s not working…wich seems like my computer falls apart on me all too often.  But, ever so slowly I am figuring things out and connecting those dots. 

          I agree with Norton though.  I used 2004 and I liked it at first, but it was downhill after that.  It was easy to use was why I liked using it.  I feared trying something else cause I knew how Norton functioned.  I think that happens a lot with users that aren’t very technical, to go with what is easiest.  But when I bought a new computer it was bye bey to Norton, I had read too many bad reviews about Symantec and Norton that I switched to McAfee.  I have a 2.8GHz with 1GB of SDRAM and yet it’s still taking several minutes to load.  I’m thinking of dumping my McAfee for AVG. 

          Thanks again for all the input.

        • #3212624

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by tr ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          If you think it’s bad as a USER, you really have nothing to complain about compared to being a (former) Symantec RESELLER!! I had been selling Norton & Symanect products since the mid-1980s, but no longer.

          I first noticed problems on my own computer systems when Norton AntiVirus deactivated itself about once a week. I had SystemWorks 2005 loaded on my in-house network (full, legal licenses), & couldn’t understand why one or another machine would pick up a virus. Once I ungrouped the icons, I could see that the software had deactivated; I was able to easily reactivate it, but I was truly pissed off that my systems were randomly being left wide-open to virii!

          I contacted my Symantec rep, who forwarded me to Level-1 tech support. It was almost laughable when the idiot tech tried to blame the problem on everything from software to hardware. I got the issue escalated to Level-2 then to -3, based on the fact that my company sells/sold around $150K of Symantec products annually. After an hour of working with an intelligent systems engineer (for once), he discovered that every time NAV was deactivated & then reactivated, it incremented the license by one. Finally, my 25-user license had been exceeded! So every time I would reboot a system, the computer that had been on the longest was deactivated.  He was able to fix that problem on the Symantec database, but he was never able to figure out what started the deactivation process.

          What has made matters infinitely worse is that ALL of my clients’ networks started doing the very same thing! To make a long & nasty story shorter, I am uninstalling all Norton products as these problems occur, using Symantec’s removal software. I’m then installing GriSoft’s free AVG anti-virus software – if they see no problems after the first month, I then sell them the full paid version.

          Disgustedly,
          Ken

        • #3212576

          What’s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by waphelps ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          The only program from Symantec that is still worth buying is ACT! ?But, I noticed that in Symantec’s own documentation for this product, they tell you to unistall Norton AV.

        • #3212559

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by chris_williams_pears ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Every computer that I work on that is running very slow or has virus problems has Norton running.  As soon as I remove it, the problem goes away.  I suggest that they use AVG and ZoneAlarm.  AVG finds and removes viruses and trojans that Norton and McAfee ignore.  Then I make sure that they install and run Spybot and Adaware.  Their computers speed up instantly.  I usually don’t get any calls back from them, although they do send their friends my way.  There are so many better products than Norton, and most of them are free.

        • #3212511

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by 92mr2 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Wonderful.

          I don’t feel like the world’s dummy anymore.   I tried for 4 days to get NAV Systemworks installed on my system and when I finally did it screwed things up so badly that even though I’d paid for it and attempted for another 4 days to get a refund……I just deleted the thing.  They have my money and I have no AV from them.  I think it might be worth it.

        • #3212452

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jedtimmer ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here 11:48, 15-Aug-06

          Looks like John’s article’s opened up a can of worms. Bit late, to be sure, as all, ‘cluding self, already been there and opted out quite some years back. No need to be so modest about it either. Those who can’t do it, should get off the pot.

          Article and comments brought back some blissful memories of good ol’ bloat-less days and of my superhero, Peter Norton, a REAL programmer – and human being. Saved my behind many a time. Whatever happened to him?

          He made the  MegaHard programmers look like a bunch of scatterbrains (tho’ I expect it was, and is, the pressure to get to market).

          Things haven’t changed, either. If they had, all you folks ‘d be out of a job! And what a disaster that
          would be for the GNP! 100,000 Win XP newsgroups out of work; instant Global depression! AIDS and Malaria cures delayed by 20 years; millions dead. In that sense, anyway, TG for BG and MS.

          And along came Symantec (ugh!) – and now, Google and DeskTop Search.  Oh well…

          Norton’s ‘FileFind’ and ‘FastFind’ were probably the first to incorporate ‘Indexing’ for instant results.
          I was fascinated w/ this at the time and ultimately, in my own simple way, improved on this a hair by doing all sorts of tricks w/ the DOS FIND, etc. cmnds to achieve similar-to-Google-results, organization and
          speed – but, I thought, in a less messy, less-resource-hungry, far less-intrusive, no-shades-of-big-brother
          manner.

          Now there’s another story waiting to be told. Nowadays, it’s hard to tell who’s better at big-brothering,
          WinTel of GoogTel.

          Had Peter not treated it as merely a benign utility, developed it one step further into a proper search engine and GUI’d it (as he did partially w/ some of his other stuff), we might all be searching via ‘Poogle’ today.

          Was unable to read ALL the comments but already ‘Justin John’ and ‘pickleman’ have hit the nail square on the head (along w/ many others) – and with a bit of Nostalgia thrown in. No sense belaboring the point
          any further.

          So, Roger, Roger and Roger on all that, gents! It was a really enjoyable read; one of the best to appear
          in this wonderful publication.

          J.

        • #3212406

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bphill ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Insert comment text here

        • #3231424

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by cdplayer ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I dropped Symantec because I got tired of having problems with their software and begging for support. By the way they wanted me to pay for the call!! 🙁 What nerve!! 

        • #3231392

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by shanej2 ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have been using Systemworks almost daily since it came out and have never experienced the problems you’se guys are experiencing. It “works fine, lasts a long time” with me.

          Jan Mark Shane

           

        • #3231242

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by crazylarryusa ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I gave Symantec the royal boot, long ago. It gave me fits. Slowed my computer to a crawl. I have been using Trend Micro for quite some time, with no problems.

        • #3231091

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by rromig ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I don’t think you’re alone I’ve had Norton System works on serveral PCs and have encounter problems with Live Update. Over the years I’ve shyed away from Symantec utilities because of their tendency to consume resources in a hostile takeover. I use both AVG and Avast! anti-virus at home and have found them to be very effective. 

        • #3202199

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bdonahue ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Amen to you my friend, I share the same horrors.  Used to be a Symantec friend, but a recent purchase of Norton Anti-Virus 2006 has changed my feelings completly.  I used to use AVG, even the purchased it and was happy.  Seemd to work well, but as you mentioned, Symantec used to stand for the best, anyway here is something for you, after about a month of using the Anti-vrus software I started to receive a message saying that Symantec was unable to repair and that I needed to reinstall. And I thought to myslef, why would I get this message, I have made no changes to my system. Can we say BUG!  Then to top it off, I had the misfortune of having my motherboard die.  No worries I thought, simply replace it and be back in business; aside from the reactivate windows for changing too much hardware thing.  But that wasn’t all, Symantec decided to de-activate itself, I tried to register it, their servers said I had exceeded my limit for registration.  I was quite upset, having bought a two year subscription I still had 640 days left.  What a useless piece of software.  Here is where it gets interesting, I live in Guam, a US territory, no different then any other terriroty of the United States, do you think I could call their toll free numbers? NO!!!  Blocked on Symantec’s side. I can dial any other 1-800 number no issues, but Symantec forget it.  So I had to go to email support, and wait 48-72 hours for a response of sorry you have to buy the program again, and I will not be able to assist you further so this case will be closed.  Talk about making me happy.  So in the end, I am out 100 bucks but when it comes time to renew my company’s anti-virus solution, Symantec will be out more. 

        • #3199519

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by techrepublicpro ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I stopped using ALL Symantec software when I had installed their product for Network Switching (for changing I.P.’s and printers from my home network to my business network on a W98 laptop, I forget what the product was called.) and lost all networking. I called for support and when I finally got someone to help, the solution was to uninstall the product. That did not fix the problem, but the since the product was now uninstalled, Symantec said it wasn’t their problem, case closed. I reinstalled the OS and DID NOT reinstall SystemWorks (which had been bringing my laptop to it’s knees since W95), Norton AV, PCAnywhere or Procomm Plus. My life got SOOO much easier. These days, in my role as Network Administrator, I avoid Symantec at every possible turn. I do not consider this a loss. 

        • #3277131

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by sonicbridge ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I will not upgrade Symantec Enterprise (10) when licensing expires. After installing and patching the upgrade from version 9 I had a myriad of problems with clients freezing up. I had to roll back a half-dozen to version 9 after I discovered the problem was with Symantec and not another application I suspected. I will probably migrate to MicroTrend the next time around (in about 9 months).

        • #3229965

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by michael-cunningham ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve experienced the same problem wirh Symantec for a number of years now and would not recommend it to anyone.

          Like yourself I loved the Norton Tools for DOS and when win95 came alomg I started to use their antivirus software until the first time I did an upgrade and the whole box went belly up. Not used their stuff since and won’t try any of their new software incase I get the same end result a DOORSTOP as you so politely called it.

          Mike

           

        • #3283563

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by abruzzo ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I have had many problems with Systemsworks and when it goes bad it is hard to remove the complete application.  Your solution of a clean install is the only answer.  I use Systemsworks Pro which includes Ghost.  Ghost has worked for me sometimes but has its problems.  The worst thing is the lack of tech support.  It never was great but since they went to off shore to India support it has no value.  they are saving money and losing customers.  So my question is what application(s) would you suggest to replace Systemworks Pro.  Disk Imaging is my backup for all our workstations.

          Joe Abruzzo (abruzzo@snet.net)

        • #3200218

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by mraap ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          The feeling toward Norton and Symantec in general has been building for many years. As far as the repairs of these systems where you are having to reinstall the OS, STOP! The OS is fine even after a registry repair or defragment, the issue is still the residual Symantec files, they are still in the system acting like a root kit and must be deleted by logging into a secondary account then manually deleting the files. Then log back into the system as the normal user and run the XP system restore this technique although not elegant by any means has prevented many an OS re-install.

          As far as MS and the Live Platform, well lets just say that I have a “Space” on Live and the title includes negative keywords. Which goes for all of the live products especially Defender and I believe they are making a big mistake packing it in Vista with no removal options.

        • #3228342

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by jmwarchol ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I?ve noticed the same trend (No pun intended) with Symantec software. I?m currently dealing with trying to install NIS 2006 and receiving the error message 9999.171. Looking at Symantec?s web site is of no help & trying to talk to them is even less helpful. I?ve pointed many of my clients toward Symantec and I?m having second thoughts now.

           

          I?ve run their uninstall program, used regedit to remove ?Symantec & Norton? entries and manually deleted folders from Program Files to no avail. I?ve got one or two bullets left to shoot and after that it?s TrendMicro.

           

          John

        • #3227380

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by bcsupercoop ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I just bought a new mid priced pc . I was prompted to update symantec, so I did, that was a mistake. Now my pc is slow,  locks up, and startup takes forever. You’re right, symantec has some serious issues!  

        • #3228810

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by krostenbach ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          I’ve had similar issues with Symantec lately.

          I left McAfee for Symantec and might consider going back.

        • #3139872

          What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          by shitpost ·

          In reply to What?s the deal with Symantec anymore?

          Same obsevations here,

          Had lots of Symantec stuff installed on 500+ computers.

          I loved the Norton tools, some of them where brilliant! Norton Disk editor, Norton Utilities, Norton Disk Doctor, Be.exe, Ncd.exe, Nav, Norton Ghost.exe, Ghost for Netware. Gifts from heaven. Stable, usefull, state-of the art power tools. For many years I was one of the most loyal Norton customers one can think of. The realy earned my trust and loyalty.

          But then Symantec came..

          Since 2002 Symantec is an expert in messing up good software. The results: Bloated, instable, ill-behaving, below mediocre software that causes more troubles than it solves, and grind many pc’s to a crawl. After many many many lost hours and lots of desparation I ditched all those fancy looking bulgy bell’s and whistle’s and aside Ghost.exe (the last 2003 version ‘dos’ tool, later versions are fu*ed up allso) every shred of Symantec’s rubbish is gone now.

          My life as a head of a IT department gained so much quality after that decision!

          Nod32 protects my systems so much better! No false positives, no more misses, no blue screens, no instabilities, no slowing down, no long and painstaking installations/removeals, no more expensive calls to India, no Ram Bulimia, no hours of Symantec knowledge base research, no sickening update and script errors. And as a bonus it is much cheaper, especially in large amounts.

          Remote Admin replaces PcAnywhere. Same story here: M?ch cheaper, stable, unbelievable faster, lightweight, safer. It all install’s and de?nstalls like a charm in seconds, without leaving ton’s of rubbish in my systems, and it performs. Did I mention that this software performs?

          You have done a great job in chasing me away, Symantec. No more Symantecware for my department -and my customers- anymore. If I see this S-word software on a computer my first advise is: Please replace it and get happy!

          You have done your outmost best to get rid of the power users and IT pro’s. Shame on you S, that a once so loyal customer has to say this.

          Michel Uphoff
          Netherlands

      • #3213883

        Jack?s back!

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Longtime TechRepublic members will remember Jack Wallen,
        Jr.  The self-described ?poster boy for the
        Linux revolution?, Jack was the Senior Editor on TechProGuild who was in charge
        of Linux content for the site. Jack lived and breathed Linux. So much so that at
        one point, he crashed the entire TechRepublic office with one measly Linux box. But that?s another story?

        Jack has had a long and winding road since leaving TechRepublic,
        but now he?s back in his original form. Jack first started with TechRepublic by
        writing a Linux column called ?Get Jack?d? that discussed using Linux as a Microsoft
        alternative. Then he wrote and
        edited Linux content for the site. Now he?s back on TechRepublic once again with
        ?Get Jack?d?,
        but this time in the form of a TechRepublic Blog.

        Whether you?re a Linux fanatic yourself, just learning Linux,
        or are just looking for a unique point of view, Jack?s blog is the place to start.
        Welcome back, Jack!  

        • #3276935

          Jack?s back!

          by crake ·

          In reply to Jack?s back!

          Very cool! I would be careful that Jack and George Ou don’t get stuck in the same room together by themselves. George is a world-renown Linux-hating Microsoft mouthpiece.

          Cheers!

        • #3276922

          Jack?s back!

          by nels ·

          In reply to Jack?s back!

          Welcome back Jack! I will definately be checking your blog regularily.

        • #3276804

          Jack?s back!

          by bookkeeper ·

          In reply to Jack?s back!

          Welcome back Jack somebody needs to stick up for us Linux users 😉

      • #3276656

        TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Last week, I talked about my growing
        dissatisfaction with Symantec products
        and the increasing number of
        problems that I?ve had to fix for consulting customers because of them. I kind
        of thought that maybe I was alone in that feeling so I asked you what you
        thought. The response was overwhelming.

        Inside of a week, I had close to 150 responses. Normally
        when you produce an opinion expressing like or dislike for a product, you can
        expect an even distribution of responses. You?re either the smartest guy on the
        planet or your parentage is called into question. It?s not uncommon for me to
        be called a Microsoft Shill one week and a Microsoft Basher the next. That?s
        just part of the territory, but you just expect a balanced response.

        In the case of the Symantec blog, I only counted 2
        pro-Symantec responses. That?s a 98.7% disapproval rating. Worse than President
        Bush?s and Hillary Clinton?s combined. In almost every other case, TechRepublic
        IT Pros all expressed similar problems, frustrations and concerns that I had
        posted. In a way, it was relieving and refreshing.

        I was also pretty concerned ? for Symantec?s sake at least.
        I wonder if they have any idea that there is this much outrage out there for
        their products? I can?t believe than an organization would be so sold on their
        own sales literature that they wouldn?t be aware of these many problems and
        this much disdain.

        Thinking it only fair, I?ve dropped several emails to
        Symantec PR people to find someone I can talk to about these perceptions. I
        figured I?d present them an open forum to address the concerns and try to
        account for it all. So far, I haven?t heard anything back. When I do, I?ll let
        you know.

        It also raises another question. Windows XP and Microsoft
        products in general have this reputation
        of being unstable and unreliable. I wonder how much of that is inherent
        in
        Microsoft software itself and how much is caused by ?utilities? like
        those from
        Symantec that are supposed to be fixing problems rather than causing
        them? Does Microsoft take the blame for other people?s
        shoddy work? I?m beginning to wonder.

        • #3209468

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by almckone ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          With mention of Windows XP and Microsoft products not being the most compatible, I have a problem that has many IT guys scratching their heads. The problem is, I am using a Microsoft Comfort Optical Mouse 3000 with a brand new Fujitsu N3520 and the cursor has a mind of it’s own. It will jam, and/or turn on and off whilst highlighting, cutting and pasting; open and close programs at will when held over them; open folders when run over them; jump from the middle of a sentence into another sentence in another paragraph, and other actions without permission. Fujitsu have replaced the hardrive and it remains the same. I’ve also used another older microsoft mouse and it reacts the same. When I disable the onboard touchpad mouse, the cursor’s jumping around stops but all the rest remains the same. ANY IDEAS?

        • #3209467

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by j sheesley ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          UPDATE:

          This morning when I came to work, I had a message waiting in Voicemail
          from a Symantec contact person. Hopefully in the next day or so, I’ll
          find out what their take on the situation is.  More to follow!

        • #3230094

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by vaspersthegrate ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I find it difficult to perceive reality the way you do. I’ve used Norton AV for years and have never had a virus, worm, Trojan, rootkit, whatever. Well, I also use Firefox of course. But Windows OS.

          And for the record, user error, unauthorized computer usage, naive navigation, reckless attachment opening, forwarding of malware-warhead frivolous emails, and such <strike>unregimented</strike> unrestricted, risky employee behavior is responsible for the vast majority of intranet and network security problems. I think everyone knows this, but hates to admit it and get tough on staff. Pity.

        • #3231741

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by a_fairb ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Another aspect to the problem.

          I recently rescued a friends PC. It was 8 months old, a reputable brand and good spec. It was also running like a dead horse. It had come with Symantec’s PC security suite pre installed and 6 months update subscription.

          After 6 months, no more antivirus updates.

          User picks up a virus, almost certainly via P2P file sharing application (now removed).

          User notices a performance drop and installs a free registry cleaner (he has bought one of the leading security products so it can’t have a virus).

          This does not solve the problem so a week later he installs another one.

          By the time I got to it the PC had three rival registry cleaners fighting like cats in a sack at startup and over 5000 infected files as the various viruses spread unchecked.

          This infection was not Symantec’s fault but the way they sell the product was a major contributing factor. I have no problem with subscription based software. The worker (even software engineers) deserve their wages. But to sell to an ignorant user base, security software which uses phrases like “Your computer may be at risk”, is irresponsible at best. “This software is pointless unless you pay for the updates” would be closer to the truth, though I imagine the marketing dept might not be best pleased.

          I set the restored machine up with AVG free version, Agnitum Outpost free firewall and Spybot. No subscription deadlines to worry about and it runs significantly faster than the original factory setup.

          We are all to some extent lazy and tight-fisted. So a system that requires additional effort and cash on a regular basis is always going to have problems. It can’t be beyond the vendors to set up Standing Order services to automate payment for updates. I don’t mind paying for someone to keep up to date with the latest viruses for me. I’d just like them to be clear about it on the box before I buy it and to automate the process so I don’t have to remember to get my cheque book out once a year.

        • #3231515

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by justin james ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Symantec’s “problem” is not that they beleive their own marketing literature. I am sure that they do not.

          The problem is that the people buying the software believe Symantec’s marketing literature.

          I have never met a systems administrator or any other knowledgable tech person who liked Symantec software, or who would recommend it, outside of Ghost and some of the minor system utilities. Therefore, the people who actually make the purchasing decisions are not the people who know about the product.

          I can let this slide in the consumer market. After all, if the people sitting at home were pro users, chances are they would not need the bulk of Norton’s products. They walked into Best Buy and said, “I am concerned about getting computer viruses, please recommend a solution for me.” And then the sales person pushes Symantec (or whoever) products at the customer, who then walks away feeling like everything is cool.

          In the professional IT industry, Symantec should have a market share near zero, yet they do not.

          Again, real IT pros know that Symantec’s products almost always cause more problems than they solve. Yes, you won’t get a virus, but your computer will be so slow and twitchy, you might as well have a “nuissance virus.” Heck, Symantec pops up so many idiot reminders (especially around subscription renewal time) it feels like spyware too…

          The fact that Symantec has sales outside of the consumer space is proof positive that idiots make IT decisions.

          I do not want to go into too many details, for a number of reasons, but let in suffice to say, the people who make the final call about IT decisions are typically not people who have the technical knowledge to make a proper determination. For example, what IT person, looking to purchase a server, opens up the Best Buy flier, selects a big desktop, buys it, installs Windows 2000 Professional (in 2003), and just does a Windows file share on the entire drive? No IT pro that I have ever met would do this. Yet that was the state of affairs when I was hired by my current employer. He still has a difficult time understanding the concept of why $200 extra for a server with redundant power supplies is worth it. “But they are connected to a UPS!” Sure, and that UPS is not worth a hill of beans when the power supply fails. And PSU failures are the #2 most common component failure in my experience, right after hard drive failure.

          Is this the person that you think is best qualified to make IT purchasing decisions? Neither do I.

          I do understand the need for controlling costs and beancounters.

          As much as I hate to say it, beancounters are a needed group of people. If IT people had 100% control over their budgets, every company would be bankrupt, because we would all have Fibre Channel SANs and mega-servers in their own super-cooled racks with laser beam motion detectors to turn off the screen savers.

          That being said, everyone has some sort of A/V product purchased and installed. Beancounters usually do not turn down requests for anti-virus. Even at my current position, the boss approved A/V (meanwhile, my rackmount equipment is sitting on a table from WalMart). So it is not that people are turning down requests. Indeed, Symantec’s “solutions” (can I even call a Symantec product a “solution”?) are typically more expensive than many of their competitor’s products. So the decision to use Symantec products is not being made at the beancounter level. It is being made at the IT decision maker level. Someone in IT has decided that Symantec products are the “right” choice, and that someone is the person who pulls the trigger on IT.

          The only possible conclusion is that CIOs and other IT decision makers tend to have a complete and utter lack of IT knowledge, while simultaneously ignoring the input and advice of the people who do know these things.

          J.Ja

        • #3212501

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by j sheesley ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          UPDATE #2:

          I’ve been in contact with a PR Person at Symantec about the comments left on this blog entry and the original one. Symantec seems very willing to address the concerns raised in these entries. As such, I’m going to put together and give to them a condensed version of what the major problems that TR members have encountered. They said that based on the comments they’d have some type of statement and reaction.

          In addition, I’m going to be speaking with a product manager about Symantec’s upcoming products for 2007. This may take several days to get together and put up on the site, but as soon as I know something, I’ll post it here!

        • #3212485

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by rgraham48 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I agree, one of the biggest problems is not the actual Symantec software itself, the problem in my opinion is the “temporary” subscription to updates from Symantec. Most “home” users do not understand that after a few months their antivirus software is useless. They can see the icon in the taskbar, and assume their system is protected from viruses. We “tech types” know that their are hundreds of new viruses every month, and without the antivirus updates all antivirus software is basically useless. Since Symantecs software is the one installed on most new computers, I think a lot of the blame should be placed on them. They should AT LEAST have a message popup when the software loads reminding the user that the “free” updates are no longer available, and the user needs to either pay for the symantec updates, or install another antivirus program. Some users need to be reminded over and over that attention is needed to protect their computer.

        • #3212390

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by digitrog ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          John I do concur
          But, perhaps one should remember that at least the last half dozen releases
          of Norton Utilities run from the MS Windows Active-X backbone instead
          of their own stand-alone engine – as was the bonus of their earlier
          packages.
          So, whatever inherent garbage is packed into the flakey Active-X has to
          become a companion to the Symantec backbone and its now bloated
          installations [ which now days also appears to be produced using a
          crappy high level Microsoft software developer package … ].
          Symantec needs to get Peter Norton back in the driver’s seat and not just use the guru’s name on the box …

          Until last year I did run the full installed Pro package, and had no
          end of trouble with updates crashing, having to occaisionally strip the
          install manually from the registry and hard drive, re-name some of the
          symantec files so I was then able to complete the re-install ( as well
          as downloading error patches etc. ) .

          I eventually conceded defeat and fully un-installed everything
          symantec, and reluctantly decided to try AVG as the antivirus. To my
          surprise AVG upon install suddenly discovered at least 15 virus and
          several trojans which the symantec product had allowed to slip in the
          back door!
          I now only run the Utilities pack direct from the CD-Rom to check for
          basic errors, as I have also seen that WinXP with service pack 2 will
          not allow Disk Doctor or Speed disk to run [ nor will Microsoft’s own
          CheckDisk run without doing a scheduled re-start , so it can then
          complete its diagnostic before all the Pre-fetched garbage loads … ]

        • #3231404

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by tj8 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I’m not an IT pro, but the IT default person for my company (and family…and friends…and Church).  In the last year I’ve removed everything Symantec from all PC’s and Laptops I work with and replaced them with AVG and Zone Labs products.  This has reduced startup times, freezing issues, and the need for incessant rebooting.  In fact, this has reduced my networking issues considerably.  Norton AV is a memory hog and interferes with every program.

          Everytime someone complains about how their computer is behaving I ask if they are using Symantec.  You wouldn’t believe how many times uninstalling Norton AV and replacing it has corrected problems.  In fact, I haven’t seen the BSOD since making that move.

          I think you are onto something about Microsoft getting bashed because of other products that are poorly programmed. You would think for the premium cost, you would get a premium product.  IMHO Symantec has an arrogance problem, especially when you consider that some of the free products are more stable…and do just as good a job (maybe even better).

          TJ Thornton

        • #3231391

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by pertelote ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I personally do not use Symantec products because of all the problems I witnessed with them in different shops. My installation of Windows XP ran for over 2 years without crashing until I updated a “security” software application that I had. Recovery required a full format and re-installation.

          When I work with a customer, I point them towards Firefox, AVG, and to avoid almost everything else. Those who follow my advice are always satisfied with their unit’s performance. 

        • #3231389

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by mill3502 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I have always known this where have you been.  First thing I do when troubleshooting a PC is to turn off utilities and get to the core operating system.  Of course it could just be windows behaving badly but 9 times out of ten customers buy product that a) they didn’t pay attention to system requirements, or b) the utilities do not behave correctly in certain situations.  Incompatiblitlites between vendors is at best barely acceptable, try installing a Symantec product on your machine after you attempted to unintall a McAfee product, good luck.  First they never totally uninstall, second they don’t like each other and I am not talking about the software.  Bring on OneCare and lets stabalize this market.

        • #3231387

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by abihain ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          My use of Symantec products has been very poor.  I have to keep a copy of their uninstall utility on each of  my computers.  I have had to install and uninstall their security products on many occsions, because when I final get to isolate MS bugs, it ofter turns out to be caused by Symantec products that I must uninstall and do a freash installtion of seperate products to cure the problem.

        • #3231382

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by skrog ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Microsoft has it’s problems but I would not be surprised that part of them are from software that other company’s have made that are supposed to help or improve the Windows experience. I could believe that Microsoft takes hits for other company’s software. How much is hard to say but should Microsoft point the finger at a problem which is caused by someone else’s software, to MS’s misfortune, I also think they still take the hit for pointing it out.

          I have never used a Symantec product except in the days of DOS and Win 3.x and then they were great. Since Windows 95 I cannot count how many times someone has come to me, and even when they have kept up thier subscriptions for Symantec, they had problems until I removed the product. Buggy, and memory intensive is what Symantec is good for in my opinion.

        • #3231365

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by fred.wilson ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I agree that the Symantec products, especially their antivirus/security products that you download to upgrade products already on your computer are terribly unreliable to install and difficult to operate once they are installed.

          I make a bunch of money in my consulting business just getting the product upgrade to actually install.

        • #3231361

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by charles ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Good morning. I’ve had no problems with the corp versions 8 through 10. Execllent. However, because of Symantec’s orther software stinks. As for the off the shelf products, they stink. I think the last good product that did not cause problems was version 2004. I have since switch my two workstations,  and one laptop to Windows Live One Care. I have not had any problems at all.

          As far as Symantec is concerned, I have not used their tech support. I don’t have time to debug a product that used to be very reliable.

          At this point I will not reconmend Symantec Products to my clients except for the Corp version 10.0. Enven then, I have used Sybari in the past, and am likely to return to their product.

          Regards,

          Charles

        • #3231357

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by charles ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Regarding the mouse issue.

          If it is wireless, you have signal problems. If it is USB, the mouse is defective. I’ve not had any problems with MS hardware. First test your computer is to go to any store and by a $10.00 usb mouse and test it. If the problem still exist, you have a motherboard USB problem and or another device is conflicting. Check device mgr.

          C

        • #3231355

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by charles ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Further on the mouse. Opps. re-read you statement. Sorry about that. This looks more like a hardware failure if this is a laptop.

          C

        • #3231352

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by objunior.bhz ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          MS products come out with flaws and errors, there are some unbelievable findings like the clipboard contents access (like your credit card number you had copied and pasted) with a java command through IExplorer. One additional point, which covers for part of the Symantec issues, is the recommended hardware setup for running Windows. If you do not want problems, run XP Pro with more than 512 MB RAM. Most of the memory issues will be history. A deadly combination is 256 MB RAM (like in cheap notebools) and the Internet Security Bundle from Symantec.
          I used to run NAV 2004&Zone Alarm with no problems. As I started to experience them, I switched to the free edition of Avast rather than AVG because there are network issues with AVG in the free personal edition. Then the second problem: Avast is not too fond of Zone Alarm latest version. Zone Alarm runs but there is no access to its setup and Outlook access to the net is blocked. The late Sygate last free edition runs fine with Avast although support has been discontinued.   

        • #3231347

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by petedude ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I’m not terribly surprised.  People have come to accept Symantec as a necessity just like they consider Microsoft a necessity.  Until other anti-virus vendors step up their marketing efforts, the AV market will just be Symantec and McAfee, neither of which I consider optimal.

        • #3231346

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by original eggman ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          For me, it’s a ‘kiss-kill’ situation. On occasion a Symantec utility (in the hands of someone who knows what not to do) has been a life saver.

          On the other hand, some of the worst disk and OS disasters I have
          encountered have been a direct result of users blindly running an
          ‘automated’ Symantec Disk or Registry repair/maintenence utility. In
          many cases Symantec is marketing their ‘pro tools’  to consumers
          without proper warnings and safeguards.

        • #3231336

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by robyn.plogger ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I hate to say this but “the sqeaky wheel gets the grease”.  That is to say, folks are more likely to complain than to complement so your survey results do not surprise me.  Give people a forum to complain and they will.  To have 150 respond is a small sampling and can not be taken as a valid gauge of a product, service, or statement.  Anyone who does surveys can tell you that.  Especially when there are millions of folks who use the Symantec products.  For the response to be a vaild measure, there would need to be many more respondents which is probably why Symantec has not replied to you.  Why would they with those results?  The measure is just not meaningful.

          I, for one, find the NORTON utilities to be much better than any tool around for clearing up Microsoft problems.  And trust me, these were problems that existed for which I had to get a tool to fix them.  To try to blame Microsoft’s operating systems failure on Symantec is a stretch at best.  Microsoft has had problems with their operating system LONG before Symantec or anyone else tried to lean a helping hand to frustrated users.

          The only thing I can say about your article (in summary) is akin to “Show me the money!”  Show me the proof.  You need documented substantial proof to make the acquisations you have made.  You do the software industry a dis-vice making comments without doing a valid, scientific survey.

          I would glady give Symantec a resounding show of support. 

           

           

        • #3231335

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by vinc_1969 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          This is for the guy with the mouse problem. Did you check the motherboard mouse connector, it siunds like it’s bad. If you have changed the mouse and the hhd then I would check the motherboard. Good luck.

        • #3231334

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by smonty1 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here
          I have to agree, many clients problems have been solved when I tell them to remove their Symantec product. They protest and they wail about the money they spent. However, in most cases I have been able to show that their PC is OK without Symantec.
          On a similar front, when attempting to access help from Symantec on behalf of a client I have experienced nothing but frustration, obfuscation, arrogance, ignorance and contempt which the client has confirmed that they have had similar experience when attempting to fix their problem before calling for my assistance.
          I have found Symantec products to be a blight on the PC scene and attempt to avoid them at all cost. I DO NOT RECOMMEND A SYMANTEC PRODUCT.
           
        • #3231331

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by marco_garza ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I have not personally experienced problems using the Symantec suite, primarily because I do not trust any “all-in-one”, “one-stop-shopping” packages.  This includes Symantec and McAfee.  I have experimented in the past with these suites and like so many other Administrators, had to uninstall them, clean out the registry for remains, & fix any OS problems.  Can you feel the hours of work involved?!  I think Symantec does anit-virus reall well.  McAfee is just OK.  But when it comes to Firewall, spam guard, etc., they should levae those utilities to companies dedicated to it.  I know they are trying to be consumer-friendly, but they are also making themselves enemies of the Admins who have to clean up their mess in aisle four!  Microsoft too is not free of blame.  Some of their quirks are exposed as well.  So for me, individual utilies, scripted to do a songle function is the way to go for me.  This keeps things nice and tidy and helps me to troubleshoot and isolate issues in their nice little “box”.  Because of the interdependence built into the suite packages, this can’t be done effectively.  Thus, I stay away and discourage others too, from using those all-in-one “jobbers”.

          Thx.

        • #3231329

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by john.knapp ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Of course Without any applications MS Windows XP works perfectly :>)

        • #3231327

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jjarzabek ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          John, in all honesty, who really cares if Microsoft knows or acknowledges the problems.  The same goes for Symantec.  The problems with shoddy software won’t ever stop because people keep buying the stuff.  Over the last 10 years we have seen some of the best marketing we will ever see.  Some of the sales people at these companies could sell a subscription for ice to people living in the Arctic!!!

          Microsoft takes the blame for nothing.  This is why they need so many people working for them to fix the stuff they rushed to market before.  Look at how fast new versions are released – I’m not talking only about MS or Sym. here either.  The quality just isn’t there.  I don’t care how many programmers you have and what degrees they have, it just cannot be done.  And before anyone starts, playing the linux card or open source cards, those don’t count because there are very few companies that run it successfully.  And yes, there are exceptions and I’m sure someone will chime in but the fact remains, MS products outnumber everything else.

          Seriously now.  If you had a product that sells as well as XP or almost anything from Symantec, would you do anything to improve it considering the fact you have what seems like an endless revenue stream coming in?

        • #3231325

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by john.mallaby ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Symantec software is (just about) OK when it is working but if you have to reinstall or uninstall for any reason it is an absolute nightmare!

        • #3231324

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by justin james ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Let’s not forget that Symantec likes to charge $30 – $60 for ONE technical support incident. Imagine buying a car, you hear a strange noise and take it to the dealer. The dealer will talk to you, but only if you spent nearly as much as you spent on the car itself. Would you pay $30,000 just to get a sequak or wobble checked out on a car? Nope! So how does Symantec get away with it?

          And for the person who wants proof that Symantect stinks, I have plenty. I used to work Help Desk for a major NAS manufacturer. One day, we got flooded with calls from customers who suddenly could not use the product. It turned out that Symantect had just updated the engine on their anti-virus product that totally reworked the way Windows was handling files on network servers, in just such a way that it was incompatable with our product. Granted, I cannot hold Symantec responsible for testing every possible combination of software, hardware, environment, etc. But the idea that they could mangle an underlying network protocol was amazing.

          I for one will never use a Symantec product outside of Ghost. And for what Symantec charges for Ghost, I will be using one of the less expensive alternatives to that too.

          J.Ja

        • #3231322

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by rubmop ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I think it is no surprise that even you did not get a response from Symantec.

        • #3231320

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by wcallahan1 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          From my perspective Symantec has been disliked for years.  What you’ve outlined in your article is nothing new, and just how Symantec has managed to keep going is a mystery to me.  The only thing I can think of is that they make the Lion’s share of their revenue from OEM sales.  Most consumers are too uninformed about the product choices they have, so they just keep up their subscription and live with it. 

        • #3231318

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jlm3 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          If you dislike Symantec you will hate Mcafee. Just try to uninstall it. Both products leave you gasping for air. McAfee constantly had me verifying my subscription when my machine would start. Symantec would abort MsOutlook. So what now blame it on MS? 

        • #3231313

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by wcallahan1 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here

        • #3231303

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by ray.wilson ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Have you ever tried to unistall McAfee?  Short of formatting the hard drive and re-installing XP its impossible (for me anyway). 

        • #3231292

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by kschwartz74 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I think you are on to something here.  With only one exception (the bug Microsoft introduced into their OS with a security patch), every time I have had problems with XP, it was right after I loaded some other product and I always wonder why XP isn’t compatible with it but in reality give XP is the OS most commonly used, why would other companies not make their software and utilities totally compatible and TESTED with XP…  Good points

        • #3231289

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jhamblet ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          That’s an interesting view. But you know, when I first install Windows XP on a new computer, it’s stable. It’s not until after I start installing applications that I start seeing problems–such as security suites, CD-DVD burning suites, that sort of stuff. 

        • #3231274

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by dumphrey ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I have used several AV products over the years.  AT home I started with Norton AV, then moved to trend Micro, and now on to DOD32.  In each case I bought ONLY the AV product, not a firewall/security suite.  On my Athlon XP i use Avast!, a free scanner, at the time I set it up it was the only option other then a corporate product with 5 lisences.  Overall, I can say I will never install Symantec AV on my HOME computer.  It eats ram and cpu cycles, is unstable, crashes other programs, and generaly just blows (thats a technical term =\).  BUT, we use Symantec Corporate 10 at work.  I have no problems manageing it, the workstations, or the users.  The corporate product is a completely different animal compared to the Home product.  As to Macafeeb…my 60 year old father bought a new Dell.  On the first boot up, Macafee security suite irritaed him beyond belief.  He removed it, and installed AVG, which he had used at work.  This is a man who only used MS Offiice for years.  On a 1 to 10, his computer knowlede is a 3.  But even he didnt consider Macafee an option, and Symantec wasn’t even get considered.

          As for MS windows, I like XP and server 2k3.  Both have been very stable for me, and required very little in the way of repaire.  But I am also very conservative in what and when I install software and updates.  Windows may be be UNIX, but it has its place in the server market and the desktop.

        • #3231248

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by blackcurrant ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Does MS take the blame? Quite often!

          I have discovered that many preceived OS problems are due to people trying to run applications which require far more resources than are available on their PC. Also, many people have 101 startup items, most of which they do not need.

          The main culprits here are the program writers. When the installer starts, it does not ask if you want the Adobe Speed Launcher to run every time Windows starts, it does not ask if you want the xyz monitor to launch every time Windows starts, it does not ask if you want the automatic update service to query the Internet every x minutes etc etc. The people who write these programs assume too much. If they empowered the end user by giving them enough information that they were aware there would be several TSR’s installed, the user would think “do I need this? No…” and deselect it from the list of available options.

          A lot of slow-performing PC’s have been slow because the installers have automatically installed startup programs which were not required. Also, the number of times I have seen users complaining about their ‘crappy’ pc’s because they could not run their games – then it turns out the graphics card is not up to scratch (or they are using on-board graphics), or they do not have enough RAM to run the game – sheesh!

        • #3231247

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jzg1 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here I HAVE REMOVED ALL SYMANTIC PRODUCTS FROM ONE COMPUTER AND REPLACED IT WITH FREE ALTERNATIVES AND FIND SPEED HAS INCREASED AND PROBLEMS HAVE DISAPPEARED.  THIS OLDER COMPUTER IS NOW FASTER THAN THE NEWER ONE.

          I HAVE ALSO FOUND SYMANTIC DOES NOT REPLY TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEIR PRODUCTS THAT REFUSE TO INSTALL PROPERLY OR BREAK DOWN AFTER INSTALLATION.

          REMOVAL IS ALSO A PROBLEM AS IT REQUIRES MULTIPLE VISITS TO THEIR SITES TO GET REMOVAL TOOLS.  AFTER YEARS OF USE I HAVE GIVEN UP ON THEM.  THEY ARE LIKE A VIRUS CAUSING PROBLEMS FREQUENTLY.

        • #3231214

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by smcgee ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Well, I am not a tech administrator but rather a technology researcher so I have little knowlege of how to repair machines…

          As a home user I would like to SHOOT Symantec for even selling their product let alone the analysts that put them in the top 5 products.

          I had a home machine that was running Windows just fine… until I upgraded to Symantec’s Internet Security to “protect” my machine. The software corrupted my machine and Symantec even had a nice article all about the problem and how to manually remove all the code. The only poblem is… it didn’t remove all the code or fix the problem. After a few days on the phone with Symantec’s customer service, they basicall said, “so sad… too bad”).

          So I attempted to get Microsoft to help me since they have Symanyec as a partner. After several weeks on the phone with Microsoft, even they could not fix what had been done by Symantec’s product, they sent me a an XP disk and I rebuilt the whole machine. I installed Trend Micro’s product and have a fast, secure system once again.

          Many fo my associates and friends ask me about technology products… I would not recommend Symantec if my life depended on it!

          Thanks,
          Happy PC-cillian customer

        • #3231211

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by andrewtuline ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Our purchaser has been trying for months to get Symantec to straighten out our Backup Exec licensing. Working with them is almost a non-starter.

          Apparently Adobe is just as bad, if not worse.

        • #3231208

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by mindilator9 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          symantec, for the most part, just plain sucks. systemworks was an ok application. the subscription part, i’ll agree with the others, can be misleading for the unintiated. users seem to have no idea that once it’s gone, their virus protection is kaput. their programs are memory hogs. symantec internet security, in particular, makes me homicidal. every time someone calls me because their outlook complains about an incoming or outgoing email, i feel like forwarding that tech support call right on to symantec so they can explain to their customer why their software is making our lives hell. first thing i ask when i get that call is “do you have norton internet security installed?” if yes, i can almost always guarantee that is the problem. disabling that p.o.s. fixes a majority of users’ problems using email clients and the internet. i mean, it’s so secure that NOTHING gets in or out. good or bad. that’s not good, despite what the most diehard security expert will retort. symantec may as well advocate internet abstinence. it seems to me that norton’s products were much better back when they were actually norton’s and not symantec’s. i don’t need a nazi av/firewall, just one that discriminates correctly. btw, mcafee is just as bad.

        • #3231179

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jjkreps ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          While Windows XP, Microsfot Office, and other Microsoft products have their share of problems, poor design and attempts to “own” the system by many utilies appear to create addtional instablities. Just this weekend, I removed Norton System Works and PC Anywhere from a client’s computer running Windows XP in an attempt to reduce the boot time below seven minutes. After running the uninstall, I checked the system registry and found over 2000 entries remaining related to Symantec products including calls to several drivers such as speed disk, unerase, etc. There were probably others that I didn’t find due to the naming methods, but just eliminating these reduced the boot time to under two minutes. If you can write to the registry to add entries for your product, you should thoroughly remove these entries upon uninstall to restore the computer to a “clean” state.

        • #3231164

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by eelder1 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I teach Comptia A+ and Net+ and advise my students agisnt using Symanthech AV products. Zone Alarm and Trend Micro products seems always rate higher and Symantech products require a download to remove. Symantech AV is very invasive. This product will corrupt a hard drive over time. I have used Panda and Trend Micro products for years without corrupting my hard drive.

        • #3231154

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by radams36 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          “Windows XP and Microsoft products in general have this reputation of being unstable and unreliable. I wonder how much of that is inherent in Microsoft software itself and how much is caused by ?utilities? like those from Symantec that are supposed to be fixing problems rather than causing them? Does Microsoft take the blame for other people?s shoddy work?”

          This is absolutely true. Virtually every GPF or BSOD error I have ever seen could be plausibly, and often categorically, traced back to either a third-party application or a non-MS hardware driver. HP LaserJet IV drivers were very unstable and problematic, in my experience. I’ve seen many problems on computers cleared up by un-installing the very ill-behaved Norton Anti-Virus. Most of my experience in this respect goes back about 10 years to when I was doing Windows 95, then Windows 98 support. But it continues to be my experience that Windows is much more stable and reliable than its reputation if you do your best to avoid types of applications that can easily be predicted to have potential to destabilize the system (third-party screensavers being a prime example). I have several computers with different versions of Windows installed, and I almost never have any problems with Windows itself.

          MS does have its flaws, and makes its missteps, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of support calls that I’ve taken over the years that were all about bashing how awful Windows was, and it was almost always something other than ‘standard’ Windows that was causing the problem.

        • #3231143

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by jack-m ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Then there was three. I like and use Symantec’s Norton System Works almost daily and I’m satisfied.

        • #3231088

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by billtomlin ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Well as one of only network administrators on the planet that has been able to successfully use Symantec NAVCE, Symantec Security for Exchange, and LiveStateRecovery as a main Disaster Recovery solution I think I should weigh in again and say that an “almost universal dislike for Symantec” might be better stated as a universal failure to succeed where others have prevailed.

          Promoting Group Think in an editor?s forum seems to be an amateurish approach to promoting open-ended debate and conversation.  And now for Windows XP, and how many of you have failed here where others have succeeded, lets all commence in group misery again, for what purpose?

          Really John how about growing up and networking like a man?

          When frustration with imperfect products takes on a lynch mob mentality you need to step back and stop being so serious about all of this.

          As I have often said of late in my new IT Manager job “perhaps you would prefer an abacus a pad of paper and a pencil.”

        • #3202221

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by rndmacts ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I can guarantee to those that say they are using Symantec and had no problems is that they are operating a zombie machine and that they have not had Internet security in quite awhile. In the last month, the company has had to patch two holes in their main engine which allowed anyone to disable it, and this was not only the current version but all previous versions as well. Symantec was not alone in this but McAfee had the same problem, but that is understandable being they were the same company for a while in the 90’s,.

          I worked on help desk for a tier one computer company, and every time MS released a new version of its OS, Win 95, 98, 98SE, Me, XP and NT, W2K, 2003, for the first 6 months the majority of calls were the same, the fix was always the same, dump the Norton and walk the user through a cleanup of all the registry entries. Real Internet security is about educating the user and explaining that the free software they thought they needed had also just installed as many as forty things they weren’t aware. And yes email was great but just because an attachment came from a friend, didn’t particularly mean it was safe.

          As I noted a lot of the comments came from people using AVG, who then went on to say they had no problems, well Grisoft should behave well with MS as it is a MS company. MS bought the company two or three years ago, its software is part of the LiveCare product. AVG is also one of the few anti virus packages that plays nice with the new Vista.

          It is also one of the main reasons  that Symantec is upset with Vista and has been crapping on it lately by producing reports based on an early Beta 2, knowing full well that all the exploits they were commenting on had been closed. Vista in its current version makes it very hard for viruses to infiltrate mainly because most of the normal vectors have been removed, IE is secure because it operates in protected mode, any penetration is defeated by simply shutting down the current instance of the browser, trying to attack the kernel is almost impossible because of virtualization, you have to admit it is very hard to hit a moving target.

          Peter Norton created great utilities for DOS and Win 3.1 but once Symantec bought out Norton and started adding their embellishments the package became crap. A product should do one thing, and do that very well, products that try to do everything usually end up doing none of them very well. That is why companies like (Grisoft) AVG, and ZoneAlarm are so successful, they concentrate mainly on one product and try to perfect it. That is why MS Office is so successful in that there are discrete products that can operate without the others, the competition has always relied on the suite approach, Lotus SAM, OpenOffice, and Corel though they are hanging in there because WordPerfect is a standalone applications with features unique to itself so it can compete one on one with Word. Given word processors, WordPerfect was always superior and easier to use than Word.

          In truth, Windows was always dependable but it was always the crap added that broke the system, and the biggest culprit in breaking Windows was always the security suites which gave users a false sense of security, they figured the computer was protecting them, so they continued to do the stupid things that social networking relies on, I mean give me a break how many people that are rational are going to believe they are receiving email from complete strangers saying “I Love You”. How long did it take Symantec and McAfee to come to the protection of these idiots. My grandfather always told me “if you leave the barn doors open don’t be surprised if the animals decided they need an adventure”.

        • #3202217

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by joedcook ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I recently came across a copy of Microsoft Windows on 5 1/4 diskettes
          and I am pretty sure that I had those installed on an IBM-XT at one
          time. I am sure this was the definition of slow.. but it was pretty
          reliable and stable.  I used only IBM hardware in those days
          1983-1987 and they were reliable though I never seriously ran Windows
          until around 1991.  So later when I began to use other brands of
          systems and tried to defend Microsoft against the Apple users who made
          fun of me, I pointed out that only Microsoft made software to run on
          hundreds of different computers configured thousands of different ways.
          So I justified giving a little (ok maybe more than a little) on
          stability to gain in flexibility and lower cost. By choosing Microsoft
          OS’s we had much greater choice of hardware and software available so
          that is what we did, but we all knew we were sacrificing stability and
          reliability in making that choice. Microsoft made trade-offs in their
          decisions on software design too. A lot of them. All of the trade-offs
          had two big factors though..  a:Will this be easy for users? b:
          Will this increase sales?. 

          It seems to me that the registry is a big part of the problem. Both its
          size and structure and the fact that it is wide open to any software to
          use any way that it sees fit.  I remember one customer who had a
          problem with Lotus WordPro keeping addresses for her mailing labels.
          Come to find out Lotus was storing these addresses in the Windows
          Registry.  But it always seemed to me that it should be more
          restricted or protected from casual access. I am also amazed at the
          warnings of how dangerous it is to modify the registry (and it is) and
          how often that is the only way to resolve a problem or condition. My
          vote is that there was nothing wrong with a lot of smaller .ini files
          to store configuration information. You could access and modify them
          with any text editor and it was much less likely that botching one of
          them would disable the whole system.  It would also eliminate the
          need for these third party registry cleaners that never seem to work…
          well how could they. No one can tell what entries are legit and which
          are bogus without some kind of database to check against known bad
          entries.

          So while it appears some unstable software, like a webserver or
          anti-virus for instance, can introduce vulnerability and stability
          issues into Windows the same possiblities exist for other operating
          systems so you can’t leave Microsoft blameless on that issue. In some
          ways they are a victim of their own success. There is such a huge
          amount of software already written, much of it for an environment very
          different than that which we find today, that fixing the problems will
          cause this software not to run properly. Backward compatiblity is
          another trade off they were forced to make, again with an eye on how it
          will affect users and sales.

          Drivers are another problem for Windows and most vendors still don’t
          have drivers that are compatiblity tested for Windows XP.  Almost
          every installation instruction sheet says “if you get a security
          warning that this driver has not passed compatability testing… just
          hit INSTALL ANYWAY”.  This probably has to do with the cost of
          compatibility testing and the drivers are probably ok.. but who could
          tell.

          Of course now I have seen Linux distributions install on more hardware
          with less driver problems than I ever had with Windows and in less time
          and it is more stable so I can’t use the excuse for Microsoft that they
          have a wider hardware footprint anymore. I am afraid that Vista will be
          too different to suit users and not different enough to satisfy
          stability and security problems.  I think it will be at least the
          next version before Microsoft can address many of these issues.. but
          will they?  If they sell a ton of Vista they won’t. People vote
          with their pocket books and for now we are saying it’s good enough.
          Same for Symantec.. I haven’t seen their income statement but someone
          must be sending them a lot of money.. apparently not your readers.

          So no I don’t believe that Microsoft is getting too much of the blame
          for someone else’s shoddy work. I am afaid in the world of commercial
          software there is more than enough blame for everyone.

        • #3202211

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by meparks ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here

        • #3202191

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by meparks ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I must say it does not surprise me to read about such outrage with
          Symantec’s products.  Of course “Symantec’s Products” is a very
          broad statement.

          My experience with Symantec dates back to their very beginnings with
          diagnostic software for DOS in the 80’s.  Back then it took
          someone who knew a little about computers to use their product. 
          Giving it an educated guess. . .over the years as software engineering
          / technology has grown more complicated along with more complex virus’s
          I have noted that Symantec has had to up the ante to deal with these
          complexities.  Example, there are virus’s which will specifically
          disable Symantec’s antivirus products.  So I would figure that
          Symantec has had to take appicable steps to curtail this.

          On the daily application side, I have personally used and also
          installed on all of my clients systems Symantec’s products for the last
          two decades plus.  Since 99.9% of my clients do not have any
          technology background I have set everything up for them, to allow them
          to just do computing.  There has been minimal problems, and what
          there has been was user error in every instance.

          Symantec products do have the capability of being a pain at times, but
          once installed and setup correctly I find they are very solid and
          reliable.  I am more comfortable with Symantec than any other
          product out there from long term proven capabilities.  And until
          someone can show me another product that will outdo Symantec’s by a
          long shot or Symantec’s become so rediculous to use, I will stay with
          Symantec.

        • #3202158

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by knowkatz ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          For six weeks I blamed Microsoft XP Media for many of the problems I was experiencing on my new system. Finally, I got tired of the assortment of problems and when I couldn’t seem to convince the Symantec firewall to allow me access to my own printer (dropped the firewall and it would work) I uninstalled the entire suite and purchased the Zone Alarm suite. WHAT A MIRACLE!! My system was cured and it doesn’t take 45 minutes to load! The thing that really ticks me off is the money I spent to get nothing but GIANT headaches. Guess I’ll chalk that up to a lesson learned. Needless to say I won’t be recommending Symantec to anyone!

        • #3202157

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by rdiiulio ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I currently cannot agree with the comments about Symantec.  Microsoft cannot be trusted.  This weekend I had to help one of my relatives with not being able to connect to the internet.  I found that the ethernet device was on the motherboard and he had automatic updates turned ON.  Once he did a rollback of the driver, he was fine.  At work, the sound device is on the motherboard and the similar thing happened, no sound.  Downloaded the driver from the motherboard website and it was okay once again.  I never let Microsoft have free rain over my PCs, either at work or home.  I have used Symantec for years for both corporate and personal use.

          Your last comment saying Windows may not have been unstable as one thought.  I would have to disagree very stongly, Microsoft OS upgrades have been badly developed and supported.  I waited at least a year before I upgraded to Windows XP Pro (Home version is useless).  I do not plan to upgrade to Vista for at least two years.  I will say that Windows XP and Windows 2000 Server are the most stable platforms for now.

          Just to give you a little bit of my background.  I am a Application programmer for both Unix and Windows platforms.  I have supported a large WAN with several locations accessing the main office LAN running both Unix and Windows.  I never fell prey to a virus.

        • #3202154

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by katybob5 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here

          symantec does great thing on our network.

        • #3202146

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by irhastings ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          well I think that this could be the very real part of the xp problem.

          when you look at the way xp reacts with symantec then you will understand. I hate having any of their products on my computer, they are also hard to get rid of.

        • #3202138

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by d.belford ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I stopped using Symantec mid last year – better alternatives everywhere
          The PCs I manage have  – interestingly enough – have suffered much less from all forms of Malware since we droped AV scanning in favour of user education (peer group pressure is a powerful thing and introduced AntiSpyware. Out – Macafee, symantec, in Sunbelt, Regsoft.
          I think it is time to put regsoft out and bring in Trend Micro. Although I have my doubts whether the users will care for this, they will be affronted by the level of dialogue required. But this may be just a haxdoor thing. Hard to say yet.
          I should add that all our workstations (several hundred) have 100Mb switched connections to the ‘Internet’ are XP Pro, auto update and rely on the built in firewall.  

        • #3202121

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by peter hegler ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Norton Utilities used to be one of the “great” programs to have on hand for a variety of system utilities which, by the way, was their forte.  Speed disk was and probably STILL is one of the best. (Virus checking wasn’t one of them as F-Prot, Thunderbyte and Dr. Solomon were far superior!).  Windoctor and Diskdoctor were also very good and they saved my skin several times.

          I had the ultimate disaster last March when my e-machine motherboard gave up and I had to install another M/B in the P4 2.8.  When I tried the recovery disks, I was advised by the system that Norton Ghost had control of the files and I would not be able to recover files until Ghost was released.  What an unpleasant surprise since I could not access windows without the recovery disks so Ghost controlled and locked the system and prevented the recovery of the windows files.  Drat!  (Little did I realize that emachines recovery wouldn’t do the job either since the emachine M/B was replaced and I could not have loaded xp from the recovery disks anyway but Ghost prevented me from finding that out for several months.

          Problem only solved by buying another P4 (not emachne for sure) and not loading Ghost!.

          Its interesting to note that Ghost was not part of the new package (or I didn’t load that part).

          I wish Norton would have stayed with what they were good at!

           

          Peter H.

        • #3199460

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by justin james ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          “I waited at least a year before I upgraded to Windows XP Pro (Home version is useless).”

          This statement really discredits its author. They obviously have little knowledge of Windows XP as an OS, or they would not be saying this. 99% of the differences between XP Pro and XP Home are things that 99% of home users will never notice, like not being able to join an Active Directory domain. The only one that I ever saw as a pain point was that Windows Backup was not included in Home. The author of this statement may be an application developer, but that does not mean that they are an OS expert.

          J.Ja

        • #3199392

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by tank-at-large ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Insert comment text here

          I use the Enterprise Version of Symantec and I have several layers built up.  I have no real complaints.  HOWEVER, I have mostly an XP house with some 2000 system mixed in.  Here is an interesting trend I am noticing.  As the XP systems age, I do notice that the Symantec program impacts the startup of XP.  I have all my desktops set to update upon login or when ever there are new updates available on the servers.

           

          I am not sure what that is all about, but I can clear the problem by reloading Symantec most of the time.  However, if the MS ROT has progressed too far, I have to reload/rebuild XP.  I don?t have these problems with the 2000 systems I still have.  Of course, I try to do very little with the 2000 systems.

        • #3199370

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by bkoritko ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          I believe that most problems with the operating system evolve from someone elses software. Unfortunately Win XP runs great all by itself but is useless without all the other software that eventually leads to failures.

        • #3277032

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by wkt37211 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          It has been my experience that Windows has never been as stable of a platform as we would all like. MS has improved their products but I feel that they really don’t feel as if they need too because they have so much of the market share–a near monopoly. I feel like I am in somewhat of a unique position. I have had to install computer operated equipment and train customers that have had absolutely no previous experience with any type of pc’s. The unique part is the customer can choose either a PC or a Mac. The company I work for is a Mac shop. When they designed the equipment they wrote Mac software for it (I suppose in a failed attempt to change the world). Customers, especially if their IT department got involved did not want that one odd machine in there! My company had to back step and rewrite the software for PC’s. As a Senior Service Engineer I soon realized that I was in a position to see how the two systems, PC and Mac, worked from the ground up. With out question the people I trained on the Mac’s learned more quickly and didn’t have lock-ups or BSOD, etc. The installations went smoothly and I had a very minium of call backs. The Pc installs did not go as well and I received many call back that were completly software i.e. Windows related. The inexperienced person picked up on the Mac OS easily. Windows was just harded for the untrained to grasp. They felt overwhelmed. I am MS trained and Mac’s were my second “language.”

          I know that what I have said above is not exactly what you were asking so bear with me. I have seen a lot of problems caused by add on software where the users just did not have the experience to safely use. The older versions of Symantecs’ System Works were usually easier to recover from an error it caused. I have used Nortons from the time it came out on floppies and continued to use Symantec until about 2004 when my children started college. I frequently had late night phone calls when something didn’t work correctly. Spyware software can be just as bad. In some cases not allowing access to some sites where a page just will not load and no message given. Also, lists of spyware found and little explaination is given and unexperienced operators know knowing how to deal with the “threat.” Messages about a home page being changed or a search engine change and probably worst of all a BHO being added. Most people give up. Window updates–do I need this i.e. Hi Mat update, Media player update, yada, yada, yada. It is almost as if you should spend a few months training before you start your “Out of Box Experience.” Mac’s just don’t have the magnitude of trouble “Out of the Box.” I have 6 PC’s in my family having built most of them to save money. Damn if I might just break down and spend the money on a Mac!

        • #3166722

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by bcasson ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Symantec’s Norton Antivirus 2006 rendered parts of my Visual Studio development unusable.  After I installed NA 2006, I couldn’t load Windows Form projects, Visual Studio just terminated (each and every time).  I got no where with Symantec’s support; it was a BIG waste of time and cost me several days of development time.  I then went to Microsoft, the charge per call service, and had the problem resolved by the next day.  Also, Microsoft turned around and refunded my payment.  The problem was some type of corruption in my Windows XP profile; creating a new user allowed me to get back on track.

          Occationally, I have a problem with their firewall saying that Visual Studio debugging web server is a worm and it blocks my access.  More wasted time!

          They won’t be getting my business in the future!

          Take this one off Microsoft and heap it on Symantec

        • #3166679

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by plumley9 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Once there was Paul Mace Utitlities, and Central Point Software, and Peter Norton, and dozens of other companies in the 3rd party market (you remember all those not Microsoft and not Intel). In business applications the ‘great scumsucker’ was Wang and Computer Associates – buy up small companies, merge the cheapest solution into their product line, and KILL the competition. Symantec has become the CA of personal software. Rule one of BAD companies – extend by interference. If you run McAfee Anti-Virus the Symantec Firewall claims it is a virus and won’t work with it. Give the product away with new equipment, but require four different steps for removal before a competing product can be installed. Advantage by interference is a way of buiness in the Wintel empire, but it still comes down to

          GREED = Stupid! and ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’. 

        • #3209094

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by webcoyote1245 ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          In my opinion a good share, not 100% but 60-75%, as a pc repair person I come across more machine than not that have problems cause by Symantec software and ones with AOL the problems lay with this software and not the Microsoft OS. I personally am running machines with MS XP Pro, XP Home, XP Media, and XP 64 and have had no problem what so ever. 

        • #3200187

          TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          by lthse ·

          In reply to TechRepublic members reveal an almost universal dislike of Symantec software

          Symantec is out the door…They knocked off my service because an employee installed my System Works on her own machine…After re-validating and buying another license, my system was so messed up I couldn’t even install the trial anti-virus…Reinstalled the OS and went to AVG…Lost a lot of time and some cash, but, learned a lesson…Don’t get married to a product…After a few incidents, cut it loose and move on…

      • #3212678

        A quarter century of living with the PC

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Over the weekend, August 12th precisely, PC
        computing turned 25 years old. On that date back in 1981, IBM shipped the first
        IBM PC. Microcomputers had already been around for several years, but the IBM
        PC ?legitimatized? computers in the workplace. Apple, Radio Shack, and others
        were starting to make small inroads into business with their offerings, but it
        wasn?t until the PC arrived that they really took off.

        CNN.COM
        ran an article
        discussing the 25th anniversary of the PC.
        CNN.COM certainly isn?t a tech site per se, but I was still a bit taken aback
        by one paragraph in the article:

        ?A floppy disk is a
        thin, plastic disk that was coated with a magnetic substance used to store
        data. Earliest disks were 8 inches wide, more efficient disks shrunk to 5 1/4
        inches, then 3 1/2 inches. Unlike a CDs or DVDs of today, the disks were
        floppy, or flexible.?

        I find it hard to believe that that many people would be that
        unfamiliar with what a floppy disk was that CNN felt the need to devote an
        entire paragraph to it. Floppy drives still appear on some systems, and most
        people would have either grown up with them if they were under 25 or used them
        at some point if they were over 25.

        It would be interesting to think what things would be like
        now if IBM hadn?t entered the microcomputer market. Compaq likely never have
        been formed because its sole purpose was to clone the successful PC. Michael
        Dell never would have been because he started out selling gray market PCs out
        of the back of his dorm room. Bill Gates would still be in New Mexico with a
        small business working out of store front selling languages. Linux may never
        have existed because Linus Torvalds created it as a clone of a Unix-based OS
        for a PC-compatible.

        It?s conceivable that we?d still have the Mac. Apple was
        influenced by the PC, but not all that much. Tandy/Radio Shack may have stayed
        in the market place longer. Because they were starting to leverage Unix on
        their business PCs such as the Model II and the Tandy 6000, Tandy may have lead
        the charge to bring Unix into the forefront of small computers

        The Internet had already been in existence for over 10
        years, so we may still have been surfing the Internet. Except rather than doing
        it on IBM compatibles running Microsoft Windows, we may have been doing it on
        Tandy-compatibles running some flavor of Unix. Or, it would be a Utopia for 5%
        of the current market because we?d all be using Macs.

        A company I did some consulting for was using original IBM
        PCs as late as 1992. I should have salvaged one of the machines because they
        wound up tossing the last one in the dumpster by 1994. I couldn?t see taking up
        the room at the house with one though. I still had boxes of 5 1/4? floppies
        around and my trusty Tandy 1000 to run them on. Even that computer is old
        enough to drink now.

        But as for the PC generation, it enters another quarter
        century. With all of the changes in the last 25 years, it?s hard to imagine
        what it?s going to be like at the end of 50 years.

        • #3231326

          A quarter century of living with the PC

          by rexworld ·

          In reply to A quarter century of living with the PC

          I don’t think it’s all that surprising CNN felt the need to devote a paragraph explaining floppy disks.  None of the computers I’ve owned in the last five years came with a floppy.  In fact last year I had to buy an external USB floppy drive because of a project where I actually did need to deal with floppy disks.

          Face it John, you’re just old  🙂

        • #3199244

          A quarter century of living with the PC

          by richard cosgrave ·

          In reply to A quarter century of living with the PC

          A couple if years ago I played a record (one of those vinyl things) to the son of a friend . As side one came to an end I instinctivly flipped the record over and started side two Liam’s eyes popped out of his head – you can play BOTH sides! This child (now 15) had never seen a record player in use. Now about floppy discs…

      • #3277148

        Which is the best Linux distribution?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        For some time now I?ve been using SuSe Professional 10.0 as
        the basis for my experiments with Linux. I?ve dabbled with Fedora Core 5, and it?s been
        ok, but just not that earth shattering. With so many versions of Linux around
        and the new release of SuSe 10.1, I thought maybe I?d try a different
        distribution for a while.

        The key is trying to find the best one. Jay Garmon, the
        Trivia Geek here at TechRepublic, favors
        Ubuntu
        . Jack Wallen, self-described poster boy for the Linux Revolution, also
        claims
        Ubuntu as his favorite
        . I downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 yesterday but have yet
        to install it.

        I still lean towards SuSe from a long fondness for Novell.
        Not to mention the fact that SuSe has worked much better for me than previous
        experiments I ran with older versions of Red Hat. SuSe 10.0 has been a better
        experience overall than Fedora Core 5 was too. Fedora Core 5?s only real
        advantage I thought was Gnome 2.14, which you still can?t get on SuSe yet.

        SuSe has just shipped 10.1. I don?t think there?s much
        advantage to me upgrading at this point. Except for the base kernel version, I?ve
        already installed KDE 3.5.3 on the 10.0 and made a bunch of other modifications,
        so moving to 10.1 would be a step backwards in some respects. I?ll probably
        just leave that machine on 10.0 until 10.2 or 10.3 comes out.

        There are lots of other options for Linux: Xandros, Debian,
        Mandrake, Vector, Knoppix, etc. There are probably more flavors of Linux than
        ice cream in a Baskin-Robbins. So, if I were to try something other than SuSe,
        what would be a good choice?

        • #3166651

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by jason ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Also being new to Linux, I have been using Xandros for a few months and am now onto their 4.0 product.  I have enjoyed it and found it to be user-friendly for the most part.  There are a few quirks such as not being able to type on typeable PDF forms and editing them with acrobat, and from what I can see their error reporting features are either non-existent or I just don’t know what I’m doing.  But most windows programs that I use are generally compatible with their Crossover Office program, which is nice.  I really like their KDE Kmail program as in integrates with other KDE programs to look very similar to MS Outlook.  I like it better than Outlook.  They bundled everything really well in my opinion.  Installation is extremely smooth and easy, and was very quick.  Very little user intervention was needed to install everything.  My 2 favorite installation features: Partitioning the hard drive to keep your Windows–when the computer reboots it prompts you to either boot Xandros, Windows, Safe mode, or Configure (Expert); the other favorite is that when installing it asks which operating system style you are used to because it can emulate it (ie. Windows, Mac, Unix, Xandros, etc)

          I’m going to build a server & install their Xandros Server product soon, so we’ll see how it does.

        • #3229431

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          The question “What is the best Linux distro?” is meaningless without qualifying it somehow. Better questions might be “What is the best Linux distro for easy install with weird hardware?” or “What is the best Linux distro for corporate support contracts?” or “What is the best Linux distro for stable operation and easy administration?”

          On the other hand, Debian is the best all-around distribution. No, rilly! It’s really easy to install and features the world’s best software management system. At least, that’s my take on it.

          Now, if only it was BSD-licensed instead of GPLed. . . .

        • #3229397

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by lastchip ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          I had a really good experience with Xandros, having tried RedHat, Mandrake, (Mandriva), SuSE 9.0, Ubuntu and Debian. I still recommend Xandros to newbies, as it’s so user friendly as a first Linux experience.

          However, I recently built a new 64 bit machine and was looking for an alternative to load and tried SuSe 10.1-64 and I’ve got to say, it’s absolutely great (for me), but inevitably, it will depend upon your requirements and perception of what you think a Linux system should be.

          Slightly off topic, Vista 64 bit is on the same machine, and while accepting it’s beta, there’s no comparison. It’s a sluggish (pretty) joke!

          Frankly, I’ve found RedHat (Fedora) poor and nowhere near as good as SuSE. I haven’t tried the latest release’s of Mandriva, which may be an area you want to explore. Ubuntu, consistently had installation issues (for me) that made me give up with it (multi-boot machine).

          One day, I’ll try again with Debian, but I couldn’t get to grips with a custom install and detest their Gnome interface (I prefer KDE), but would like to experiment with others. I need to find a good tutorial on how to use that customer installer.

          But ultimately, they are all pretty similar in the applications they load and hence the overall package that you receive.

          If you’re happy with SuSE, my advice would be, stay with it!

        • #3229961

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by sysadminii ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          I have run Fedora 3 and 4 as well as Suse 9.0, but my all time favorite Linux has to be Debian. Currently I have “Sarge” installed and the updating of packages seems to be far superior to any distro I have installed and the documentaiton is absolutely unlimited. I did purchase a book from bookpool.com called Debain 3.1 and it was loaded with the basics all the way to advanced techniques and found it as a great resource. I did install Ubuntu on a IBM laptop not along and found that rather easy to configure and install and the detection of hardware was seamless. Basically, if you know one flavor of Linux, then all the rest pretty much follow suit. It does appear that Debian does offer more applications then most flavors that I have installed and that seems to be a driving force behind their success.

        • #3229938

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by bookkeeper ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          I don’t know which is the best distribution I guess it depends on what your needs are or what you plan in using it for, but I downloaded Ubuntu the other day and I was impressed that i could just boot up to a CD and it loaded on my computer quite nicely. Even most of the programs worked as i played with it for a few hours and the need feature i found was you could play with it and not actually installing it. Not sure how well it will install when i do but, it was a quite neet little feature.

        • #3229879

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by gregunit ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          We have been working with Debian for a number of years and have found it to be very reliable and stable as an SMB server. It is also about the last non-corporate linux distribution with any credibility. However, due to their lack of support for ooo v2.x (open office.org) I don?t see us using it as a desktop operating system.

           

          Greg Allen ? Active-Technologies, LLC

        • #3229834

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by kdnoel ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          I go back to the days of CPM, TRSDOS, LDOS, XENIX and there after and just for kicks I bought a $75.00 server from my local junk store last week…  to give Ubuntu a try out.

          The ole Compaq 850R came with two 18gig scsi harddrives with hardware array, 1/2gig of ram, two Pentium 200mhz proceessors and no operating system so I download the both the “Live CD image” and the Ubuntu server image.

          The Live cd booted and ran but only in the safe VGA mode but did allow me to partion and setup the mirrored drives but was of course a Dog! I spent the next couple of evenings installing the server version and with no more help than searching the Ubuntu forums I managed to get the ole girl up and running. I came in this weekend and put it on my office network, setup Samba and by Monday morning I have a shared drive for storage and backup purposes. I must say I am impressed!

          Being an old Novell user I am going to experiment with their new SLED release but I might go with Ubuntu in the end since it is totally FREE on a trial workstation setup live in the office environment.

          Linux does look like an option here and I would encourage all to give it shot!

          Kevin

        • #3229764

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by realaustech ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Having been using linux since the early 90’s, I have used many distros including Slakware, Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, and Debian being typical. Of all of them, I prefer SuSe 10 Professional, and am about to install 10.1. I found that SuSe is the easiest to install and configure.

        • #3201924

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by harrybarracuda ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          http://www.distrowatch.org

          Not only a great site for keeping up with what the various distributions are doing, but also has a nice top 100 list that lets you know what’s catching peoples attention.

          Personally I’m very impressed with PCLinuxOS. I have a relatively old and underpowered Fujitsu Siemens laptop and it pretty well discovered everything and works really well, even on wireless.

          My biggest beef with Linux has always been hardware detection, but it’s getting to the stage now where it’s working out of the box on an awful lot of systems!

          Simply Mepis is a great build as well.

        • #3201923

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by silkmaze ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          I am looking for a distro that will install my wireless card (Realtek RTL8180L) without me having to resort to Ndiswrapper. I am using Suse 10.1 at home, having upgraded from 9.0. I like Suse. It is easy to install, walks a user gently through the installation process and at the end makes it easy to make any changes necessary/wanted/needed.

          I really like the huge amount of software I get with Suse. That not only rivals MS but MS doesn’t even see Suse’s dust they are so far behind.

          I am not a gamer but I am a torrent user. Suse has a built in downloader. MS has a default setting in their TCPIP.SYS that limits the number of simultaneous downloads to 10, this can only be bypassed with a hack, which is reset everytime there is a security update. I have a 6000k download flat-rate at home, so 10 sim SL’s is stupid. No problems there with Suse.

          I have a little sideline as a procurer or finder. I find stuff for people and companies that they can’t, be it because they don’t have the time or the know-how. Being limited to IE and the security holes that MS seems to build into every version of their offerings is something I can live without. I feel and am safe with linux.

          I switched my whole business over to linux (Suse) 18 months ago. Since then we have had no problems with viruses, worms or trojans; also no howls of pain, anger or fustration when a PC hangs or crashes. I was surprised how quickly my people warmed to Suse, somo of whom have started to use it at home.

          And the amount of money I am saving just makes the whole switch over even sweeter for my business.

          I have no problems advocating Linux as the main OS for commercial or private use, depending of-course on the extra SW that each business needs on a day-to-day basis.

          Which distro is best – which everone makes you life easier. Isn’t is nice to be able to chose what/which one YOU want!!!

        • #3201914

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by justacoder ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Why go so big and bloated?  Try some mini distros, of which Damn Small Linux is my favorite.  Also use the [command-line] force Luke.  Need to update the kernel?  A full-scale OS install shows you’ve not mastered the modular nature of Linux and UNIX.  So I might suggest (only),  what you need is not a new Mega-Splat distro, rather a deeper knowledge of Linux that brings you closer to tuning and managing whatever distro you have more adeptly–or a really neat impromptu Linux like DSL that gives you wonderful linux in about 50 Megabytes.

          jt

        • #3201859

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by tech.systems ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Try Mepis.  It is very well done single CD distro that offers most of what a person needs.  I liked Mepis a little bit better before they changed to using the Ubuntu core, but it still is good and I hope the author maintains the distinct features of Mepis, such as better program groupings, nice selection of apps and easy configuration.  There still could be improvements made, but I have tried quite a few distros and this is one of the best single CD distros.  The other nice thing about it, is it also serves as a Live CD version.  When you boot the disk it runs Mepis, not some install program.  After you are in Mepis and play with it a while, there is an icon on the desktop to install it. 

        • #3201832

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by bob.macadam ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          From what I have been reading (and using), it really depends upon what the user is after. For example, a general Windows user will probably find Freespire or Ubuntu closer to what they are familiar with. On the other hand, a power user would probably be more comfortable with Fedora or Suse. A hard-core user will probably be more interested in Slackware. IMO, that’s probably the most interesting thing about Linux. There are several popular distros with large communitites that cater to your strengths and needs.

        • #3201797

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by bob.macadam ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          From what I have been reading (and using), it really depends upon what the user is after. For example, a general Windows user will probably find Freespire or Ubuntu closer to what they are familiar with. On the other hand, a power user would probably be more comfortable with Fedora or Suse. A hard-core user will probably be more interested in Slackware. IMO, that’s probably the most interesting thing about Linux. There are several popular distros with large communitites that cater to your strengths and needs.

        • #3231009

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by minhajlk ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Try Ubuntu its pretty neat…

        • #3230829

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by ajmateusg ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Ubuntu (Debian based) for aplications updated in distribution and easy installation and use.

          ajmateusg@esdebian.org

        • #3199677

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by wilko ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Impossible to say which is the “best” distro – it’s very much a question of what you actually want to do with Linux.  My own experiences started with Libranet, moved to Xandros and I’ve been with Ubuntu virtually since the day it was first launched and personally can’t recommend it highly enough.

          There’s also the question of what desktop GUI you prefer to run.  I’ve tried pretty much all of them and personally prefer Gnome for it’s clean, uncluttered, minimalistic approach and the ease with which I can configure and theme it to my own prefences.  If you’re already locked into to KDE as your desktop, I’d suggest you try Kubuntu which is Ubuntu’s sister distro but with KDE.

        • #3230597

          Which is the best Linux distribution?

          by d-cat ·

          In reply to Which is the best Linux distribution?

          Wow, lots of indecision.
          I've tried a few. I think I've settled on SuSE 10.0 
          pro + Packman. (10.1 made some changes which
          actually added issues like with CD autoloading) Why: SuSE 10.0 is stable, quick/efficient, and the
          setup is both easy and flexible (Gnome, KDE,
          something else? Your choice). It does however
          remove some of the media compatibility that was
          present in earlier versions, which is where Packman
          comes in. Adding a Packman install source gives you
          back programs like MPlayer which in turn returns DVD
          playback functionality (though you still have to nab
          libcss elsewhere for commercial DVDs). Since Yast is
          able to add any amount of install sources (some of
          which may contain content Novell doesn't want to be
          legally responsible for on their servers) and
          automatically solve dependencies across all
          available sources, it's rare that you have to
          manually make or install anything. Also, being a
          Novell product, it is choice where networking is of
          primary concern.
      • #3229864

        An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Ok, admittedly that?s a bit of a silly title. The other day,
        I wondered here if
        I should give Ubuntu
        a try, and decided I might as well. So I installed
        Ubuntu on my test machine, hoping to get an interesting article out of it. The problem
        was, there wasn?t anything interesting or exciting about it really. The best
        thing I could come up with was a title with all vowels.

        Installing Ubuntu 6.06 was that simple. I just put it in the
        machine, fired it up, answered a few small questions and the installer did the rest.
        I?d already been impressed about the improvement that SuSe and Red Hat have
        made to the Linux installation process. The Yast installer on SuSe was
        particularly impressive, but even Fedora?s installer was a vast improvement over
        older versions of Red Hat. So going into it, I expected Ubuntu?s installation
        to be smooth, but not quite that uneventful.

        A little bit of fun has come since installing the
        distribution. Post-installation, I?ve noticed that Ubuntu refused to recognize
        the touchpad on the laptop I used to test it on. An older HP Omnibook, this
        laptop contains both a TrackPoint and a touchpad. The TrackPoint works
        flawlessly, but the touchpad is completely dead. This isn?t a hardware problem
        at all because when I swap the hard drives and put the SuSe drive back in the
        machine, the touchpad works fine. So, it will take some fiddling to straighten
        that out.

        Otherwise, Ubuntu?s running just fine. It?s fast and
        lightweight, not straining the old Omnibook at all. It defaults to Gnome 2.14.3
        for its interface, and is lightning quick as well. It recognized all of the hardware
        in the machine except for the touchpad.

        So, I?m off on a little expedition using Ubuntu Linux for a
        while. Chances are I?ll still stick to good old SuSe 10.0 in the long haul.
        Even though some
        may have are unconvinced about where Novell is going with Linux, I still like
        it. And as someone commented before when I was asking about the best
        distribution, they?re all essentially the same. It?s just the matter of picking
        the one that?s best for you.

        • #3283961

          An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          by joedcook ·

          In reply to An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          John I like SUSE the best and have used it as my everyday desktop for almost three years. I have even learned to like 10.1 although at first I thought “I can’t believe they released this with a broken pakage management system”. I have used Red Hat in the past and have installed Fedora for a few end users before opensuse. I have used Mandriva and Mepis based systems but I haven’t tried Ubuntu. Mostly because I am satisfied with what I have and a lack of time to try a new one, but I want to install it on a system just for the experience if nothing else.
          I really don’t care if someone else likes another distribution better, in fact I am glad that they do. It proves that Linux is versatile enough to meet almost everyones needs and you are not stuck with what I like or what someone else likes. We all know what happens when you try to please everybody.

          I like Novell too. While some may disagree with this direction or that.. there isn’t any other company that has done as much with Linux in as short a time.  I have been through darker times than this with them, when we didn’t have as much to look forward too. I sure like 10.0 better than I liked 9.0. And I can’t say that for all the software that I have used.

        • #3283825

          An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          by gildawie ·

          In reply to An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          After a total meltdown of XP, I decided to try Ubuntu 6.06 LTS. It installed flawlessly and quickly on my Pavilion ze5385ca laptop, recognized all hardware including the touchpad and built-in 802.11b wireless (all I had to do to access wireless networks at home and at work was enter codes).
          It’s the best Linux distro I’ve tried out.
          Second comes Xandros but it’s not free.
          I’ve since installed Ubuntu server on an ancient IBM Aptiva desktop (not enough RAM or HD space for the full install).
          The only complaint I have is with getting the install on CD from Ubuntu – I’ve tried 3 times in the last year with no result. I finally broke down and downloaded the iso file over my slow but pretty reliable connection ~10 hours to d/l!

        • #3209204

          An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          by wbagay ·

          In reply to An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          I have tried Ubuntu / Suse 10.1 and Fedora core 5. My goal is to get my AMD Compac Persario V2000 to work with the wifi. I am happy now FreeSire worked with no modifications from me.

          Soo, my favourite will be FreeSpire.

        • #3200137

          An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to An Experience Installing, Objectively, Ubuntu

          I’ve installed both Ubuntu and Kubuntu, from version 5.04 and up.  I use Kubuntu 6.06 right now.  Its not exactly “newbie friendly” (understanding of Linux partitions in particular.  The partitioning tool is a little confusing.), but not impossible either.  I’ve tried almost a dozen different distributions of Linux, and it is one of the top three for ease of installation (Mepis #1, Sante Fe #2, Ubuntu #3).

          My only gripe with it is that all the games should be installed by default!

      • #3283844

        Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Several weeks ago, I commented here that I
        was getting concerned
        with problems I?ve encountered on consulting projects
        that occurred as a result of users running Symantec software. This created a
        firestorm of comment not only on that post, but also on a follow up one that
        pointed out the near-universal
        dislike
        TechRepublic members seemed to have for Symantec products in
        general.

        Following those comments, I contacted Symantec to offer them an
        opportunity to view first hand and comment on your reactions. I reached Amanda
        Jones with Symantec?s PR agency, who in turn contacted Laura Garcia-Manrique, Sr. Director, Product Management for Symantec. I
        summarized the comments around the following themes and requested her response:

        • Norton Antivirus causes performance problems
        • Norton Antivirus doesn?t catch or prevent
          all infections
        • SystemWorks causes irreversible damage
        • Systems fail after running LiveUpdate
        • Norton Internet Security blocking Internet
          access
        • Symantec’s overall quality has been dropping
        • Poor Tech Support
        • Uninstallation routines don?t work
        • Symantec seems more interested in selling
          new product than fixing existing ones

        I told Ms Garcia-Manrique that I would post her response unedited
        to allow Symantec an open, unbiased forum. What follows is Symantec?s official
        response to the issues raised in my blog and the TechRepublic member comments
        that followed it:

        Dear TechRepublic readers:

        Let me thank you for taking the time to
        write your opinions and feedback on our products. We here at Symantec take your
        suggestions very seriously, and are working to incorporate them into our
        in-market products as well as into our next generation of products. Let me
        assure you that your voice is being heard, especially what you?ve said about
        product performance, quality and installation.

        Your security is our number one priority.
        When we look at creating protection for new threats, we want to ensure that we
        develop the most comprehensive protection for that threat; at times additional
        security may come at a cost, and when a tradeoff needs to be made, we tend to
        look at what is safest to do. Other products may choose less secure
        implementations; we choose not to make compromises when the security of a
        system could be at risk.

        Turning to your comments, some of your
        reports have to do with general installation and uninstallation of our
        software, or running LiveUpdate. This is an area of focus for us. It is
        standard for threats in the wild to block the installation of security software
        so that they can persist on a system. In this area we have invested to
        integrate pre-installation scanners to deal with infections on a system prior
        to installation. But, there is more work to do. We diligently continue to
        address the added complexity of more operating systems, service packs,
        partially patched and updated operating environments and high numbers of
        machines with file and system corruption as well as systems heavily infected
        with spyware and adware. Another challenge comes from the general system
        instability from older machines with limited system resources, and in some
        cases, not even the bare minimum of resources needed to be running Windows or
        basic applications. We have a formidable investment in engineering
        resources dedicated to ensure product quality even in this increasingly more
        complex environment.

        Connectivity related issues reported with
        Norton Internet Security have led to a number of fixes over the course of this
        summer that have been LiveUpdated to our customer base. Make sure to run
        LiveUpdate to get the latest patches if you have experienced a connectivity
        problem. Also, our analysis of this general issue has made us reconsider the
        fundamental approach in firewalls today: alert and ask for user action when an
        application tries to connect to the Internet. Prompting users to choose whether
        to allow or block an application to communicate to the Internet leads to user
        error and connectivity problems. In many cases users choose to block access to
        legitimate applications. To address this issue, we have developed a smarter
        firewall that does not rely as heavily on user action and that will be part of
        Norton Internet Security 2007.

        Some of your concerns pointed at corrupted
        registries with Norton SystemWorks. Although Norton SystemWorks might uncover
        existing problems within a computer?s registry, the application itself does not
        ?have a tendency to corrupt registries? as was mentioned. In most cases when we
        investigate a registry issue ?caused? by Norton SystemWorks, it turns out that
        the system suffered from a pre-existing registry problem that Norton
        SystemWorks simply discovered and revealed. If you do think that Norton
        SystemWorks might have caused a registry problem, we want to talk to you to
        troubleshoot your problem. (http://service.symantec.com)

        Technical support is another key area of
        focus for us. In the past, we did indeed experience a capacity problem, at
        times exacerbated by large outbreaks or security threats. This situation
        prompted a complete revamp of our support organization. Today, Symantec answers
        90% of customer calls in less than 2 minutes time, and
        we stand by our support team who work 24×7 to assist our millions of paid
        subscribers every day.

        We offer home and small office users three
        free types of technical support and one fee-based support option. Users can
        access our online technical support knowledgebase 24 hours a day, free of
        charge. We offer several automated tools on our web site that help customers
        find answers to their questions quickly and easily. The second free
        option is to access real-time online chat 24 hours a day. The
        third free option is technical support available via e-mail.

        The fourth option is telephone
        support. This service is free for all installation issues and known
        bugs. A fee is charged for all other calls and this service
        is provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week.


        In addition, we offer free customer service via the telephone. Customer service
        agents are able to provide assistance on a variety of non-technical issues
        including general product information, rebates, registration, purchasing
        options, returns and replacements.

        Looking to the future, we have been working
        on ongoing product performance improvements that can deliver top level security
        with minimum system resource utilization. Let me share with you some specific
        things that we have been working on for our 2007 product release:

        We?re reducing the amount of system memory that our products require to
        run.

        Our new products will have less running processes when they are not
        actively scanning or remediating threats.

        We?re making detection and removal of threats even faster.

        We?re minimizing the amount of impact our products have on system
        startup time.

        We?re minimizing the impact on system responsiveness and applications.

        We?re enhancing the adaptability of products to newer technologies.

        To minimize the impact from running full system scans with Norton
        AntiVirus, we are building the ability to allow throttling between full system
        scan and quick scans to run in the background with a reduced system impact when
        performing other tasks on the computer.

        And finally, we have changed our business
        model so that we can keep your protection up to date, at all times. Some of
        your comments speak to the need to buy newer versions of the software in order
        to have fully up to date protection. Threats are constantly changing, and we
        will continue to build new engines and new security products to keep you
        protected. In order to minimize the burden of having to upgrade to newer
        versions to have the most up to date protection, we have changed our model so
        that customers with the 2006 and later versions of our software are entitled to
        product updates and upgrades as they become available. This is now covered in
        the cost of your subscription.

        We?re grateful for this opportunity to take
        your concerns and incorporate them into ours. We want you to know that your
        satisfaction is very important to us ? and moreover, that we are as concerned
        about our product quality as you are.

        Thank you,

        Laura Garcia-Manrique
        Sr. Director, Product Management
        Consumer Products and Solutions, Symantec

        • #3209249

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rexworld ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I’m glad to read that they’re taking steps to improve the performance of their products, especially Norton A/V.  It’s just unfortunate that they let those products get this bad in the first place.

          I’m willing to give them a second chance, but cautiously.  I wll definitely not buy the next version of Norton A/V.  Instead I’ll wait out a couple upgrade cycles to see whether this commitment is real or just marketing-speak.  I especially want to see what they do about minimizing the startup impact and the system responsiveness, and general resource hogging issues in Norton A/V.  An anti-virus solution that brings your PC to a crawl is worse than no solution at all.

        • #3282573

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jjkreps ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          While the changes related to memory use, number of process running, impact on startup time, and impact on system responsiveness sound good, other issues such as failure or incompleteness of the uninstallation routines appear to be missing from those addressed. After finding nearly 2000 Symantec related registry entries remaining after an uninstall, I have to question the effectivness of their routines. And that many entries leads to a lot of registry bloat which effects startup time and system response. I too will wait and let others be the guinea pigs even though it makes my job tougher. Let’s see what the major pc suppliers like Dell and HP are shipping on their machines.

        • #3282537

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by macktoomer ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I was recently on Symantec’s website attempting to resolve an issue of having purchased an upgrade/renewal of Norton Internet Security and the existing product not recognizing the upgrade/new registration license. I could not find a simple solution anywhere. There is too much ‘Knowledge Base’ and ‘click here’, ‘click there’ confusion.

        • #3282511

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by funtoknow ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Sounds as if they are addressing all relevant issues. I have been a consistent user of Norton / Symantec enterprise and consumer products for many years and while the past few years have strained my tolerance levels, I still believe given the complexity of the OS and Environment that these developers are forced to deal with, they do a relatively good job of keeping their product diverse enough to handle the majority of environemnts that exist. 

        • #3282507

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by your mom 2.0 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          “Make sure to run LiveUpdate to get the latest patches if you have experienced a connectivity problem.

           

          Isn’t that like emailing your ISP to tell them your Internet connection isn’t working?

        • #3282497

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rgacomputerdepot ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          What country is their tech support located in and what is the predominant language? If they do not speak fluent
          English, I am afraid they fall into the category of many others that I
          avoid at all costs. This not a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of
          getting my job as a technician completed in a timely manner without
          saying “could you repeat that?” over and over.

          My use of Norton
          goes back to DOS when Peter Norton was still in charge. There was
          nothing better on the market then. It really is a shame to see this
          product becoming so inferior. I will continue to use other products
          (Less expensive) until I read from others that Norton is fixed.

          M. Ray McCrary
          Electronic Concepts

        • #3282488

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by beingme ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I’ve just read this twice, and all I
          seem to get out of it is a lot of marketing speak. I really did not
          see anything of note that actually addressed concerns, except to
          point out that it is likely the user’s fault that their product does
          not work properly.

          Sorry to tell you Laura, I ensure that
          the computer meets or exceeds all the specifications required for the
          OS and other software I run, and typically am installing these
          products immediately after installing the OS on a new computer, so
          unless Microsoft is shipping virus and spyware/adware laden XP
          CD-ROMS, I am quite confident that the system is clean.

          Yet I still experienced problems, I
          still experience HUGE performance losses, I am unable to un-install
          it properly without formatting the drive and re-installing the OS, I
          have run Live Update and ended up with an unusable system because of
          a bad update that was pushed out by a company that seems to lack a
          serious Quality Control Program. Frankly I was a big supporter of
          Norton products for a while. No longer, I will never purchase from
          Symantec again, nor will I recommend them to friends, family or
          clients. This is not the forum to use vapid market speak to
          try to cover the short comings of your product line. Generally the
          people in this community are technically competent and are above
          average in intelligence. You had a great opportunity here, but I
          feel you blew it by trying to treat us like fools. I, for one, feel
          insulted.

        • #3282478

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by massiej ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I’m afraid I can’t restrain myself after reading Ms Garcia-Manrique Sr.’s comment regarding NIS: “Make sure to run LiveUpdate to get the latest patches if you have experienced a connectivity problem.” 

          Ms Garcia-Manrique Sr., if there IS a connectivity problem caused by NIS (or any other issue), it’s going to be a little hard to run LiveUpdate, isn’t it?

          Someone should have reviewed your reply before posting it to catch this blunder.  Likewise, Symantec will have to perform better quality testing and control if they want to win back disenfranchised users.

          For the record, I’ve used virtually every Norton/Symantec product there is, and have universally found them all useful in protecting my computers.  I run NIS now on my programming workstation without any problems at all.  I’ve only had issues once with Norton SystemWorks — serious enough to require a wipe and reinstall in that single instance.

          massiej

          Ohio University

        • #3282475

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by scooterb ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I would disagree with most of her assumptions on how her company
          operates and it’s business model. I would also disagree with her
          assumption that they are there to help there customer base. They are
          there to make money; bottom line. It is a financially driven world and
          they respond to the $$. I didn’t post a comment on the original blog
          entry. I was too bust trying to recover from the emotional trauma when
          I discovered that I wasn’t the only other individual who could only
          attribute problems to Symantec. It was like reading a novel that you
          just couldn’t put down. The entire way through (I did read all of them)
          I could only say to myself “Yep, yep, that’s right,etc….”. Symantec
          will not change their methods and could care less if a bunch of techies
          don’t like their product. It will take someone like the OEM’s to stop
          installing it on the PC’s going out the door before they will take
          notice. Remember $$ folks. You can see from her reply that she just
          doesn’t get it because her answer was “make sure and do the
          Liveupdates”. That in itself was a major problem. Many times I have had
          machines that wouldn’t complete the update satisfactorily. So I
          contacted their tech support and their trouble shooting failed to
          identify the problem. So, in the spirit of Microsoft, their only final
          resolution was to format and re-install Windows and of course Symantec.
          “It obviously must be a corrupt registry caused by something else other
          than our wonderful software” HAHHH! So, to complete my rant, since they
          forever changed the software and made it something it shouldn’t be,
          they have lost my corporate support and I will not be recommending them
          to anyone. One word if there are any “Symantech’s” reading this; Just
          because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. The older
          software that Noton used to produce worked great, but when you tried
          going the way of “other” software companies and trying to be “all
          things to all people” you lost your focus and your product became
          worthless.  If you really want to respond to your critics, don’t
          just give us the coporate marketing spin.  If you really want to
          be a good software company, listen to the little guy.  And if you
          really want to be admired, make your software open source.  

        • #3282449

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by itengineerguy ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I believe Symantec has always been better than the other competition. The only issues that I have ever encountered was on an Exchange server. After working with Tech support the issue was resolved quickly. I recommend to people all the time Norton AV and never one complaint. Other vendors I get calls all the time. We use the other vendor at my work and I had a scan causing issues. So I am not sure about all the complaints with Norton. I do think that all of AV products are finding it hard to keep up with the latest security threats.  I have seen an issue with systemworks that caused a windows 2000 installation to fail after an update and that was two years ago. Symantec has taken on Veritas and they may be why they are failing in regards to support. I have a hard time searching their sight for Veritas issues. Other than that I will continue cleaning machines using a combination when one is not a enough.

        • #3282430

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rockinrick ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          i have norton and i check for updates everyday and i don’t see much relief for these problems . i use the free version of AVG on my other computers and have no problems..

        • #3282428

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Bah. What a load of appeasement nonsense. Their products have been getting increasingly problematic as the years go by. The real problem is their business mindset. “Symantec” and “quality” go together now like “Microsoft” and “security.” They can pay as much lip service as they want, until they have a provable track record of improvement and having reach a superior level and staying there for some time, I will not be using their products.

          Despite Microsoft’s overwhelming success in improving their track record, particularly with XP SP 2 and Windows 2003, people still hold grudges against them from Windows 95, 98, and ME. If it takes Microsoft 10 years to recover the reputation lost from those ancient products, how long will Symantec need to get their reputation back?

          Unlike Microsoft, users have legitimate alternatives to Symantec. It isn’t like Joe Six Pack can just move to Ubuntu Linux, but Joe Six Pack can quite easily install any of the FOSS or commercial alternatives to Symantec products. And I hope they do. Do I hold a resentment against Symantec? Probably. It may have something to do with the lost hours of productivity and time I have lost over my lifetime due to their lousy products. Not even Microsoft has wasted my time and caused me frustration like Symantec; indeed, Oracle is the only real competition out there for Symantec in my mental list of “companies and products that have frustrated me to no end.”

          J.Ja

        • #3282393

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by magpiper ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Nice canned response from the PR department. Symantec has always followed “goofy logic” for the past 10 years and continuing to this day. I have been an avid user of Symantec Enterprise (Corporate Edition) Anti-Virus for Netware and M$ Windows for years. However due to increased resource consumption of the client and the inability to manage the client any longer (bug in Symantec Management Console). I have decided as a Symantec Partner/Reseller to not promote the SCE A/V any longer. LiveUpdate should be done away with as it is a rather poor delivery mechanisim. It breaks and is almost impossible to fix.

          As a Symantec partner I can state that in the past Symantec has pushed thier security line of products to resellers. 24X7 monitoring and A/V, SPAM appliances etc. I would never use their security products because of the lack of faith in Symantec products. Several weeks ago Symantec announced that they were laying off a large portion of ther security appliance team and restructuring. This is due to lack of support from resellers in promoting that particular product line. Had I jumped on the band wagon and ran their security products up the flag pole say 2 years ago. Where would I be today and what would my customers think of me? Especially when I had to inform my customers that the $XXX.XX solution they purchased was eseentially being canned. Poor Symantec their marketing is worse than Novell or Sun, more along the lines of Borland or Parsons Technology.

          My comments to Symantec: “Fire your VP’s that make such poor decisions and quit buying companies and destroying their products.”
           

        • #3282357

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by developr398 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          It’s encouraging to see Symantec plans to correct many deficiencies. But, after many instances of Norton ISS problems, I just converted a key client with 17 users from NISS to a competitor whose current solution provides most of what Symantec plans to offer. My client had become quite frustrated in the process. Good luck Symantec!

        • #3282343

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by slopez ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Their software has gone downhill this past year!!

          Even their enterprize SMSME, I had version 4 and tried to upgrade to version 5

          I have not been able to upgrade or reinstall version 4 for the pass 7 months

          Their Tech Support has not come up with a resolution.

          Compared to McAfee they resolved the problem of installing on a 2003 Server in and hour over remote.

        • #3282339

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by dave ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Sorry, I couldn’t resist:

          Connectivity related issues reported with Norton Internet Security have led to a number of fixes over the course of this summer that have been LiveUpdated to our customer base. Make sure to run LiveUpdate to get the latest patches if you have experienced a connectivity problem.

          Umm..How do I update when I have no Internet Connection?

        • #3282325

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rsmmac ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I am a TechRepublic member and I like Symantec products. Unfortunately, people do not usually post / write / blog when they are happy; we usually write when we have a complaint, so a number of complaints (without many praises) seem like an overwhelming majority of unhappy people.

          I have used a number of security products including Trend Micro’s, Microsoft’s, Symantec’s and McAfee’s. My personal opinion – in the past, Symantec won hands down. Today, all the security suites have compelling performance and strong points, and are a good call for the “standard” user. I’d have a hard time selling one as superior over another. I put Symantec Internet Security on every friend’s / family’s home PC I am asked to configure (up front) or rescue (once infected).

          At work, I use Trend Micro & Webroot on the PC’s / Servers / Exchange, and a Symantec Gateway Security appliance at the perimeter. All good products.

            

        • #3282279

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jminshal ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I was reading this article in an agreeable frame of mind until the PR person started blaming these issues on the users and their old resource constrained systems. Then they had the gall to state that buying MORE Symantec software would prevent a lot of these problems because the old software has known bugs in it!!! It is well known by techs that Symantec’s SystemWorks is a system killer, and in the past I have recommended against using it to users, so it is possible that it is the users fault that their system died after going against my recommendations and using SystemWorks anyway :-). I used to be a Symantec fan, but the bloom has been off the rose for a couple of years now.

        • #3284806

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by pmshah9 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          After reading the Symantec official response I feel I must post a comment here. My nephew runs a large travel agency where he prints his own international air travel tickets online. Last week he installed the latest Norton AV on his machine that connects to the internet & the airline ticketing system. The first problem that came up was he could not connect to the internet & his IE would not start. He panicked & called me. I had to make a trip to his city & took me 2 days to clean out the machine, saving all his data & application without reinstalling the OS. It is not an idea I relish, working on a production machine & constantly being worried that something just might go wrong. Of course there was backup of the data & the application could have been reinstalled but in the situation it would have meant having the application provider’s tech flown in & incurring a very heavy cost. The company will not furnish a CD to prevent misuse which can lead to all kinds of other problems costing millions.

          One thing is certain, not my nephew nor any of his staff will ever allow Norton AV on any machine on which they have control.

        • #3284894

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by craigaaa5 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          The rest of y’all have done such a good job at responding to the PR Spin from Symantec that all I have to say is that those that refuse to use this screwed up bunch of products any longer have the right idea. Never in my 15 years in this business have I seen a package that so consistently could cause this much work to be done that should not have to be done. If anyone Iknow gets a new machine with any Symantec product on it, my first recommendationd it to TRY to uninstall and replace with one of the other products in that area of responsibility. Like one poster said I too used to use Norton products when they were the best around, too bad that is no longer true, as far as an Enterprise solution, I’m not sure I can remember anything so poorly documented and difficult to make work.

          Just my 2 pennies

        • #3283511

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by mesmd ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          NORTON- SYMANTEC GARBAGE PROGRAMS, SUITES AND ALL THEIR POORLY QUALIFIED CONTROL PRODUCTSl THEY SHOULD MERGE WITH FRYS NEXT!!

          There are just too many people for Symantec to justify all the complaints made regarding most of their over priced products with overall poor performance. This is, notwithstanding,  the residual deleterious effects left on one’s computer after their partial or incomplete uninstallation.

          They know it and $$ is their main concern, not our security. The last time I ever Enjoyed using one of their products had to be back in the early nineties, way before Norton was taken over or merged with Symantec. I think, Peter Norton 3.0 Pro utilities for DOS!!!  He should have continued alone. Once together with Symantec, All their products were over priced, flawed, caused computer problems while installed or uninstalled, and today we really need a malware detectorand deleter for any traces of Symantec-Norton residuals contaminating our machines. Their name is mud and their products are pure trash. They are irrepairable and dangerous to buy for the use in a computer. Tkey should be thought of in the same terms as malware, miscreants and spybots, utter hogwash and pure trash labor!!

            M.E. Stone, M.D.

          PS Please send my leyyer to:  Laura Garcia-Manrique
          Sr. Director, Product Management
          Consumer Products and Solutions, Symantec

        • #3283442

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          It’s too late for a long rambling excuse. If Peter Norton takes it back over, they may be able to regain some credibility.Bottom line: With better products on the market, who needs them?

        • #3200217

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by mraap ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Well I may be late with this comment, but it seems that fixing connectivity issues and possible registry corruption issues after a product has been shipped to millions of unsupecting consumers as well as OEM builders who rely on quality products to sell their systems is also a little late. Maybe the entire thing was designed this way to generate jobs for the unemployed IT personnel to come in and repair these systems for a fee to the consumer or maybe to the OEM builder while Symantec gets over the root kit fiasco in the first place. Seems that when you are intentionally screwing the customer it might come back and bite twice as hard. Maybe they should be next on the SEC’s hit list to investigate if they aren’t already.

          This is all the more reason to accept Microsofts delay in releasing Vista to the public.

          I would rather something be late than have to throw it away because it doesn’t work.

        • #3200208

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by oz_ollie ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Congratulations on getting a reply ftom Symantec, even if it is PR bull****. What don’t they understand about inferior products? The corporation I work for uses Symantec AntiVirus products, so I have to use the products on servers and workstations – Windows 2000/2003 Server, Windows XP and Apple Mac OS X 10.4 Server and Mac OS X 10.4.

          The Symantec server software, with web based access is great and workstation management is easy BUT the AntiVirus scanning on the server has to be DISABLED – “don’t install this product on HFS+ journaled case sensitive partition” is the reason given in the Symantec documentation.

          Sorry, but as a responsible System/Network Administrator, what format do you think I would use – FAT32?

          I used to recommend Norton Internet Security but it takes so long to update that Windows XP clean install is infected before I can finish the update. Why can’t ALL UPDATES be available in a downloadable package, not just some virus updates?

        • #3200207

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I have exactly two things to say to this:

          1. About 85% of that response is pure marketing BS. The other 15% may or may not be marketing BS — only time will tell.
          2. In the year of 2004, from January 1st to December 31st, I worked about seventy billable hours at clients’ sites for an IT consultancy doing nothing but fixing problems caused by Symantec software (and desktop support wasn’t even my primary work function for the consultancy). Those hours were billed to the clients at a rate of $100 per hour. That means that about seven thousand dollars were paid out for fixing Symantec-caused problems that Symantec technical support didn’t fix where I was involved in fixing the problem. Other people at the consultancy did more such work, though I have no idea how much because I wasn’t keeping track of the dispensation of their billable hours. I’m sure the total was tens of thousands of dollars spent, however. That doesn’t include business productivity losses.

          I think that pretty much sums it up.

        • #3200202

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jzsplace ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          What a typical reply from a company who’s only interest seems to be “buy our latest & greatetest and it will be the best thing for you”. The person who crafted the reply would be right at home among the self-serving politicians in office today.

          I haven’t used a Symantec product eversince NTFS became the norm for SOHO & home use & have suggested to my customers that they shouldn’t either because it takes up entirely too much time re-configuring the software so that anything can get done. How self serving and smug the reply is to suggest that the majority of the problem is inept users (the same ones who paid for the product), outdated hardware, and the evolving threat from without. Isn’t that what the program is supposed to take into account? I don’t hear the same complaints from other major players. I install & reccomend TrendMicro, ZoneAlarm (of course they don’t play well together with the latest versions). Either one of these has been terrific in detecton & removal since forever. I can remember when I first became aware of NAV’s shortcommings 15 years ago when the viruses were first taking off and a boot sector virus was making the rounds of college campuses. NAV would detect it and do nothing else, not even suggest a manual solution. PC-Cillin just took care of the problem and kept the user trucking down the road.

          Isn’t it nice what blitz advertising and riding on one’s past reputation (the old Norton Utilities) can do to fool the public.

        • #3200200

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by geoffwt ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Insert comment text hereInstalled Sytem Works 2006. Dreadful memory hog though Norton Protection of Recycle Bin was useful. After a lot of dificulties decided to remove completely which appeared to work fine. Put my Norton disc through the shredder so I wouldn’t be tempted to use it again but find that there is over a Gig of Norton Protection files in my Recycler subdirectory and NO way of removing them. I even tried booting into Barts PE but still no good.Not impressed, Symantec don’t respond to emails either. Geoff Tomlinson

        • #3200188

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by phillyire ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Ok Symantec technical support with a live web chat……a brilliant conception….for the average silly problem like “did not connect to the internet to receive updates” BUT when there is a real problem it is so bad. Twice I had to use it. The guys on the other end were fine. Now wait for this ……You spend 20 minutes explaining your problem….the tech guy says now restart your computer (symantec demands this a lot now when troubleshooting)….you restart. You log into the tech support site again and a new tech guy is there….another 20 minutes explaining the problem….he asks if it still exists……he tells you to uninstall Norton…….NOW HE DISAPPEARS. Open a text editor……copy and paste conversation…..restart…..new tech guy……paste all to screen…..HE consults his advisor……and on and on and on. Oh yeah I twice asked for a tech guys reference number ….there is NONE. you get this “ALL our operators are skilled to deal with any problem you may have” The circle seems endless. Please give up that live chat

        • #3200180

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by glenn ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          As a computer consultant, I use McAfee to clean the disks of computers “protected” via symantec.  Enough said.

        • #3200176

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by williambill6 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Ms. Garcia-Manrique sounds more like someone from the Public Relations department than Product Management. Her comments blame other issues rather than their software. I cannot believe that all issues with Symantec are systems without sufficient system resources, pre-existing registry faults etc.  I quit using Symantec products about five years ago and will not use them again.

        • #3200174

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by bheite ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I was a believer in Norton’s for years, but when I ran Kaspersky’s Online Scan, after a scan of Norton’s, and it detected a virus within an unopened file of a desktop theme, I was sold on Kaspersky, and out on Norton. Kaspersky even has a 50.00 rebate right now through Fry’s so it didn’t cost me a cent to get it and try it out. My new Core2Duo E6700 system will start with Kaspersky off the bat and see how that goes. Besides, the last Norton I bought was off of an “authorized” reseller on EBay, and the key had been used 6 weeks earlier. It took 2 months to get Norton to cover their supposed “authorized” reseller ripoff.  

        • #3200144

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rhomp20029 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Insert comment text hereI hate to just pile on but I have dropped Norton for many of the same reasons the other commenters have.  I was happy with the anti-virus until I had to do my first major upgrade.  The upgrade cancelled in the middle telling me there were a couple of missing pieces on my computer.  Since I had not changed the system and Norton was working fine before, what was missing and why was it not a part of the upgrade.  Live chat with the service group finally got past that hurdle and I got to my next live upgrade.  It worked and then I got to the next live upgrade.  That one cancelled out and back to the live chat.  Passed around through several agents and then finally got that fixed and on to the next live upgrade which made my computer unusable.  Reloaded from a backup and deleted Norton, got AVG, Zone Alarm, Ewidgo, AdAWare and never looked back.  No problems since.  

          Will someone competent please take over Norton and get them back to where they were, please.  When I first started using PC’s, Norton was just about the cream of the crop.  It all worked as advertised and kept on working.  Those days are now long gone and it is a shame.  A once proud company has gone way downhill and we are all losing out because they just can’t seem to get their act together.  Narrow the focus and don’t try to be all things to all people.  Put out the product that does what you got your reputation doing and get that right.  Until they do Norton will not be on my shopping list anytime soon.

        • #3200141

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by juhat ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          The fourth option is telephone
          support. This service is free for all installation issues and known
          bugs.”

          I had an installation issue with Backup Exec, and the only thing this “free” support could answer me was that my licensenumber was valid. They wouldn’t let me talk with techsupport without a paid support-agreement…

        • #3200139

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jsexton9 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I agree with many, if not absolutely all, of the comments made in response to Symantec’s PR.  They have simply made their product more trouble than it is worth: the “cure” hurts more than the disease.

          I have one question: I have been using Spybot Search and Destroy, not Ewigo, along with AVG and Adaware.  I have had absolutely no problems using that combination.  But can someone tell me how Spybot S&D stacks up against Ewigo?

        • #3200127

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jedimstr ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Blah, Blah, Blah

        • #3200109

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Although it was nice to see an actual response from Symantec, the response sounded more like a political press junket.  Doesn’t sound very sincere, it was almost a sales pitch to get us thinking about their future product line. Thanks but no thanks, not interested. 

          It’s too bad though.. they obviously put a lot of effort into this response, wouldn’t it be nice to see the same effort placed into their existing products? 

          Norton Antivirus, no thanks Grisoft’s AVG works fine for me and the home version is free!

          Norton Internet Security…. what junk, no thanks.  Zonelab’s ZoneAlarm is a great product, superior to NIS and the home version is free!

          Please if you can do something, get rid of Liveupdate & Livereg, why do these show up as separate installations from the software in the first place.  Other software vendors offer update features built into their software but it doesn’t appear as a separate installation.

          Norton Antispyware… does this product actually do anything?  Me thinks not, plus why would I pay for this when Spybot, AdAware, MS Defender, SpySweeper and a host of other products do the job about 100% better?

          Here’s a question, why can’t you create a decent antispyware solution, I would have assumed that years of research in  building scanning engines would have provided you with the know how on how to scan for spyware & rootkits and provide ways to find & remove these infections.

          I did try one product that I liked a few years ago, Norton Utilities but it seems even that has been ruined by recent versions. 

          Symantec, you were the pioneer in this security field years ago, but you’ve gone and turned a once formidable lineup of software into bloatware which causes system performance & stability issues and on top of that charge a pretty penny for that convenience as well.  And you wonder why Microsoft doesn’t want you to provide your software offerings for their next OS release? 

          Fool me once, shame on you… Fool me twice shame on me!

          Here’s an idea that may win you some confidence back.  I challenge you to create a freeware version of Norton Antivirus & Norton AntiSpyware.  Make it work well, remove the bloat, get rid of the liveupdate & livereg separate installation, just incorporate it into the product like the other software vendors can and provide free virus definition & engine updates and make it available for home users/personal use only and make it a really good product, something that people will talk about and recommend to others. In fact make the product do both virus, spyware detection – why should we use separate products for these items? Just classify viruses, spyware & rootkits all under one label malware and call your product a malware removal tool. Keep the installation size small, don’t make it a resource hog, make the interface easy to work with (get rid of all that damn yellow), provide the ability to immunize internet explorer with a known blacklist of bad websites, provide a registry backup feature in case the computer does get infected and provide real removal solutions for nasty viruses & spyware, don’t provide a link to a knowledge base which requires you to print 10 pages of removal instructions which requires a user to manually edit the registry and manuallyl look for/remove infected reg keys and also make this product function equally well in regular & safe windows mode.  If you’re clueless as to how this product would work or look like, download the various antivirus/antispyware software out there and get a clue!   Here’s the deal… You’ve made alot of money over the years selling antivirus solutions to home / personal users that were in actuality more of a problem then a solution.  

          Reserve your profit making for enterprise versions of this software if in fact you can make the above product work. Do that and I’m pretty sure you can gather your flock again, until then don’t expect any of us to come back anytime soon.

          How’s that for a response!

        • #3200099

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by tharmagon ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          What a load of bull. On almost every issue she says it’s not our fault but the fault of the operating system, the user or the malware writer, or someone else. For instance:
          It is
          standard for threats in the wild to block the installation of security software
          so that they can persist on a system”
          We all know that but that doesn’t explain why Norton often won’t install on clean machines.
          “Make sure to run
          LiveUpdate to get the latest patches if you have experienced a connectivity
          problem.”
          As others have said this comment is this is totally ridiculous.
          Another challenge comes from the general system
          instability from older machines”
          That doesn’t explain why their software makes the latest machines with plenty of resources slow and unstable.
          “To address this issue, we have developed a smarter
          firewall that does not rely as heavily on user action”
          Again it’s the stupid users fault not ours!
          In most cases when we
          investigate a registry issue ?caused? by Norton SystemWorks, it turns out that
          the system suffered from a pre-existing registry problem”
          Again, not our fault. Bull Norton causes registry problems full stop no argument.

          We?re reducing the amount of system memory that our products require to
          run.

          Our new products will have less running processes when they are not
          actively scanning or remediating threats.

          We?re making detection and removal of threats even faster.

          We?re minimizing the amount of impact our products have on system
          startup time.

          We?re minimizing the impact on system responsiveness and applications.

          We?re enhancing the adaptability of products to newer technologies.

          She talks about these items like they are revolutionary. All software companies should be doing these all the time. It’s a shame they have just realised they should be.

          Personally I have had so many bad encounters with their products I will never use one again. Their products are not allowed on our company network and will never be allowed on. There are far better products out there that do a better job for less money.

        • #3200091

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by dennis_w_smith ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Over the last 6 month I have noticed a definate improvement to Symantec’s email response time.  I have also been pleased with their “chat” help and their online ‘troubleshooting & repair’ links.  They seemed to have improved their customer support quite a bit.  There are still a number of frustrating behaviors such as: failed installations, failed ‘liveupdates’, and MOST annoying ‘reminders’ to resubscribe for a full month (In fact, as a consultant, I find these are quite confusing to many computer users.).  I also find the ‘reminders’ VERY annoying when you plan to upgrade because you either have to lose a month’s service or deal with their annoyance for 30 days before upgrading.

        • #3200076

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by it-slave ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I think every company in america needs a wake up call.  They keep driving profits and profits only.  Nevermind that they are selling broken things.  In the case of Smantec, they use to be very good. Then system works came out and I tried that. It broke every OS I put it on.  So I stopped using that and used NAV only.  Then that too had issues.  I now no longer use any of their products.  End users tend to never heed warnings or requirements, that’s a given.  The OS as a whole has gotten more complicated, yeah I get that, but when the tech community is telling you your product is difficult to work with you may want to listen.  You can’t profit if you’re selling me junk.  MS will have the same issue in the near future with Vista.  The pricing is insane and I’m afraid they’ll push it to market to fast and have to fix it after the fact.  If you are going to do something do it well, the profits will follow as your reputation gets around.  

        • #3200073

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by piaqt ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I agree with all the posts critical of Norton. Even if it works properly, it creates a HUGE lag at startup. It is a memory hog. Also, move or rename its start menu folder, and it takes its ball and goes home. It’s MY computer, not Norton’s. I decide where things go and how they’re named.

          I’m now using Avast. The home edition is free, it’s not a resource hog, and updates itself much more efficiently. And it found boot sector viruse Norton had never heard of.

          Pia Holm

        • #3200062

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by youngerose ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Youngerose in the Hudson Valley of NY.

          Other than being a hog for resources, I have used Norton for over 7 years and after finally figuring out how to work it, I run this in conjunction with other AV programs and have NO problems.

          I definately use it on  ALL installs, and  and run live update manually even though it does not need it.

          I prefer Avast for the indepth scanning, but continue using Norton on all my systems, and new installs.

          It does find problems that others do not, but even with its quirks, I keep it on hand always.

          Youngerose

        • #3200055

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by pyropakjim ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Well, I have been a faithful user of Norton Products long before Symantec was in the picture, and I was pleased with them.  My Dell 2350 came with NAV 2002, and I have kept my devotion limited to that machine, as the 2006 SystemWorks I upgraded to is a love/hate relationship.  My other 3 systems either have McAfee or AVG, and Zone Alarm for the firewall.  Right now, I only have one connectivity issue, and it is with the Norton-protected PC.  It goes online to the Internet fine; it sees my network, and my network sees it, but cannot talk to it.  Also, I presume it is the Ghost backup program that give me a “C: Access Denied” on every boot-up.

          At work, we use a variety of software, but the biggest bloatware is the full NIS installed on my CEO’s PC (hey, she did it.. not me).

          I truly hope they work to improve the products, and quit trying to compensate for other failings.  Oh, and the marketing shpeel….   just drop it.

        • #3200027

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by rdivilbiss ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I have also experienced all of the problems described by users with the Symantec products.  Compared to the McAfee software that came preinstalled on my laptop, I find Symantec to be less of a system hog and has a better overall UI.

          Almost all of the problems would be negligable if you could simply uninstall their product, but it is just like malware. Once it is on the system you’ll never get it off without starting from scratch.  I have a feeling I’ll find McAfee to be similar in that regard however.

          I can not believe the response is genuine as these issues have been going on since the late 90’s and only get worse, not better. I think a previous poster was correct in that much of this is caused by trying to be all things to all people.

          I’m opening a new company in a few months and neither Symantec nor McAfee will be getting used on our new systems.

        • #3199975

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jlf12 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          For years I had been an advocate of Norton, but about 3 years ago I tossed in my Norton hat for Trend Micro and have been extremely happy with all aspects of their product…support…detection..prevention, etc.  My personal feelings are that Norton got “too big for their own good” and forgot about who pays their salary.  I found this true of other Norton products…especially Ghost 8.x, which in my opinion was at best a joke….and their support , if it wasn’t so pathetic would have been comical.  I fully expect Support to be a whole lot smarter than me..and this is not the case with Norton products, it would take quite a bit to recommend or promote anything Norton at this point….but ….never say never…..

        • #3199968

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by hmbower ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I’ve had the corporate version of Symantec Anti-Virus installed with over 130 licenses since version 8.0.  It worked great at version 8.0.  When version 9 came out, it picked up a perfectly valid piece of software as a threat and quarantined it on over 130 machines.  Needless to say I was a little upset.  It is interesting that this software is a competitor to their PCAnywhere product (Remote Administrator).  I called them, and they recommended disabling the startup scans and the realtime scans.  I asked, “is that really your solution?  Turn your product off and it won’t detect that anymore?”  They assured me it would work (of course it will… they obviously missed my point).  I did so because we were in the middle of our licence renewal.  When version 10 came out, there was a facility whereby known threats could be excluded from being picked up.  I once again renewed by licences and got version 10 in hopes that it would solve my problems.  It didn’t.  So we’re running less than half of the product and paying the whole price.  I am thoroughly disgusted with Symantec’s product and will not be renewing my licences again.  Even more disgusting was the support answer of “turn off the scans that are detecting the threat, and it will be OK.”  That doesn’t fill me with confidence, to be honest.  I will never recommend Symantec corporate again (and I have been telling people to avoid the Norton line of home products for years because of the resource-intensive nature among other things).  I have had to reimage machines before because of Symantec corruption (clean image, install a Symantec client update, computer is fubar….  try to tell me that my system is somehow inadequate or that I am an incompetent user and I will mail back my licence certificate with a nasty word written across it).  Anyway, there are lots of options and this PR spin from them has not changed my mind.

        • #3199962

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by petrilla.naples.fl ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          All the while I thought it was only me!  I recently had a problem with ‘Live Update’  –  getting it back in operation, through Symantec Tech Support,  was nearly as pleasant  as root canal!. 

          After SystemWorks just about trashed my previous computer, you can bet that that’s a product I would’t touch if it were free!

           

        • #3199902

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by sylvain_l ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Insert comment text here

          I’ve been dealing with Symantec softwares for too long to believe anything they say.

          It’s a shame that people still get conned into buying their products.

          The innability of their A/V sofyware to clean anything should be a major concern, quarantines and deletes are all nice and good, but what’s the use of having “protection” that ends up forcing you to reinstall anyways? That causes as much damage and downtime as the virus infection itself causes.

          I’ve seen Norton A/V , both the end-user and the corporate versions, “prevent” an infection on a system, only to let the virus propagate itself via email anyways, you’d think that would be stopped, THAT would be a great time to use the “Delete Everything” method they so love.

          There are so many better tools on the market to put up with half baked products. I think it’s time that those folks who impose those crummy products on the IT community by making decisions based on how big of a corporate rebate Symantec gives out, wake up and smell the coffee: No one saves money when the product doesn’t do the job it’s supposed to do, in this case protect the systems and keep users productive!!!

           

        • #3284651

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by techrep ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I think that you were being too kind.  It has been reported (and is painfully obvious) that Symantec USES root-kit technology to prevent deinstallation of itself — yet seems to remain blind to other folk’s root-kits.  From what I can see Symantec’s business culture is based on a series of totally exposed frauds.  If you talk to anyone over there again ask this question:

          WHAT IS SYMANTEC DOING TO WORK WITH MICROSOFT TO ALTER THE DESIGN OF WINDOWS ITSELF TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION IN A MEANINGFUL AND FUNDIMENTAL WAY FOR THE USER COMMUNITY?

          ALL malware companies have a built-in conflict of interest…the more threat in the wild, the better their business prospects.  Which leads to another question:

          WHAT INTERNAL PROCESSES DOES SYMANTEC HAVE TO PREVENT EMPLOYEES FROM RELEASING THREATS INTO THE WILD?

          I’ve been known to say to clients “Symantec AV is a virus that is worse than most of the viruses I have asked it to detect and remove“.  100% of the PC’s I have visited in the last two years to remove mal-ware had anti-malware software installed and running.  Most of those were Symantec.  ALL the Symantec people were paid up for subscriptions.

          Malware: A software process that starts itself on your computer without your permission. 

          Permission: An average computer user has granted authority to install and run in a reasonable context.

        • #3284557

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by computer mechanic ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          HORSE HOCKEY!

        • #3284480

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by wayneterra ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I have used several different anti-virus products. I will make it clear that my favorite anti-virus product is Trend Micro’s solution. Over 2 years ago I changed jobs and my new place of employment uses Symantec Antivirus. I have found Symantec Antivirus to be problematic. The server software becomes corrupted and no patches will be pushed out when this happens. I then have to call Symantec to resolve the problem. I thought that this was just a problem that I was having but as it turns out other network administrators? that I know that work for other companies have had the same issue.

          I like that Symantec is addressing a number of issues that I have seen but I do not buy into their idea that pre-existing issues can cause the problems mentioned in previous comments. I have installed Symantec on new clean systems and have had problem immediately.

          Symantec still has a ways to go and I will not recommend their anti-virus product for any reason.

           

        • #3284478

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by baz_shaw ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I’m not in the least bit convinced or impressed by this reponse from Symantec. As other have noted, it was a typical marketing palliative, aimed at soothing our concerns while at the same time teeing us up for future product purchases. Sorry, but I don’t see why I should have to fork out for a product to replace one you screwed up.

          What I was hearing from Ms Garcia-Manrique was part Jim Bakker confessional (I have let our customers down.  ..), part George Bush obfuscation (I have no clue what the problems are, but they’re caused by the world we live in). What I wanted to hear was “we’ve fired all our developers and middle managers and Peter will rewrite all our code from scratch.”

          That’s not gonna happen, so next week I’m going to remove every trace of Symantec products from our office network and roll out AVG or Trend Micro. Thanks for confirming what I’d begun to suspect was the cause of most of my users’ problems of late.

        • #3284449

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by chiefb ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          My wife had an issue with a renewal to Norton’s Internet Security and she used the download version and for awhile it would not take. Then eventually one day it took. My opinion is that it had to wait until the actual expiration date to pass before it would load fully and then install?

        • #3284443

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by kiltie ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I think you forgot who your target audience is here Ms Garcia-Manrique, not just inept users with minumum specification machines that are riddled with malware and registry problems. These are members of Tech Republic, most of us very knowledgeable and skilled in the IT industry.

          Not only that, but many are expert consultants, sys admins, net admins, high echelon managers responsible for large user/client bases from dozens up to 1000s of machines. Add to that the fact that this is a community which tends to pass around knowledge, experience, advice, recommendations and (let’s say) anecdotes among themselves, you are looking at the top of a pyramid structure that potentially affects a large proportion of your market. The effect will be like a tech version of a chain letter.

          If any time was the time to get the response correctly targetted, this was your opportunity, not to come away with PR drivel, aimed at the plebs.

          I am afraid you have failed Laura.

          Best advice I can give you now, is to update your CV or Resume.

        • #3284379

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by acrrll ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Laura should get in touch with the real world.  I agree with all of the attached comments.  Norton products used to be top notch.  Not any more.  I tell my clients NEVER to use Norton Internet Security or System Works.  I have uninstalled or rebuilt so many computers with these applications installed just to get computers useable again.   

          I had a client in a small office using Norton A/V and Sympantec WinFAX Version 10.03.  The client wanted to update to Windows XP Pro SP2 from Windows 2000.  I found that FAX Sharing would not work when SP2 was installed. Also the Internet Worm Protection feature had to be disabled for FAX Sharing to work with Windows 2000.  I spent many many hours trying different setups tpet these three programs to work.  They said that there was a version 10.04 fix Created about 6 months ago for WinFAX Pro which made things worse ie:  WinFAX uninstall disappeared in Add/Remove Programs in the Windows Control Panel.  To uninstall WinFAX Pro Version 10.04 meant an hour of Registry editing.  

          Techsupport was a absolute disaster.  There was a language issue and I had to repeat my self many times.  If it was not in their Knowledge base, level one support was lost.  I knew more than some of their tech’s.  I had already applyed all recommended fixes found in the Knowledge base.  Level two support was no better.  They took information and always promised to get back to me in 24 hrs.  They never did, and then seemed to lose my information.  They said that they were escalating to Level three but I never got a response back.  There is a user group with many users with the same problem.  No one at Symantec acknowledged that this was a problem and that they did not have a fix for it. 

          I lost this business as a client because I was spending to much time with out a solution to the problem.  Thanks Symantec.

           

        • #3199190

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by bmayfield001 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Norton causes problems!!??  McAfee has caused my PC to almost cease running!!

          I had Norton before and switched to McAfee.  That was a big mistake on my part.

          I am sure most of the problem is due to the age of my PC and it’s old operating system.  Win98.

          BUT – I had Norton before and had no problems.

          So where do I go now that all of you have posted concerns about Norton???

        • #3199173

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by prof_keith ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Insert comment text here

          I have so many problems with the livedate, I will look for better software when my subscription is done.  No matter what I do when I try to do a liveudate is is alredy running but I don’t get updated!

        • #3199092

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by prof_keith ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Insert comment text here

        • #3284013

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by ttiger72 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Symantec lost a long time SAV customer this year because of over pricing their products. We used Brightmail Anti-Spam and AV, switched to Sonicwall Email Security and saved 1K buying a new product (with 2 AV signature subscrptions) vs renewing the subcriptions for Brightmail. We saved 2K buying new Trend Micro than renewing SAV CE and Sygate Enterprise Firewall(which Symantec nows owns) and will save 3500 next year when we renew Trend, and even more when you factor in the renewal of Sygate Enterprise Firewall. Way to price yourselves out of the market Symantec.

        • #3228712

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by jalordi ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

           Ms Garcia-Manrique’s reply is pure BS. When Peter Norton was around his products were the best there were. Symantec’s products have become pure junk. I can’t tell you the number of hours I have spent trying to resolve problems caused by their software. I use to put system works on all of my clients machines, today I tell all my clients to stay away for their products at all costs. It’s a shame to see a fine product sink to the level of system works. Symantec needs to clean house of excutives who don’t know how to produce a quality product or how to take care of customers. I don’t think they will ever get any more of my business.

          JAL KJB Computer Services

        • #3228161

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by hobbesotr ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          I speak from both the enterprise (600+ node multinational network, single/same major hardware manufacturer) and home user levels when I say I respectfully disagree w/Ms Manrique’s comments and position.  As many have noted in multiple forums across the web, the Symantec product and support have been on the downward side of a very slippery slope.  My experience w/Peter Norton’s software goes back to the days of DOS.  He, w/out a doubt, was putting out some of the best reasonably priced utilities that money could buy.  Consistently, year after year.  That all came to an end when Symantec bought the rights to his products.  Since that point, the products have been slipping at a rate measurable in magnitudes.  Each successive version injects more problems.  Just w/in the past year we’d had several major outbreaks in the enterprise because SAV was unable to detect the involved virus.  Tech support was not of much (if any) help.  So unresponsive/slow that we’d isolate the infected pc’s via the firewall/routers.  Then, go to the web.  Discover the source and removal process.  My experience has been that Symantec’s update service is slow to respond to new threats.  Quite frequently other virus software manufacturers have web information and new viruse definitions available long (days to week, or more) before Symantec.

          As a home user my experience is just as bad, if not worse.  Symantec products have been notoriously noted to introduce system instability.  Symantec uninstall routines do not.  It’s necessary to use a Symantec fix to clean the registry of Symantec entries.  Then, manually delete the Symantec directories before even thinking about a reinstall.  My experience has been that once Symantec has been installed, other multiple registered software applications (Roxio in particular) suddenly start a reinstallation process when launched.  I’m not singling out SAV.  As I’ve had similar experiences both w/other previously installed registered software and Symantec products (Ghost, Internet Security, etc).  Symantec is really messing w/the registry.  To the point that the only way to clean things up has been a couple rebuilds from the OS up.

          Several years ago at work we changed the enterprise software from McAfee to Symantec for these very reasons.  At home my experiences w/McAfee haven’t been much better then Symantec.  One thing, tho, which is especially annoying is the dumbing down of the user interface and options by McAfee.  The advanced, or technical, user has fewer available options and control then before.  At work, corporate policy is slow to change.  In particular w/the costs and efforts associated in making enterprise wide software changes.  At home, my attitude has changed from using an ‘all in one’ software has changed to use the most appropriate app.  Even if means separate pgm’s are necessary.  Licensed copies of ESET and Zone Alarm are doing quite well at protecting the home network computers.  I do have to admit tho, PowerQuest’s Partion Magic is occasionally needed.  However, it’s a pre-Symantec copy and it works quite well – thank you!

          As for me, and mine, Symantec (likely McAfee too) will not be installed on a pc in this house.

        • #3227972

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by noah3 ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          As a consequence of the way-too-many problems with Symantec’s anti-virus software I have removed it from my company’s LAN, all of our laptops, my personal PC and laptop.

          In addition, I am considering dumping Symantec’s Backup Exec from our server . . . too many problems to list here.

        • #3139831

          Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          by shitpost ·

          In reply to Symantec responds to TechRepublic member concerns

          Sorry Symantec, too late now..

          For many years I had heaps of Symantec software installed on 500+ computers. Costed a little fortune, but it was worth every dollar.

          I loved the Norton tools, some of them where brilliant! Norton Disk editor, Norton Utilities, Norton Disk Doctor, Be.exe, Ncd.exe, Nav, Norton Ghost.exe, Ghost for Netware. Gifts from heaven. Stable, usefull, state-of the art power tools. For many years I was one of the most loyal Norton customers one can think of. Norton realy earned my trust and loyalty.

          But then Symantec came, and everything changed for the worse. The first sign was the ditching of a very promising new tool, Ghost for Netware. “By management decision”.

          Since 2002 Symantec seems to be an expert in messing up good software. The results: Bloated, instable, ill-behaving, mediocre software that often causes more troubles than it solves, and grind pc’s to a crawl. After many many many lost hours and lots of desparation I ditched all those fancy looking bulgy bell’s and whistle’s and aside Ghost.exe (the last 2003 version ‘dos’ tool, later versions are a PITA) every shred of Symantec’s rubbish is gone now.

          My life as a head of a IT department gained so much quality after that decision!

          Nod32 protects my systems so much better! No false positives, no more misses, no blue screens, no instabilities, no slowing down, no long and painstaking installations/removeals, no more expensive calls to India, no Ram Bulimia, no hours of Symantec knowledge base research, no sickening update and script errors. And as a bonus it is much cheaper, especially in large amounts.

          Remote Admin replaces PcAnywhere. Same story here: M?ch cheaper, stable, unbelievable faster, lightweight, safer. It all install’s and de?nstalls like a charm in seconds, without leaving ton’s of rubbish in my systems, and it performs. Did I mention that this software performs?

          You have done a great job in chasing me away, Symantec. No more Symantecware for my department -and my customers- anymore. If I see your software on a computer my first advise is: Please replace it and get happy.

          You have done your outmost best to get rid of the power users and IT pro’s. It’s a shame that a once so loyal customer has to say this. No, I won’t use Symantec software for the years to come. But maybe Symantec changes, and starts to make real good software again. After they have proved to do so for a few years, I will reconsider.

          The only positive thing I can add, is that NIS 2007 seems to push a little less hard on computers breaks, and symantec isn’t the only company that excells in slowing down a nice computer. See image.

          http://community.compuserve.com/n/mb/at.asp?webtag=ws-nlcomputer&guid=86004091-C189-4282-BEC0-CB5F40E1D0C1

          Michel Uphoff
          IT manager
          Netherlands

      • #3205509

        Can Linux conquer the desktop?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Between SuSe 10.0 and Unbuntu 6.06, I?ve been spending a lot
        of time playing with Linux on a couple of my test workstations. Although we
        have Linux running as a server platform on several machines in the TechRepublic
        Test Lab, I have been specifically configured a couple of desktop machines as well. At
        home, I probably use SuSe 10.0 on my laptop more than the Windows XP hard drive
        I have for it.

        When I was talking about Linux with TechRepublic Vice
        President Peter
        Spande
        , he wondered what I was using it for ? work or just mostly Web
        surfing, games, and stuff like that. I pointed out that I used it mostly for
        Web surfing, and that I couldn?t do much actual work with it because I couldn?t
        connect to our VPN with Linux and that limited what I could do. OpenOffice works just fine to write and edit
        contributor submissions, but without direct access to files at work, there?s
        little I can do work-wise. When it?s time to do most work, I just fire up XP.

        At least going back since 1999, it seems like every year is
        the ?Year Of Linux On The Desktop?. While Linux has gotten better as a desktop
        OS, and even though Novell, Red Hat, Unbuntu, and others would love for people
        to switch to running Linux on the desktop, so far it?s just not happening. Except for IT guys who want to learn Linux,
        or hard core
        Linux zealots
        , there?s just not a very large rush to Linux on the desktop.

        You won?t see much movement on the desktop for Linux for
        quite a while either. That?s for a couple of reasons. First, there won?t be a
        mass migration in most businesses because of the training issues involved. It?s
        hard enough to deal with users when they?re trying to understand the basics of
        Windows. Can you imagine the mass confusion that would ensue if you suddenly
        ripped out one OS and replaced with another? Oh sure, there are Linux
        environments which emulate Windows, but there?s still a hurdle there.

        There?s also the problem with centrally managing Linux on
        the desktop. Although through ZenWorks and similar tools, there are ways to
        centrally manage Linux users, it creates an added burden for network
        administrators who currently use Group Policy to control Windows workstations.

        A third hurdle that goes along with barring Linux making
        inroads on the desktop goes to the issue of installation. Windows is
        universally installed by every major OEM. Although Linux is touted as being a ?free?
        OS, for all practical purposes, Windows is free as well. It?s built into the
        price of almost every machine that?s purchased by business. If you check the
        online stores for just about any major OEM, you can have any OS you want, as
        long as it?s some flavor of Windows. Linux isn’t even an option. Additionally, there?s the added fact that
        even through installing images, there?s the cost of time installing the OS. The
        OEM barrier was one of the key reasons why OS/2 never could challenge Windows
        9x.

        Can?t the same things be said about the challenges Microsoft
        faces pushing Vista? There will be an equally large training issue with Vista.
        Vista will present new central management issues. Vista however WILL have the
        complete backing of OEMs and be available essentially for free for people who
        have a volume license agreement.

        So does that mean that Linux CAN?T succeed as a desktop OS?
        No. Linux actually works fairly well as desktop, and has improved quite a lot
        since the first year it was supposed to conquer the desktop. There are probably
        plenty of individuals and organizations that may make a move to it. All I?m saying is
        that it WON’T happen in general. There are even more reasons than I’ve mentioned here why it won’t happen. Even after Vista ships, whenever that will be, Linux isn?t going to
        conquer the desktop any more than the Mac is. It?s still going to be a Windows
        World.

        • #3284802

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by pmshah9 ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          I beg to differ on some of your contentions. Only reason Win98 succeeded over OS/2 was the ease of installation of OS which also bugs Linux to an extent. If you visit the  California OS/2 users group site you might think differently. If IBM had managed to wean away a few of the M$ employees to inprove the installation routine the story would have been different.

          With Mandriva 10.1 both installation as well as upgrades have become extremely easy & reliable. I would hazard a guess that 95% of home end users would not miss any feature in Linux as compared to Windows. Should the US government pass a law which would make so called “non disclosure agreements” open to scrutiny by courts of law the story might be very different. The amount of financial pressure & control M$ wields over developers of hardware & software precludes support for Linux to a very large extent. How else would you account for a large company like Compaq abandoning fully developed Linux on iPaq & switch to Windows CE?

          Apple failed for alltogether different reasons. There is no way one could justify exhorbitantly high price of hardware for general usability & functionality required by an average user. M$ initially never bothered to curb piracy since they were assured of sufficiently large revenues from the corporate users. This ensured large scale penetration at the cost of other OSes. If  Apple decides to make OS-X available for on x86 general purpose hardware you will certainly see a major change in penetration. This should not be difficult since it is based on BSD, available on x86 architecture.

          Here in India companies like HP & Acer have managed to sell sizeable quantities of machines with Linux preinstalled. The price difference for the same machines with M$ OS installed ran upto 20%.

        • #3283499

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by cam ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          Each has a place, but the drive to lower costs will prevent change from now on. The average user will hesitate many times before sticking with what they know. The cost to business of restructuring is enormous and the push from within will always have to beat entrenched high inetial reluctance. Microsoft has a cohesiveness that everyone appreciates – and that is what you are paying for. When Microsoft becomes unresponsive to user requests, then there is opportunity. But Microsoft have both an entrenchment and a pricing structure that enables it to be responsive and that is an edge against Open software. It is putting a single name and organizational structure in place to manage the “product”. NAME: That is a public relations exercise which requires buckets of dollars. While Linux is seen in so many flavours, no-one wants the risk of incompatibility or inability to rapidly acquire the right tools. Microsoft products evolve to a unified vision, so while they may appear to move slowly, they actually just take major steps slowly – but they are in step with their past and their goals. This is a battle of all elements from ideas, development. co-existence with superceded product, common feature sets, communication across products, responsiveness to issues, marketing and brand awareness – Microsoft do it the best in all areas as a team of products. Yes they are large and suffer the inertia of large compnies…but it can enforce cohesiveness. So if you want to beat Microsoft, or match them, you have to examine why their model works and emulate it. Without a common head directing the evolution of products and technologies through enforced standards and API’s and a requirement they can fit in with other MS products and extend capability by doing so, you can’t get past first base. The lack of a “head” AND “enforcer” in the Open Software world is what prevents more than sporadic adoption here and there. All the most successful ventures in our history have been led by one person or company. Enteprises that have a clear goal usually get there. The focus is co-ordinated from above. Unco-ordinated enteprises have no way of enforcing across the board…except where people choose to be directed. Let ideas come from where they will – in the Open world…fine. It is a clever body of innovaters. But recognise that the sheer numbers of people that use MS product means that the MS community is a valid one. So accept it…work with Linux or MS Windows…whatever. But don’t work with a mind to change the world – it is Microsoft’s time. Put the energy into learning to work with and extend where you as an innovator see fit. Being able to work 100% within the MS environment with your Open Software innovation makes everyone richer. When two countries learn to trade with each other instead of invading, both countries benefit. Japan has gone a lot further joining the Western world than it ever did fighting it. Same for Linux. 

        • #3283492

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by sdarsey ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          I do use Ubuntu about %25 of the time. I do connect to my office and our server locations via VPN. One using PPTP-Linux and the other using the Cisco linux VPN client.

          Next time you’re running Ubuntu, open Synaptics and search for PPTP. If it isn’t installed, install it. Then Google for PPTPConfig. That is a GUI version that seems to work only if you are running a stock version of Ubuntu. I can’t help you with Suse.

          I agree that desktop linux is not likely for some time. Specifically since granma can buy an appliance that has windows for the OS. They don’t care, they just want to see pictures of the granbabies. Come to think of it, I wonder how many Linspire boxes wally world has sold to the masses?

          Steve

        • #3283455

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by dlragsdale ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          In contrast to what most “nerds” may think, there should always be a realistic way of thinking about things.  Like it or not, we will be looking through “Windows” for a while.

        • #3283450

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by henry.a.mckelvey ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          Hello,

           

          I have been using Linux for going on 9.5 years, and I love using it, Hey I still have my old Slackware (Infomagic) box acting as a file server in my home. While I love Linux in all of it flavors, I must admit that after all of this time Linux is not for Joe and Jane America, who just wants to browse the Internet and read E-mail. I think that the problem with most of the hardcore Linux users is that they are using themselves as examples of the average user, which they are not. The average user does not care what file system they are using, most don?t know or care about what a file system is. I remember one day a coworker of mine was using a UNIX system GUI and needed to find a line in a find, I said that I would help her GREP for the line, and she thought I was hitting on her, this really happened! Now, What I do believe is that if you totally encapsulate Linux in a GUI platform, which was intuitive enough that it would do all of the UNIX/Linux stuff behind the scenes while allowing the user to just point and click without worrying about dependencies, processes, or any of the numerous UNIX/Linux functionality issues you could put that out on the market as a desktop contender, in fact that is what Apple did with the Mac OS X. Now if someone would just make a true Linux based Mac (not just Linux running on a Mac), I think you?ll have a real winner, in other words never having to see a:  James @Talkfest James% prompt unless The person wants to.

           

          This is just my opinion.

           

          Linux is ok for people who like and appreciate Linux and computers, but for the general public, the Mac running Mac OS? and the IBM based PC running Windows? , are the only games in town. For Now!!

           

        • #3283303

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by ktuulancehankins ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          I’ve had similar experiences to the author’s. I’ve been looking for a Linux Desktop”Silver Bullet” for a long time and I haven’t found it. There always seems to be something that you can’t do (or that an average user couldn’t do) that makes me sigh and go back to my XP desktop. As an example, when Novell introduced SLED10 a few weeks ago I thought “AHA! Maybe this will be the one.” I downloaded it and installed it on my system alongside SUSE 10.1 and XP. I spent the first 4 or 5 days in it as much as I could. But mostly doing email, web browsing, and light Office work. Then “the Snag” appeared. I hit a web site from one of our vendors that required Flash to view. My version in Firefox was too old. It asked if I wanted to upgrade. No big deal, right? Windows users do this kind of stuff every day.

          Well, it was an ordeal. It didn’t upgrade on the spot. I was taken to Adobe’s web site where I was presented with a selection to download. I did and the file was placed on the desktop. After I read the install instructions I got the file open and discovered Iwas installing through a terminal window through the command line. And to top it all off I needed to answer a series of questions which included a location to put the extracted files. That should have been fine except that at the command line you aren’t given any default or a browse button to go find the correct location. Anyway, I got the program installed and loaded up Firefox again (I had to shut it down to do this) and found my way back to the website I had been trying to view. (It’s been a half hour now since I started this.) And guess what? I still can’t view the site because the version of Flash I just installed is still not right! Seems the Linux version is a rev behind the Windows version. So there I sat, 45 minutes virtually wasted.

          Trust me, I really WANT a Linux desktop I can give my users. But until it can work as simply as Windows, it’s NOT GONNA HAPPEN in my organization. When an average user can’t do something as simple as upgrade their own browser Flash installation, it’s not ready for primetime.

          Keep trying, Linux developers. Maybe we can get there someday. In the meantime, I’ll use Linux for play and Windows for work.

          Lance Hankins

        • #3283051

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by dr5cook ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          What I’ve always wondered about, John, is why some OEM such as HP couldn’t offer a dual booting PC or laptop as a marketing gimmick? Your new computer would be installed with Vista but if the customer would so desire they would install Linux (OEM’s choice of flavor)for free! The manufacturer or better the software company would offer some sort of free support for a certain length of time. The customer would have the benefit that every piece of hardware on that computer would work with Linux. Question–is there some kind of licensing requirement (Microsoft)that would prevent this? If I was in the market for a new computer, guess which manufacturer I would be giving some serious thought about buying–one that only offers Vista or one that will add a 2nd operating system for free?

          Daryl Cook

        • #3283001

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by roger davis ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          Unless Windows gets cheaper AND Microsoft becomes more friendly and
          consumer oriented, Linux will slowly become the operating system of
          choice for home users, then small businesses, then… you get the
          picture.  The only thing remaining to be defined is “slowly”.

        • #3140410

          Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to Can Linux conquer the desktop?

          Does TR have a formal policy requiring any article over 3 words long that deals with Linux to include the word “zealot”?

      • #3283103

        25 year old technology that still impacts us today

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        A couple of weeks ago, I noted the the
        25th anniversary
        of the venerable IBM PC. The IBM PC wasn?t the
        only major piece of technology that debuted in 1981. 1981 was a pretty big year
        for introducing technology that still impacts us today. Naturally the
        introduction of the IBM PC also subjected us to PC-DOS and its generic cousin
        MS-DOS. But there are other things that came from that year that are still us.

        First of all, the Hayes Microcomputer Products company
        introduced the Smartmodem that year. Although it wasn?t the first modem
        invented, it was the first that was able to be used on a wide range of
        microcomputers including the Apple II, TRS-80 and the shiny new IBM PC. It was
        a blazing 300Bps. Because of the introduction of the Smartmodem, the AT command
        set became popular encouraging standardization in the modem industry. This
        ultimately led to the popularity of BBSes and finally the Internet. Without the
        Smartmodem, we might not be where we are today at all.

        Another key technological introduction from 1981 that
        affects us today is the Xerox Star. Coming out of Xerox?s famed PARC (the Palo
        Alto Research Center), the Star introduced the world to the concept of
        graphical computing. Like many innovations to come out of PARC like Ethernet,
        Xerox was never able to capitalize on the Star, but legend has it that after
        seeing the Star, Steve Jobs was inspired to create the Lisa, which ultimately
        led to the MacIntosh. And of course, it ultimately led to Windows.

        The third and final technology from 1981 that I want to
        mention right now is the Osbourne 1. This was the first commercially successful
        portable computer. Although it?s a far cry from modern laptops and Pocket PCs,
        this machine finally detached computers from a desk and made it easy for them
        to be moved from place to place. It ran the CP/M operating system which was the
        most popular operating system for computers prior to the introduction of
        PC-DOS. It also ran the popular Z80 processor and could support up to 64Kb of
        RAM. Of course the main drawback was that you still had to be connected to AC
        power to use it, but the basic concept led to a whole new era in computing. The
        form factor was also imitated by Compaq when it shipped its first PC, thereby
        making the entire clone industry more reputable because IBM wasn?t doing a
        portable at all.

        As you can see, 1981 was a pretty big year for the computer
        industry. Technologies introduced and popularized that year echo down to today.
        I?m sure I?ve missed quite a few things. Can anyone else think of anything from
        the first year of the Reagan Administration that still is with us today?

        • #3200012

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          How about our national debt? Oh. Wait. You probably mean good things.

          I know. Reagan didn’t invent the national debt, but he did TRIPLE it while in office.

        • #3284625

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by crake ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Hi John,

          I think you may have overlooked the Kaypro II?which?made?use?of?the?Osbourne?1,?the?CP/M?OS,?and?the?Z80?processor.
          This was one of the first computers I ever worked with. I was in the U.S. Navy at the time and this thing would easily have doubled as a boat anchor – it wasn’t exactly light 🙂

          Cheers!

        • #3284626

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by crake ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Hi John,

          I think you may have overlooked the Kaypro II?which?made?use?of?the?Osbourne?1,?the?CP/M?OS,?and?the?Z80?processor.
          This was one of the first computers I ever worked with. I was in the U.S. Navy at the time and this thing would easily have doubled as a boat anchor – it wasn’t exactly light 🙂

          Cheers!

        • #3199120

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by hulyalkar1 ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Well I am not going to add in tech area but I would like to say the attitude to look at technology has not changed in last 25 years. In fact it has not changed for centuries. I still remember a quote when steam engine pulled rail racks. It says something like this: ?A huge monster making horrible noise and puffing out smoke and steam rolled past the town at blistering speed of 10 miles an hour. We don?t know how many accidents there will be when such a huge things runs at that speed and effect of mass transport on the cobblers and wagons pulled by horses and unemployment of riders.?

          At the same time when I look back I feel the Smartmodem should be rated much higher for contribution of internet than PC?s. The reason is simple: they used existing technologies and adapted themselves to a technology which was in place and standards set in for just 5 years away from completing its centenary ? telecom technology. For a common user – ITU had made sure that you connect any telephone anywhere in the world and it will get dial tone, dial out a number in any language, will ring at the receivers end and talks to the person at the other end. By connecting a modem with firm standard set of AT commands hays have seen that they connect the world on top of something which is already in place.

          Unfortunately, after so much of talk about open source and technological marvels we still a technician to make two PCs? to talk to each other.

          Satish Hulyalkar
          Pune/India

        • #3198961

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by hmtattrie ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Hey John,

          You kind of overlooked the other main contribution of the Osborn 1.  When this machine came out, the really revolutionary thing about it was that they bundled applications software with it.  Before that, portable computers, like their desk-bound counterparts, were not much more than big-fat paperweights until you bought software to go with them.  What Adam Osborn did was provide a tool that was actually usable out-of-the-box.  I think they came with the whole MicroPro suite of programs – WordStar, CalcStar (spreadsheet) and some other apps that I dont remember. 

          It’s true they were portable (we called them “Luggables” back in the day), but as you mentioned, they still needed AC so they weren’t really usable on planes or elsewhere.  I feel that their contribution was bundled software and Adam Osborn was the father of it.

          Ahhhhh the good ole’ days!  I miss em’.

          Howard

           

        • #3201198

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by rkgroups ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Well whatever other comments say, most of the stuff you mentioned was unknown to me before. Thanks for giving this information.[http://blog.talkncafe.com ]

        • #3200395

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by joe pescatrice ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Ah, the good old days, remember them well.  I had the Compaq pc version of the Osborne lugable and did carry it on the airplanes (mainly because they would not check such a valuable item).  Many times I had to put it on the floor under my feet so besides a boat anchor, it made a great footrest.  It still runs and I crank it up along with the Tandy Model I (with a serial # older than the one in the Smithsonian) to show folks how we did it back when.  Joe (-:

        • #3226815

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by rajat4mp ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          Insert comment text here
          Hi ,
          I don’t know much about wht all happened around 1981 because I was born 3 years earlier…… all things you mentioned are good to know..,  where we are upto now…?
          I think that particularly for communication ( of machines- with different platforms) we need one and only universal protocol for interaction.,,, what all i mean is that if we connect two comuter they should be able to talk to each other irrespective of their platforms ( hardware/software).

        • #3228333

          25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          by irqcoder ·

          In reply to 25 year old technology that still impacts us today

          I remember 1981 as being the peak of the coin-op video game craze, probably because I was 12 years old at the time.? The “greats” like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, etc. all came out around that time.? We dropped tens of millions of quarters into those machines then we started playing video games at home, first on dedicated systems, and then on our Apples, Ataris, Commodore 64s, and the original IBM PC.? The games we play on our computers today provide an audio-visual experience that was beyond our wildest dreams in 1981.? The demands of game software have certainly helped spur the advance in hardware capabilities in the last decade.? It’s interesting to ponder what kind of power our computers would have today had the video game craze not occurred.

      • #3284187

        Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        One of Louisville Kentucky?s largest employers is UPS ? United Parcel
        Service. UPS, of course, is famous for its brown trucks and the ability to
        deliver just about any package you want, anywhere on the globe you want. When
        you put a UPS in your server room, the hope is that it will continue to deliver
        power when the power company can?t. 

        Recently, I got a call from a company I?ve done consulting
        for. They?ve been having intermittent power problems and the main breaker to
        the building has been blowing out. Even though my grandfather started his own company
        as an electrician
        over 50 years ago, the wiring wasn?t what they called me
        for. Instead it was the server that kept crashing.

        When the company purchased its new server system, the vendor
        was smart enough to recommend a UPS for the system. The customer told me the
        server however would go right out when the power went out, even though the UPS
        was less than a year old.

        I suspected it just might not be plugged in properly. Often
        people will plug equipment into the Surge Only line of a UPS and not use the
        battery-backup side. Instead what I found was something completely different.

        It turned out the vendor was smart enough to supply a UPS,
        just a very tiny one. Supporting a Dell PowerEdge 1420, a flat panel display,
        router, hub, and fiber optic hub was a puny APC 350. Not only that, there was
        no connection between the UPS and the server. So, after about 3 minutes when
        the battery was exhausted, rather than elegantly shutting the system down, the
        entire thing came to a crashing halt.

        This is one of the things I?ll never understand about some
        consultants. Here the vendor had suggested and recommended a system that was
        worth over $5000 at the time, and they protected it with a $40 UPS. And they didn?t
        even bother to hook it up properly when they did. What are some people thinking
        sometimes?

        • #3201554

          Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          Are you sure this is not the company I currently work for? I was instructed to plug over 1.5 kVa worth of equipment into an APC 300 footstool (half of it on the “unprotected” side), and it was so horrible that our email server and domain controller kept getting cut off. It took months of this before my boss gave up and authorized me to purchase real UPS.

          J.Ja

        • #3230712

          Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          by tekhead_ia ·

          In reply to Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          Electricity is a fairly cutting edge technology.  I’m confident people will start to try and understand it when they realize it’s not just a fad.  Kinda like computers… 

        • #3200961

          Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          by pmshah9 ·

          In reply to Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          I am not surprised at all. Most of the time people making purchasing decisions are from the finance or management branch. They are eminently unqualified to evaluate the requirements. What surprises me is how come they decided to buy the so called UPS when the vendor clearly stated that the server would go out in the event of mains power failure. The worst part is the nerve of the UPS vendor to even offer such a device which is not suitable even for an old time mome pc let alone sell it.

          Don’t these charlies run forced shutdown procedures to ensure proper functioning & qualification of the equipment? I would sue the guy.

        • #3282939

          Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          by techmail2 ·

          In reply to Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          Proper backup power starts with good design and proper funding.  One telecom site I worked at had a 40KVA UPS running on nicad/nimh cells that was rated for maybe 10 minutes at full load – but there was an auto-start, auto-transfer 100KW diesel generator that picked up the load in 5 minutes or so.  That’s the proper philosophy on UPS 😉

          My home network currently has 4 small UPS units, each dedicated to a specific purpose:

          APC120 for broadband modem, router, and a 16 port switch

          APC 120 for b&w inkjet printer and network interface

          Energizer 350 for color inkjet and network interface (printer turns on when USB goes active, so only the interface unit is powered most of the time)

          Energizer 350 (with external gel cell about 3 times the original capacity) for wireless access point and limited lighting in the basement walkway

          Energizer 350 for the VCR so the current episode of my wife’s soap gets taped 😉

          The Energizer 350’s are often under $20 on sale and/or after rebate and they work well for light loads.

          I’m currently rebuilding a 750VA APC for use with a P4 desktop.

          Paranoid about backup power?  Who?  Me?

          John

           

           

        • #3282776

          Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          by victory.4 ·

          In reply to Delivering power via UPS ? most of the time

          Yea, electricity is so new, we have only been using it for about
          100 years. You must remember, it takes some people a ‘short’
          period of time to adjust to new technology and things. “Maybe in
          the next lifetime I’ll be able to adjust” ever hear that
          one before? This attitude applys to a number of people
          regardless of their vocation. Also many are also not forward
          thinkers, only dealing with what was ordered or what the book
          says. It’s like they never ever think about the real world
          or the functionality in the future. Let someone else clean it
          up. How do these people hold their jobs when so many
          other compitent people are let go?

      • #3230412

        And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        You?ve probably noticed the ads that we have running on TechRepublic.
        (At least our advertisers hope you have.) Likewise, almost every site on the Internet
        employs some form of banner or graphical ad unit to help pay the bills and keep
        the data bits flowing. Clearly the most annoying form of advertising is the
        infamous pop-up ad which gets in your face and insists you clear it before you
        can continue doing what you?re doing.

        But, recently I?ve noticed a type of ad which is even more
        annoying and irritating than the pop-up ad. And for a change it?s not online.

        What I?m talking about are roaming billboards. These are
        rotating ads that are mounted on the trailer area of panel trucks. They?re
        motoring equivalent of the old sandwich board ads that people used to use to
        tell you to ?Eat At Joe?s?.

        There used to just be one in town, but today I noticed
        another one. It was painted an obnoxious tree-frog green with rolling ads. Don?t ask me what the ads were for, because I
        was too annoyed with the concept.

        Advertising has its place. I might be a bit biased, but contextual
        advertising like we do here on TechRepublic can actually be useful. If you?re
        reading about VOIP in an article online, it can be helpful to jump to an
        advertiser?s site to see some of the products they have. But when I?m driving down the road, I don?t need
        a truck in front of me with a spinning picture of the local ambulance chaser.
        The only reason I?d need that is if I happen to get rear-ended by the person
        behind me who?s also distracted by the thing.

        I?m not a tree hugger by any means, but I find rolling
        billboards on the backs of trucks belching fumes and consuming hundreds of
        gallons of diesel at $3 a gallon as being socially irresponsible. About the
        only use I find for them is to figure out the vendors to NOT purchase from. I?m
        not going to patronize and encourage anyone to use such an advertising
        technique.

        What?s next? Are we all someday going to be driving down the
        roads in cars that look like they?ve just driven off of a NASCAR track?

        • #3230382

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by danlm ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          chuckle, naaa.. You find that when your in city traffic and surrounded by the local transportation bus’s.  Lol, or the town is poor and they are renting space on their police cars to advertisers to pay for the police cars they need.

          Dan

        • #3200919

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by j sheesley ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          Well, true… city buses have long employed the billboard tactic. But those are almost acceptable. At least they’re still serving a purpose of hauling people around. These abominations are doing nothing but toting rotating ads. 

        • #3282936

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          What’s next ?

          A device will snoop the RF chip in your ID card, look up your recent purchasing activities and pop a hologram right in your face. Some smarmy git addresses you by name  and tells you what you really need. They’ll also figure out your destination and arrival time, track you to it and then ring you up when you get there to see how effective the ad was.

          It’ll be great, really. It will remind you, you need to get some more tins in, as past activity would indicate that you’ve emptied the fridge again. Actually the blue tooth interface in you fridge should take care of that shouldn’t it.
          Maybe the ad will tell you that Coors is better than Budweiser (or vice versa, they both taste like water to a bitter drinker) and your local 24/7 has a special offer on.

        • #3200352

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          I express my opinion by crossing such products and vendors off my shopping list. Hate the junk.

        • #3226734

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by problemsolversolutionseeker ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          As long as we have materialism a higher priority than God, these things will only get worse.

        • #3228486

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by moviewithnotitle ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          Hi John Sheesley,
          I have to agree with your opinion on where and how advertising is displayed. It seemed lately that anything with a flat surface is free game to put an advertisment. Frankly I can’t stand advertising, unless there is some extremely simple humor to it that makes me chuckle(not usually the norm). Prime example, the Ads on the hubcaps of the taxi’s at LAX! This alone is proof-positive that there is nothing that will stand in the way of advertising dollars! Personally I find it a little pathetic, and to think some make millions doing it yet it requires no real skill to sell the space on a flat (or round) surface! I’m not as coy with my words as yourself, but I think you understand the direction I am coming from!

          Regards,
          Kevin Geary

        • #3227131

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by mdhealy ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          Advertising got waaay out of hand long ago.  One of the reasons Vermont is among my favorite places to spend a long weekend is they have strict limits on billboards and other commercial clutter.  Not long ago I walked across a bridge from VT to NH, and just after “Welcome to New Hampshire” the NEXT thing I saw was an enormous WAL*MART sign.

          I avoid wearing any item of clothing that prominently displays somebody’s advertising message unless I consider that message to be unusually clever: if they want me to display their corporate logo, they should PAY ME!

          I do occasionally wear stuff with the logo of my current employers, precisely because they ARE paying me, but if they lay me off* I’ll stop wearing those in public!

          I recall some years back a startup whose business model was basically, we’ll lease new cars at below the going price in exchange for their drivers letting us rent advertising space on them.  Since I’ve heard nothing about them in recent years, I assume that business model failed.

          *If I named my employer, those of you who regularly read the NY Times or Wall Street Journal would know why I mention the prospect of layoffs (and why the Board recently dumped our CEO).

        • #3204790

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by royhayward ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          Like the lottery is a tax on those mathematically impaired among us, spam and popups are marketing to the technologically impaired.  Heck if that really is their demographic then they will probably make out well.  We might as well get used to it.

          I too fight back in my way by not patronizing spammer advertised businesses.  But for the most part I don’t see them, and I don’t spend time tracking them down just to compile a list of places not to shop.  Advertising has always been a deal with the devil for us wanabe freeloading consumers.  I want to see movies on TV, so I put up with adds.  Ads end up doubling the length of the show, so I DVR it and zoom past them. 

          Trust me, somewhere there is a grad student working on an algorithm for advertising tolerances among TV viewing demographic populations.  Like them, the advertising company with the truck idea needs to have a market in mind.  If they are just slapping a sticker on a surface that will hold it hoping that some yokel will see it and shop there, then they will eventually fail.  Especially if these truckvertizers become additional clog in the congestion of traffic.  Most companies don’t want to be know as ‘The store that is always in your way.’

           

           

           

        • #3226594

          And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          by ken_ballard9 ·

          In reply to And you thought pop-up ads were annoying

          I remember the first time I saw one of those.  I had gotten held up during my lunch hour by an important phone call and was already late for work waiting at an intersection.  The first thing I thought was “they’re wasting diesel on this?  That diesel could have gone to heat someone’s home this winter.”

          I can fully understand a business’s need to advertise.  I have a business degree myself.  But like the blogger said, advertising has its place, and advertising should never be random.  Take a marketing class and you’ll see that ads should be targeted for best effect.  Random marketing is only ever a waste of money.  Heck you won’t see my employer putting an ad for our EMR (Electronic Medical Records) product in Cosmo.

      • #3226924

        Building the perfect beast

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        One of the challenges in having a subscription product like
        TechProGuild associated with a site like TechRepublic is finding the proper
        balance of content and service offerings that make it valuable and useful to
        customers. As such, we like to constantly revisit the service to make sure what
        we?re offering is proving itself useful to TechProGuild members. We like to add
        new features, remove old ones, and change content offerings all towards the
        ultimate goal, which is to help IT professionals save time doing their job ?
        whether it?s finding a solution, tool or whatever.

        One of the core offerings of TechProGuild since its
        inception is Tech Books. Tech Books is a service that TechRepublic obtains
        through a partnership with Books
        24×7
        where we offer a subset of their technical library for usage by
        TechProGuild members. Tech Books was a nice complement to TechProGuild
        initially, but we?ve found that the vast majority of TPG members never used it. Additionally, because it?s in concert with another company we don?t have
        as much control over it, which is why you may have noticed inconsistencies in
        the look and feel of Tech Books when compared to TechProGuild. Therefore, when
        our contract expires at the end of September, we?ll be no longer offering Tech
        Books on our site.

        If you?re already a TechProGuild subscriber, don?t worry. We
        will still be doing the same kinds of content that you?ve proven to have found
        valuable on TechProGuild. As a matter of fact, without the distraction of a
        third-party service, we should be able to provide more and better content.

        In the next few weeks, we?ll be making further changes to
        TechProGuild, offering new features, removing others, and moving things around.
        All the while in doing so, we hope to make this a service that goes further in
        helping you get your job done better. If you have any ideas, you can let me
        know just by emailing
        me
        .

      • #3227310

        Revving up backup operations

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        The other day I was helping out TechRepublic-Editor-turned-Computer-Troubleshooters-consultant
        Erik Eckel
        at one of his customer?s sites. Erik was installing a new Windows Server
        2003 SBS server and needed some help with a particularly tricky network
        installation. While we were finishing the installation, I noticed a nifty
        little device attached to the server that Erik was using for backups ? an
        Iomega Rev drive
        .

        This is a device much similar to the old Iomega Zip and
        Iomega Jaz drives. It?s basically a cartridge drive that you can attach to your
        server or workstation to hold data. Whereas the old Zip drives were limited to
        100Mb and the Jaz to a few gigabytes, the Rev drives come in 35Gb and 70Gb
        flavors ? enough for most workstations and small servers. There?s even a 320Gb
        option for larger servers.

        All in all, it looked like a pretty nice piece of equipment. It?s
        a faster alternative to tape backups and smaller than a portable hard drive. Iomega
        has been creating devices like this ever since the ancient Bernoulli Box. I
        haven?t had the chance to play with one directly, so I might have to hit Iomega
        up for an evaluation unit.

        As hard drives get bigger on workstations and servers,
        backing them up become increasingly problematic. Tape sizes and speeds are
        having a hard time keeping up, and having redundant spare drives can get pricey
        as well. Give me some good alternatives for fast portable backup storage.

        • #3203203

          Revving up backup operations

          by fosill69 ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          When are these wonderful USB storage items & USB Cameras & USB CameraPhones going to have Windows Support or Manufacturer’s support to stop defaulting to Network Drive G and present a User – Selected Drive Mapping option instead?

          The hassle to busy Network Users of having to  logout & relogin under Workstation Only to access these is a grievious waste of time (more so if they are MSOffice users) when Enterprise-Wide the First Network Drive is G & cannot be changed(much bigger hassle)!!

        • #3203127

          Revving up backup operations

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          External USB or Firewire hard drive is the way to go, IMHO. They are extremely reliable compared to tape, portable, no drivers are needed, fast, and idiot proof. They also have a much high storage capacity. I have generated 70 GB worth of data on one project alone, 70 GB does not hold me very long. My company has about 1 TB of storage (about half full) right now on our storage server, and we still have an email server to back up and a database server too. The only reason why I am able to backup to a 500 GB hard drive is because I moved all old work to an archive area, marked the whole area read only and the the permissions to read only, and backed that up once (to a smaller hard drive) to never be backed up again. That way I have instant, online access to those archives, without having to back them up.

          70 GB is fine, for a place that is just using a lot of Office documents and sending a few emails. For heavy data processors, it is simply inadequete.

          J.Ja

        • #3203105

          Revving up backup operations

          by bensil ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          John,

          The method I have been using for some time with excellent success is as follows. I carry a 2.5″ HDD in a slim external housing that handles USB2 or USB2&FireWire connections. I use a bootable BartPE CD, as it recognizes USB devices (it doesn’t see FW, but if the external is a combo, it sees it as USB and allows backup over the FW cable!). I have Ghost32 installed on the BartPE disc so I can do an image backup, or I can just drag files to the external drive. A backup program could be incorporated into the PE disc, as well.

          At least one replacement HDD currently on the market comes complete with an external housing, so a user could recreate my situation without additional purchases. Hope this has been of value.

           

        • #3203055

          Revving up backup operations

          by alanw_fns1 ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          I’ve used Network Attached Storage to enhance the backup process. An entire network can be backed up to NAS after hours, and the tape backup is used by day to back up the NAS without worrying about open or in-use files. How would one address archiving of data with these devices? Seems cost-prohibitive in that regard.

        • #3203035

          Revving up backup operations

          by jim gillespie ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          I’ve used the REV autoloader for some time.  Getting the autoloader to properly change “tapes” is problematic, but the REV device is DRASTICALLY FASTER and more convenient than tapes.  Much impressed.

          Still, one could do the same thing if you have a nestable 2.5″ removable HD.. small enough to pocket home, large enough (at 100GB) to do the job.

        • #3203030

          Revving up backup operations

          by dsusysmgr ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          My backup strategy has been to back up to disk then we use replication software to replicate the backup off site to a server on my network at a different site. Yes this is expensive, but tapes don’t have enough space, and getting operators to remember to swap out the tapes properly is an exercise in futility. I can eliminate the pain and possibility that I don’t have a good backup by purchasing extra disk space, extra bandwidth and doing a little simple programing.

          At the medium size company I work with automated systems are too expensive and still require operator intervention. Lets face it tape operations are like watching paint dry and there are many more interesting things for a busy operator to do.

        • #3203017

          Revving up backup operations

          by wmlundine ·

          In reply to Revving up backup operations

          SYBA SY-USB-IDE IDE to USB2.0 Adapter ($14) used with a 2.5 inch EIDE drive. Would not be without it. Power is supplied by the USB connection (for a 2.5″ drive) and storage is limited to whatever is available…around…160 gig in 2.5 or 750 gig in a 3.5. I use a notebook drive ’cause I need no power supply.

      • #3204813

        Well, that about wraps it up for eCS

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        I was looking back through some of my old blog
        entries
        today and noticed something I had forgotten about. Back in January
        of this year, I mentioned how I
        had just gotten and installed a copy of eComStation
        1.2
        . I also noticed how I hadn?t posted any updates about how I?ve been
        getting along with it.  That should be
        SOME type of an indication right there I guess.

        For those of you that have never heard of it, eComStation, also known as eCS, is
        essentially an OEMed version of IBM?s OS/2 Warp operating system. Serenity
        Systems has updated Warp with a bunch of new features and worked hard to clean
        up the code in many places. As an old time Warp user, I looked forward to
        installing and using eCS on a regular basis. It installed like a charm and
        worked well. Serenity Systems included enough applications for it that it would
        serve as a passable Windows replacement operating system.  The problem is, I just haven?t used it very
        much.

        I reread that entry and could feel the sense of glee and
        anticipation I had about getting the chance to use an updated version of Warp,
        but quite frankly, I haven?t spent more than a week using it after I had it
        installed.

        I installed it two places: on an old HP Kayak and on an old
        HP Omnibook.  Because they were older
        units, they?d serve as a good baseline for comparison because OS/2 was
        originally designed to run on much less hardware, so eCS should have performed
        admirably on them.  It did so, and
        continues to do so on the Kayak. It?s humming away under my cube right now.

        The Omnibook was a different matter entirely. OS/2 never did
        work well with notebooks, and even though the base machine runs well, I could
        never get the PCMCIA drivers to talk to the network card. In today?s world, a
        PC without network or Internet access is pretty much a paperweight, which is
        what I wound up using the hard drive I installed eCS on the laptop for until I
        installed Ubuntu Linux over it.

        Since then, I?ve been using SuSe Linux as my Windows
        alternative OS of choice. It?s limiting enough using an alt-OS in a Windows network,
        and SuSe was just better at doing some things than eCS is. One minor example:
        we use YM here at TechRepublic to communicate with each other. SuSe can run
        Yahoo?s client natively. With eCS you had to use a Java program called Jeti
        which works with Jabber. There are dozens of other examples where I just had to
        make too many compromises to keep using eCS.

        So for now, eCS is still installed on one of my
        test machines. When I feel truly nostalgic for OS/2, I have that running on a
        test machine at home. Even that, I don?t think I?ve booted in 6 months. For
        their part, Serenity Systems is working on a new version of eCS called eComStation
        2.0
        .  Where this fits in the grand
        scheme of things –  Windows Vista, Mac OS
        X, Linux, et al – it?s hard to tell. I might look at 2.0 when it comes out, but
        for me, I think I?ll save some power and shut off the eCS machine for the last
        time.   

      • #3226305

        The EU Doth Protest Too Much

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Yesterday, the European Union antitrust chief went on the
        record denying that the EU was seeking a vendetta against Microsoft in its
        ongoing battle with the company over alleged anticompetitive practices. I say
        that the EU isn’t nearly as interested in innovation and competitive choice in
        Europe as it is of picking the pocket of a big bad American company.

        The EU’s behavior clearly indicates it’s more interested in
        fines and money than it is in truly fixing the ‘problem’ of Microsoft
        dominating the software industry. The EU had settled with Microsoft over the
        issue of opening up Windows APIs and bundling Windows Media Player in Windows
        XP. On two occasions since the 2004 agreement, the EU has fined Microsoft
        nearly a total of $1 billion. Since then the company and the commission have gone back and
        forth about how Microsoft is supposed to ‘behave’ in Europe ? to the point
        where Windows Vista may be delayed in Europe to satisfy the government.

        Now, I’m not saying for one second that Microsoft is an
        innocent victim here. From the days when it redesigned DOS 2.1 with the motto
        “DOS isn’t done until Lotus won’t run”, Microsoft has a long storied
        history of playing hard ball with its competition. Consider some ofthe
        evidence:

        1. Netscape’s browser being driven off the road of the
          information superhighway by an integrated Internet Explorer.
        2. OS/2 crashing and burning due to admittedly illegal bundling
          agreements with OEMs preventing IBM from getting OS/2 preloaded on new
          computers.
        3. The blatant rip-off of drive compression technology from
          Stacker when it wouldn’t sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft for DOS 6.0.
        4. Modifying underlying Windows 95 code to display errors when
          DR-DOS was installed on a workstation.
        5. Creating undocumented system calls in its operating systems
          that its own applications could use to run more smoothly than competitors.

        Clearly, Microsoft plays rough and will cut corners when it
        deems necessary to get a competitive advantage. Put Bill Gates in a ten-gallon
        hat, and he’d be the software equivalent of J.R. Ewing of Dallas fame.

        The issue with the EU however isn’t so much what Microsoft
        has done wrong. It’s what to do about it. The EU claims that sanctions in the
        form of a billion dollars worth of fines over two years can help change the
        competitive mind of a monopolist. Nevermind the fact that the fines leveled in
        two years can be recovered by Microsoft in about two weeks. It’s nothing more
        than another cost of doing business at that rate. (Interestingly enough, the EU thinks that sanctions can work against
        a monopolist seeking profit, but not a nation seeking nuclear weapons. But I digress…)

        A non-technological analogy can be found in the
        National Tobacco Settlement here in the US. In 1998, the tobacco industry agreed
        to pay over $200 billion dollars over 25 years to states to help them ‘recover’
        the money they lost from the health care costs incurred by states as a result
        of cigarettes. The states claimed they were interested in the public’s health.
        They claimed they wanted to help prevent smoking by hitting tobacco companies
        in the wallet. Many states wound up spending the money on things other than
        health care
        and smoking cessation programs. They proved that they were more
        interested in the money they could get out of the tobacco companies rather than the true problem which
        was smoking. They could use the cover of Big Evil Tobacco and the evils of
        smoking to feather their treasuries.

        The exact same thing is happening here. The EU (and now
        other countries like South Korea) are looking at Big Evil Microsoft and its
        questionable business practices and see a goldmine. They can self-righteously
        attack a foreign company all in the name of innovation and smaller weaker
        competition, while at the same time doing nothing to help the true ‘victims’.
        With a touch of demagoguery, they laugh all the way to the bank.

        The proof? The EU won’t give Microsoft clear guidelines
        about what it can and can’t do in Vista. Instead, it’s waiting to leap out and
        play gotcha after the fact. The fines aren’t used by the EU to help offended
        competitors. Real Networks may be used as cover, but they aren’t seeing a dime
        of the results. Neither is anyone else. And no ‘innovation’ has come from the
        fines, except maybe from lawyers who are fighting the battles.

        Government ‘action’ such as this won’t solve the ‘problem’ of
        Microsoft’s domination. Smoking has decreased over time as a result of the
        choices people have made, not as a result of money being siphoned to the
        government. Likewise, Microsoft won’t change its practices nor will its
        domination end until consumers make different choices. 2007 will be an
        important year for Microsoft with the shipment of Vista and Office 2007. And
        for the first time, there will be serious competition in the form of Linux, Mac
        OS X, and OpenOffice just to name a few.

        The EU Commissioner said “Far from pursuing a vendetta
        against Microsoft, the Commission’s actions are guided by the desire to create
        the most innovation-friendly business climate in Europe to the ultimate benefit
        of European consumers.” How again do European consumers benefit from
        fines? By the higher prices caused by delays and the cost of the fines being
        passed along to the consumer? You create an ‘innovation-friendly business
        climate’ by attacking one business, but only reaping the rewards yourself and
        not helping those who you’re saying are being harmed? Changing the rules midstream, or not clearly defining the rules to begin with. and then sanctioning the offender?

        If the EU was serious about the ‘problem’,
        they’d place stiffer penalties on the company that would do some real damage or
        even seek to break them up. Maybe they’d do like Massachusetts and get
        Microsoft’s attention by setting purchasing rules (in the form of OpenDoc
        format support) which forced people to make software choices other than
        Microsoft. At the very least they would issue some clear guidelines about the features in Vista and other Microsoft business practices that they don’t like so Microsoft can do something proactively about it.

        But they’re not serious. They’re not truly interested in competition
        nor innovation. All they’re interested in is an easy way to make a buck ? or a
        euro. If it comes at the expense of a big American company, so much the better. That kind of sounds like a vendetta to me.

        • #3204279

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by darinhamer ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          About the smoking…

          I live in a state that has been receiving some of the tobacco money and according to the study you reference in your blog post, we are spending less than 25% of the money on tobacco prevention programs. This really angers me as a former smoker. First of all, our legislators and cabinet secretaries started arguing long before we got a dime about who would get the money and how it would be spent. I guarantee you that it has been spent on new programs that 25 years from now will have become entitlements, but the funding for those programs will have dried up. So who will have to foot the bill? We tax payers. If the states had incurred the cost of dealing with the health problems of smokers, then it would have been in the states’ best interests to help smokers stop smoking. But hey haven’t.

          Not only that, but when we, like most states, started having severe budget problems in 2001, they raised the cigarette tax exponentially, which doubled the cost of cigarettes that had already seen a spike in prices as a result of the tobacco settlements. Ostensibly, this was the state’s ill-advised program to help people stop smoking. What it really was was an opprotunity to further gouge smokers, who have now become the scourge of society. No one I know quit smoking because the cost went up. If you know anything about addiction, you know that’s not going to happen. Instead, they pay the taxes and the higher cost of cigarettes and bear the unreasonably excessive burden placed on them to help carry states’ budgets. Not that they shouldn’t have to contribute a little more to cover the added health costs, but the states have taken advantage of the smokers’ addiction to extort money out of them. I do not for one moment believe that the intent is to encourage people not to smoke. It is to raise more money.

          I quit smoking. But not because of the cost. Because I finally realized that I couldn’t walk up a slight incline without sucking air. And it hit me one day that I don’t want to be 45 and unable to move from my chair. I have young kids and I don’t want their father to be that way. So I quit. And that is generally what motivates people to quit an addiction. They won’t quit for practical reasons like the fact that it costs too much money. No, they’ll find some way to get the money. They have to see–no feel–that there is value in quitting. And then they have to have a means to do it. Cold turkey is too much for most people. They need some help. So why aren’t states spending some of that tobacco money trying to prevent people from starting in the first place and helping people give up the habit? Precisely why you think. They would lose too much money if they did that. For shame!

        • #3203864

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          I agree bigger fines, how about their entire revenue from european sales until they fix the issues.

          Why should we give them clear guidelines? All their anti-competitive measures are deliberate, they know when they are doing it, just stop !

          Asking for guidlines is a BS delaying tactic and an attempt to create gaps so they can slam some competitors though interpretations of said guidelines by those wonderful lawyer types. 

          We might be self serving bigoted hypocrites , but we aren’t stupid <GRIN>

        • #3140810

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by bryant3 ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          Since the EU is so down on Microsoft, I think Microsoft should stop selling it’s products in Europe. Then they’ll be happy.

        • #3140788

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by lyricster ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          I believe you are 100% correct in your opinion and shame on all of them.

          What ever happened to the good ‘ole days when you could actually trust people.

          They will never be seen again.

          Thanks for the article and the courage to take a stand…!

        • #3140756

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by automationguy ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          I think you’re exactly correct!  John Sheesley for President!

        • #3140749

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by wgard ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          Both the US and the EU have gone after Microsoft the wrong way.  Neither have separated the issue of bundled software and the OS.  Microsoft needs to keep bundled software on the OS in such a way that the user can remove it and put thier own on it they so desire.  However the OS has never been defined.  The code needed to run the OS is a code that is found worldwide.  You talk to the French in French.  You talk to the Spanish in Spanish.  Every language has thier own code or language to communicate with that person.  So does the human have a language to talk to a machine.  Microsoft has developed that code or language or OS to such a degree that the world has adopted it as a standard.  Very few have even come close to talking to a machine.  Since a majority of the world has adopted this code or OS, the US, EU, and the world need to protect this code.  If Microsoft drops off the world, all the progress we have made because of the code will be lost and the world will be taking a big step backwards.

          Warren Gardocki

          Senior Field Technician

          wgard@spring-ford.net  

        • #3140746

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by dinofelis ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          I totally agree!

          I work in Europe and the even it people are stating the same. The EU have brought nothing but hiigher prices and and birthing a new breed a thief…one that will buy the software in the US and distribute on the black market.

        • #3139650

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by rick-businessdatasolutions ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          When you reach the top of the heap there is only one way to go. Microsoft has been at the top of the heap for a while now.

          The EU is simply following the example of the US Justice Department.
          The illegal trade practices that landed Microsoft in court in the US
          resulted in what amounted to a slap on the wrist, while making the
          careers of a bunch of lawyers.

        • #3202966

          The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          by jturner1 ·

          In reply to The EU Doth Protest Too Much

          I think you should send this to the EU commission.

      • #3204226

        A hint of change to come

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        For several months now, I?ve been hinting
        at changes
        that are coming to TechProGuild. TPG isn?t alone in facing some
        new changes. TechRepublic itself will be undergoing a bit of a transformation
        in the near future.

        Change can be stressful, but often times it?s good. It?s way
        too easy set in your ways and after a time you take your eye off the ball. You
        keep doing things the way you always have because, well, that?s the way you?ve
        always done it. It just seems to work,
        so you don?t go back and revisit things.

        But once in a while you get a chance to stop, take a look and
        make something which is more focused, makes more sense, and is all around
        better. That?s what we think we?re doing with TechProGuild. But of course, I
        can?t tell you too much about it now, because that would just spoil the
        surprise, wouldn?t it?

        Here’s a sneak
        preview
        of TechRepublic’s upcoming site design. Check out our plans for the
        new look and feel, and let us know what you think. Pay close attention and you may notice an
        upcoming change to TechProGuild.

        • #3204211

          A hint of change to come

          by justin james ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          It’s being renamed to “TechRepublic Pro”. 🙂 Do I get a prize?!?!

          But seriously, dump the fixed width site layout. I put a lot of code into my blogs and articles, and it has to all go into sidebars and listings because of the fixed width design. and dump the “tiny text on a blue background” stuff too. It is imposible to read. Verdana 10 pt. (in its em equivalient, to account for various systems’ interpretation of a “point” or a “pixel”) is the absolute smallest that non-boilerplate text should EVER go.

          J.Ja

        • #3204210

          A hint of change to come

          by justin james ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          You also dropped “Real World. Real Time. Real IT”. Makes me wonder…

          J.Ja

        • #3202683

          A hint of change to come

          by mlscout ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here I love the appearance & your explanation of what’s in store for us.  I look forward to using the site after the changes are implemented.

        • #3140361

          A hint of change to come

          by wenn_chorray ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          This is yet a better setup. I like your innovation – Wenn, Dar

        • #3141283

          A hint of change to come

          by wongapl ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3141265

          A hint of change to come

          by rasc ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3141237

          A hint of change to come

          by old44tomsmail ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          It would be nice if following an article from the e-mail and asked for my login I would go to the article instead of having to search for it. Tom

        • #3141223

          A hint of change to come

          by vcamview050812 ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3141219

          A hint of change to come

          by augustuser ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          I got to this page by clicking on:

        • What makes a fast CPU fast?
        • #3141217

          A hint of change to come

          by jrhirst ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Get er done
        • #3141177

          A hint of change to come

          by tvanholland ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

          This is not an article on what makes a fast CPU fast!

        • #3141176

          A hint of change to come

          by etrodg ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3138893

          A hint of change to come

          by eric ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3138892

          A hint of change to come

          by augustuser ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3138869

          A hint of change to come

          by msimoncini ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3138868

          A hint of change to come

          by msimoncini ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Blah

        • #3138727

          A hint of change to come

          by chauvid ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3138726

          A hint of change to come

          by chauvid ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3281152

          A hint of change to come

          by glazermax ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Insert comment text here

        • #3280421

          A hint of change to come

          by brownrx01 ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Gee, I clicked on a link to tell me What makes a fast CPU fast? and I get to here.

          I think you guys need to verify your linking prior to releasing an article

        • #3280237

          A hint of change to come

          by ageranger10 ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          looks nice, is it any easier to find what i’m looking for?

        • #2539660

          A hint of change to come

          by rdragosn ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          hello world

        • #2530334

          A hint of change to come

          by beislule ·

          In reply to A hint of change to come

          Good the way it is

      • #3139975

        Keeping up with new CPUs

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        Ford was famous for selling the Model T in any color you
        wanted, so long as it was black. The original IBM PC came with any CPU you
        wanted, so long as it was an Intel 8088. Today, just as you can get a car in
        just about any color you want, it seems like there?s an almost endless array of
        CPU options. Intel and AMD are competing so hard and introducing new product so
        fast, that it?s next to impossible to keep up.

        Consider some of your options
        from Intel
        alone. Just on the desktop, from the Intel Celeron D to the Core
        2 Extreme you can choose from 7 different CPU types. Within the Pentium D
        processor family, there are 12 different speeds. That?s not counting the
        additional 6 additional mobile processor, 6 server processor families and the
        number of flavors of each.

        With AMD,
        it?s not any less confusing. AMD has 4 different desktop processor families and
        5 for mobile computers. At least there’s only one choice when it comes to
        servers, but when you look at one model line like the Athlon 64 X2 dual-core
        CPU, there are 13 individual flavors of the CPU.

        PC makers such as Dell and HP help somewhat by making most of
        the choices for you. They don’t offer every single CPU choice in their models.
        Even when you have the option of customizing the CPU in a unit, you only have
        limited selection of CPUs. This helps minimize the confusion somewhat, but you
        still need to know the difference in CPU types when comparing models from
        different makers. Like hard drive sizes, amount of RAM and video card
        selections, CPUs are now included in the 
        pricing shell game. By shuffling components around a little, one
        manufacturer can ‘match’ the price of another’s machine, but the performance
        may differ wildly.

        This is where it comes in handy to standardize your purchases
        for your organization. Pick an individual model that meets your needs and then
        forget about it. Buy as many of those units as possible, and then start the
        process over again next year.

        Personally, I find the constant change in CPUs to be a mixed
        blessing. It’s next to impossible to remember all of the different CPU types
        like you could way back in the 20th Century. But at the same time,
        processors are increasing speed at an exponential rate. Who would want to remember some of them?        

        • #3141278

          Keeping up with new CPUs

          by winex ·

          In reply to Keeping up with new CPUs

          Intel has recently taken the Inel Interchangeability Initiative and atleast 3 ODMs Asus, Compal and Quanta provided barebones and Verified by Intel (VBI) notebooks emerged.

          But Intel distis atleast in this region namely TechData, Logicom, Mindware and EMPA are proving to be useless by not keeping stocks of VBI hard disks not even a single of 16 models approved and tested by Intel and also the memory modules.  These Intel distis even don’t have stock of Intel processors to go with these barebones.

          The barebone stockist claims having 15,000 units for which there are no processors, hard disks and memory.  I had written to Intel USA, Intel UK and other manufacturers explaining this situation but nothing happend over the past 5 months since the Initiative was announced in this region/country.

          Can we highlight this problem to the world please?  Is it a time for someone else to step in to this frustrating scenario where we are losing money, businessx and time day by day.

          Should Intel continue to rely on such USELESS distis in the region?  Why can’t they appoint some new ones who may do better justice to the market in stocking proper items.

          Any comments, please forward them to xpresspc@omantel.net.om

          John

           

          As a result,

        • #3141227

          Keeping up with new CPUs

          by dandelaureal ·

          In reply to Keeping up with new CPUs

          Just the method I followed when I bought laptops for myself and my wife last year. Price point and features were the determining factors, not peculiarities of a particular cpu. I will worry about cpu performance in detail when I build my personal beowolf cluster.

        • #3141068

          Keeping up with new CPUs

          by wdmilner ·

          In reply to Keeping up with new CPUs

          Generally I use a selection system that starts with what tasks a system is to be used for now, and what it is likely to be used for in the near future. I then look at what is needed to satisfy those requirements and add a bit for longevity and contingencies. The last part of the process is CPU/motherboard choices.

          While I agree the plethora of processor types, speeds, features can get murky at times, having a wide selection can be advantageous – but only for an informed customer. Generally it leads to people buying more processing power than they’ll ever use (which of course is the case most times anyway).

          I do think Intel has exacerbated the problem of constomer choice by going to a numbering scheme that is basically incomprehensible to the consumer, most retailers and many distributors/vars. Granted you can go to their web site and research the different processor numbers but it makes the process more complex than it should be.

          As for Dell and HP helping, I don’t consider a vendor who limits my choices to what they think I need as helping. Frankly it’s one reason our company does not buy from such firms and more often than not custom builds our own systems with the exception of notebook/laptops.

        • #3138896

          Keeping up with new CPUs

          by magpiper ·

          In reply to Keeping up with new CPUs

          The processor has not been the bottleneck for 10+ years. The hard drive however has experienced great change over the past decade, maybe more so than processors. Disk storage is getting cheaper while processors continue to bring what they did 10-15 years ago.

          Marketing and competition are the differences between storage and processing. When will the IBM PC architecture of the 80’s be completely revamped? Have we exceeded the functionality of this design? The Dell “Be direct, buy direct” philosophy has played out and driven the cost of PC’s to record lows. Value Added Resellers (VAR) were case aside for the Dell model. With low or almost non-existent margins, vendors (HP, IBM) have gone back to the channel (VAR) to move units while only marginally increasing profits or margins.

          So having 13 choices of processors to choose from, is money in the bank for vendors. You wouldn’t want to purchase just enough would you; why not purchase the fastest available choice? Only to be reminded that disk drives are the Achilles heel of the 80’s IBM PC architecture. The marketing ploy by Microsoft and Intel has stifled the industry. When HP, Dell, IBM and former Compaq could only sell computers with Windows operating systems with Intel processors due to licensing agreements, we find ourselves at a slow impasse.

          Down with the PC; let’s create something for the 21st. century. 

           

      • #3140459

        TechRepublic Labs goes old-school

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        One of the nice things about working for a company like
        TechRepublic is the fact that you get to play with the latest toys. We get to
        play with early betas of software like Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Longhorn
        Server. Vendors like to send us their latest hardware to evaluate and review
        such as my experience with Lenovo?s
        Tablet PC
        , and Mark Kaelin?s latest adventure with an AlienWare
        laptop

        Rather than focusing all of our attention on what?s ?new and
        cool? however, we often like to make sure that what we?re running in the
        TechRepublic Test Lab echos what you?re using on your network. We?ve got
        Windows 2000 servers, Windows 2003 Servers, even a couple of Linux and NetWare
        servers humming away.

        Occasionally however, we get the opportunity to go old
        school. Today, I just finished up installing DOS and Windows 3.1 on a
        workstation in the test lab. Why on Earth you wonder? 

        You?ve probably noticed some of our Dinosaur
        Sightings Photo Galleries
        on TechRepublic. 
        Bill Detwiler, Mark Kaelin and I thought it would be fun to load up some
        old PC games and take some images of them as well as older PC software. The
        best place to start was back in the 80?s and early 90?s with good old DOS and
        Windows 3.1.

        We set up an old Dell Dimension XPS350 to run the system. It
        took about 45 minutes to get the DOS and Windows installation complete, but
        most of that was just feeding floppies in and out of the machine. No CD-ROM
        installation here ? it?s 1993 all over again. The only CD-Rom installation we
        did was to put Microsoft Office 4.3 on the system ? Word 6.0, Excel 5.0,
        PowerPoint 4.0 and Access 2.0.

        It?s amazing how fast Windows 3.1 on a PII 350 is.  The machine boots into Windows in less than
        10 seconds. When you click an application like Word or Excel, there is NO
        delay. Bang ? it?s there.  After running
        XP and Office 2003, as well as kicking around Vista and Office 2007 on a
        machine 10 times as fast, the difference is practically night and day.

        Keep an eye out for some new articles and galleries that hearken
        back to the late 20th Century.  New stuff is fun to play with, but sometimes
        it?s good to remember where you?ve been to see where you?re going clearly.

        • #3280924

          TechRepublic Labs goes old-school

          by doug m. ·

          In reply to TechRepublic Labs goes old-school

          Ahh the “good old days”.  Thanks, your article brought back a flood of memories, most of them good, about the days of DOS and Win 3.1.   You’re right, the old stuff did boot faster back then.  (less bloated code I guess)  I was quite content with 3.1 and DOS.   I used to love this one program called “X-Tree Gold” too.   It is good to remember where one has been.  Thanks again.

        • #3280464

          TechRepublic Labs goes old-school

          by deletemystuff ·

          In reply to TechRepublic Labs goes old-school

          It’s good to re-visit the past sometimes. I don’t long for the days of PC Carousel (IBM) and the 20 MB, 80286 AT sytems. I worked for a ComputerLand Store in the early ’80s and tried out Windows 1.0 on a 2-floppy drive system. The worst part was swapping a scratch disk and program disk back and forth on the B: drive to print a notepad document using the Print SPOOL.

      • #3140003

        What good is a standard that?s not standard?

        by j sheesley ·

        In reply to Direct From TechProGuild

        With Office 2007 on the horizon and the introduction of the
        new Open XML file format for saving files, a lot of news and noise has been
        generated about the need for a truly open standard for opening and saving
        files. One of the most popular alternative and ?open? file formats is the Open
        Document standard. Although it sounds great in theory to have one open standard
        for files, but when you look at the implementations, OpenDoc is pretty lousy
        standard.

        The need for an open file standard is pretty evident.
        Microsoft has dominated the office suite market for over 10 years now. By
        changing the file format with every revision of Office, it used to force-march
        the market forward into upgrading to the latest version. The file formats (.DOC
        for Word, XLS for Excel, and PPT for PowerPoint) have been relatively stable
        since Office 2000 appeared, but prior to that, every new version of Office
        introduced a default file format that was incompatible with the last. Sure, you
        could change the default to the old formats, or at least Save As in the old
        formats, but often users just wouldn?t or didn?t know how. If you exchanged
        documents with people in other organizations who were using a different
        version, then there was a problem opening those documents.

        The Open Document standard was created to solve such
        problems. It was created with the thought that by having a body other than a
        single vendor control and issue a standard for document exchange, that anyone
        could use any program and be able to view and modify documents from whatever
        the source. Organizations such as the State of Massachusetts and others quickly
        hopped on the bandwagon.

        It all sounds great in theory. The problem is this: it
        doesn?t work. Take for example the ODT format for saving documents.
        Theoretically, I can create a document in Open Office, save it in ODT, and then
        open it in any word processor and it will view fine, with all of the formatting
        and content in place.

        But wait: Microsoft
        doesn?t support the format. So that quickly eliminates 95% of the market. But
        at least it will open correctly in the remaining 5% right? Nope.

        Take the following screen shots for example. These show the
        exact same document opened in Open Office 2.0.3 in Linux, KWord in Linux, and
        Writely under Firefox also on Linux. All
        of these programs should display the document exactly the same way, but they
        don?t. The KWord version clearly has
        formatting issues, and Writely doesn?t even select the right font, let alone
        get the spacing correct.

        OpenOffice writer

        A Guild Note in
        OpenOffice.

        KWord

        The same Guild Note in
        KWord.

        Writely

        The same Guild Note in
        Writely.

        What kind of standard is it that doesn?t create a standard
        display? Not much of one if you ask me

        Fortunately, there is a ?standard? in place today. A couple of them actually. First, for
        documents, there?s the old RTF format. Just about every Word processor since
        DisplayWrite 4.0 supports RTF. It preserves most formatting and is a universal
        format. Another universal standard is the good old Word DOC standard. It?s the
        defacto standard for saving documents as it is. Although some formatting may be
        lost when you go from word processor to word processor, it?s at least as good
        as the OpenDoc standard I just showed you.

        Plus, even though Microsoft ?controls? the DOC and other Office standards,
        there?s not much they can do about it. Because it?s been in place since Office
        2000, Microsoft can?t suddenly change it and hope to get any traction. As it
        is, Microsoft is concerned that Open XML will die a slow painful death because
        of the ubiquity of the old Office formats.

        The point is, there?s no reason to have a ?standard? just
        for standard?s sake. Often the market will dictate what a given standard is and
        when it does, the power of the market will often remove the ability of the
        original maker from being able to control the standard. The ISA/PS2 bus fiasco
        IBM found itself in in the 90?s is a perfect example of this.

        Microsoft created the standard and now is held hostage to it
        because of its success. Any vendor can
        read and write Microsoft file formats and beyond grumbling and gnashing of
        teeth, there?s little Microsoft can do about it. The Open Document ?standard?
        shows how ineffective governmental and quasi-governmental entities are when
        compared to the power of the marketplace.

        • #3281151

          What good is a standard that?s not standard?

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to What good is a standard that?s not standard?

          I agree with your main point. Your example speaks for itself. I had been testing Open Office.org and KOffice a while back. Once I decided to use only Open Office.org software it was a lot of trouble for me to change my KOffice documents into OOo documents. I didn’t have very many but it was a nuisance.

          I noticed one error in your post. Massachusetts is properly referred to as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It sounds more digified, don’t you think?

      • Viewing 93 reply threads
        2.00 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP
        64 kilobyte primary memory cache
        256 kilobyte secondary memory cache
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. A7V880 Rev 1.xx
        Bus Clock: 166 megahertz
        BIOS: American Megatrends Inc. 1007.005 09/24/2004
        Drives   Memory Modules c,d
        81.61 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
        58.00 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

        HL-DT-ST CD-RW GCE-8527B [CD-ROM drive]
        3.5″ format removeable media [Floppy drive]

        Maxtor 2B020H1 [Hard drive] (20.49 GB) — drive 2, s/n B1DPWQJE, rev WAH21PB0, SMART Status: Healthy
        Maxtor 6E040L0 [Hard drive] (33.82 GB) — drive 1, s/n E1CM87FE, rev NAR61590, SMART Status: Healthy
        WDC WD200EB-00CSF0 [Hard drive] (20.02 GB) — drive 0,  WD-WMAAV2966838, rev 04.01B04, SMART Status: Healthy

          2048 Megabytes Installed Memory

        Slot ‘DIMM0’ has 512 MB (serial number SerNum0)
        Slot ‘DIMM1’ has 512 MB
        Slot ‘DIMM2’ has 512 MB
        Slot ‘DIMM3’ has 512 MB