Post PC May Be OK For Some, Not Me

I often read in the media a premature obituary about the death of the desktop and how mobile gadgets are taking over the world. Maybe that is so. I know that a lot of my friends use mobile phones, although many also use desktops in addition to or instead of mobiles.

Although I'm sure mobile gadgets are useful for highly mobile individuals, such as salesmen and executive types, for the average person, I'm against mobile gadgets. If you invest in one of these traps, have fun buying a new gadget every two years when the old one has a minor glitch and has to be completely replaced with a brand new one. Gadget-makers do not encourage repair or tinkering. Gadget-makers do not design using the modular approach. Gadget-makers manufacture disposable items with planned obsolescence, which is bad for the environment and bad for the economy, because people have to keep buying the same products over and over. Me, I'm sticking with desktops, for several reasons, foremost of which is that if something goes awry, the modular design of the desktop allows me to swap out the bad part, like a bad hard drive, and plug in a good part. So I can "upgrade" for $100, tops, whereas those using mobile devices have to buy a whole new thingamajiggy. I have used the same case, scanner, and printer for over ten years. Ten years! It could have been even longer, because desktop cases simply last forever and ever. My desktop's other parts were not thrown away, but instead sold on Ebay, offsetting the cost of new parts. I never have to buy more than about $100 of parts to maintain my desktop. For the most part, nothing has ever broken--no piece of hardware has ever fried or burned or gone silent. The only reason I swap them out is to improve performance or increase storage. I find that desktops are more reliable because they are based on proven technology that has withstood the test of time. To a certain extent, even laptops enjoy something of this reliability, in comparison to less reliable phones.

My desktop can do about a hundred times more than a mobile ever could, because my desktop has high definition resolution, a real mouse, a real keyboard, real speakers, storage space measured in terabytes, and peripherals such as a printer, scanner, camera, microphone, and a network of other computers. When I go out, I like to experience the world, not tinker with my gadget--I do quite enough of that at home and need a break once in a while. The farthest I've gone towards mobility is buying a used $95 laptop, which works great with Linux Mint 14 KDE.

A Firewall for the Telephone

My phone has a firewall. If it didn't, I'd disconnect my phone and give it to Goodwill. There are far too many evil scum in the world that call on a daily basis for the purpose of sales, scams, handouts or just pure harassment. Just as every computer should have a firewall, every telephone requires a firewall, and the best firewall is Call Clerk. That program just keeps getting better and better, with an update every few weeks. I would purchase Call Clerk before any other program, including Windows. It is reason enough to own a computer and is far more important than the internet browser or the operating system. Call Clerk transforms the telephone from what it is today, a weapon of harassment against the user, and makes it what Alexander Graham Bell intended it to be, a useful method of communication. The only downside is that it runs on Windows instead of Linux, so one has to use an inferior operating system.

Avast's False Positive on ACDSee 15

Avast Antivirus was giving a false positive on ACDSee 15 today, which was a minor annoyance, because by doing so, ACDSee's automatic camera offloading feature was disabled. I fixed everything and researched the issue, discovering a thread of messages on Avast's forum complaining about the false positive. I disabled all of Avast's shields until the next reboot, which might be a week from now, figuring they will fix their database by that time.

I have a couple of thoughts about this issue. One, Avast does not normally give false positives; this is an anomaly. I recommend Avast for a reason. Two, Avast shows laxity in regards to testing. It may be that they are releasing their database updates far, far too soon, and should test the damn things a bit better than they do. I am not sure virus database updates--or any system updates, for that matter--should be made in such a hellfire hurry. How about slowing down, letting a few systems have it, and seeing what the results are? Three, I'm not a paying customer of Avast, nor are the vast majority, so do we have a right to complain? Yes, because this is a free country, but Avast also has a right not to give a damn. It may be that Avast unleashes a false positive on purpose once in a while to scare the gullible into buying some of their product. Microsoft offers free antivirus, so I do not understand Avast's business model at all. I do not understand why anyone would pay for an antivirus when they can get one for free. At the moment, I am considering uninstalling Avast and installing Microsoft's solution, because Avast does like to be annoying with their little pop-ups and now a false positive.

Clonezilla Works With Windows 7

I used Clonezilla again last night to clone my Windows 7 hard drive. It is prudent to keep a clone of Windows, because that operating system takes an enormous amount of time to install and configure. A conservative estimate would be twenty hours in total. I don't want to lose another twenty hours due to hard drive failure or malware infection, so Clonezilla gave me peace of mind by creating a bootable backup. There is no cloning feature built-in to Windows 7, and the backup feature I think is a joke. I don't work with backups, I work with clones. A clone is a byte-for-byte copy of a hard drive. If a drive won't boot, it's not a clone. A clone can be popped right into a computer with a failing hard drive and make it whole again in less than one minute. A clone is what the end user wants and needs. The end user is always right.

I doubt whether a clone could be used long-term to pirate Windows 7, because the operating system binds itself to the motherboard and cpu. Also, Windows phones home on a regular basis to confer with Microsoft headquarters and tell if the user is doing something naughty. My interest is not in piracy, because quite frankly I don't want Windows on any of my other computers--yuck, what a thought. I just need it on one computer to run two specific applications that are not available in Linux, ACDSee and Call Clerk. All the other computers are going to be running a flavor of Linux Mint Nadia, either KDE or Xfce.

Clonezilla

Clonezilla is a free Linux-based operating system contained entirely on a single live CD. It is self-configuring and does not require installation to a hard drive. Its purpose in life is to clone or image hard drives or partitions.

Clonezilla offers a Debian version and a Ubuntu version. I recommend the Ubuntu version of Clonezilla because of its more recent kernel, which implies better support for modern hardware. Both versions suffered display corruption on my system, but the corruption in the Ubuntu version was less severe, affecting only the initial, temporary startup screens rather than the important screen where the cloning process takes place.

Using the versatile Clonezilla isn't a no-brainer by any means, but the developers have made an effort to simplify what can be a fiendishly complicated task, cloning (or imaging) a hard drive or partition, and they have inserted multiple safeguards that protect data. Therefore I use and recommend Clonezilla for users of both Windows and Linux.

Although Clonezilla is a Linux distro, that doesn't signify; it can read a Windows NTFS drive with ease, as can all modern Linux distros. Windows can only read Windows drives, which is similar to the limitation where Windows can only network with other Windows systems and its many other severe and far-reaching limitations, bugs and security holes. At least Windows knows how to access more than 3.5 gigs of RAM now. That's nice. Maybe by Windows 50, Microsoft will figure out home networking with non-Windows computers.

Clonezilla is easiest to use when cloning a drive to a larger or same-sized hard drive, but today I cloned a 2.0tb drive to a 1.5tb drive, which is not quite as easy. For one thing, Clonezilla will not perform a direct drive-to-drive clone if the source drive is larger than the target, even if the data on the source would easily fit on the target drive. After many failed experiments, what finally worked for me was using Gparted (another Linux distro on CD) to shrink the largest partition on my 2.0tb drive by over .5tb to let it fit on the 1.5tb drive. Then I used Clonezilla to clone each of the two partitions on the 2.0tb drive, the tiny root partition and the large /home partition. I selected "device to device clone," "Beginner," accepted all the defaults, and everything worked out well. In the end, I had a bootable, perfect clone of my Linux Mint Nadia KDE drive and all its data.

Thank you, Gparted and Clonezilla!

Cloning a Windows 7 drive is more complicated, because Microsoft spends all its development dollars on making things more complicated for the end user. I discovered through trial and error that Clonezilla must be booted in UEFI mode in order to clone my Windows 7 drive. Otherwise, Clonezilla will not be able to properly read the drives.

Windows 7 Won't Delete or Rename Files with Long Pathnames

I tried to delete some files today, but Windows 7 coughed up an error message:

"Sorry, I'm stupid. I don't know how to delete files with a long filename. Why don't you erase me and replace me with Linux?"

I may have applied my editorial powers on the error message above, but the gist of it was that the pathname was too long for Windows 7's NTFS file system. Windows 7 refused to permit any deletion of the files, no matter which variant of del or rmdir I tried. As a last resort, I tried renaming the files to conform to Windows 7's inexplicable rule. Windows 7 refused to let me rename them. I googled for help, because Windows 7 is no help. Based upon suggestions on a microsoft forum, for about half an hour I tried variations of the rm, rmdir, del, and even the cacls commands, to no avail.

This is one of the worst bugs I have ever encountered in Windows, and it was not present in Windows XP, because the files with the too-long pathnames came from a Windows XP computer! Windows has just gotten buggier, not better. The only thing Microsoft thinks about is how to enhance profits. The end user experience is the last thing on its mind.

But I've got a new feather in my cap since 2012. I'm a Linux veteran. I wouldn't call myself a guru other than in jest, but I know my way around a Linux system and can create and execute shell scripts, upgrade the kernel, and modify system parameters without too much difficulty, and I'm learning new things all the time. Let me say this to the Windows diehards: Linux is very useful, and you should learn it because it will help you manage your Windows system. Today is a case in point. I had a funny feeling that the Windows bug would not exist in Linux. Linux can read a Windows drive without any difficulty. Of course, Windows cannot read Linux drives, because of its severe limitations in intellectual capacity.

I insert a CD of Gparted, the Linux distro with a funny name, and boot my system from the CD, accepting all the defaults along the way. I love Gparted. Its mission in life is to repartition drives, and it can handle just about any type of drive. I have used it for its intended purpose many a time, but today I wish to use it for an unintended purpose. The command line is what I want. A Linux command prompt is a powerful thing, let me tell you, about a hundred times more powerful than a Windows command prompt.

By default, Gparted boots into a minimalist graphical environment and loads the flagship program, Gparted, which after a few moments reveals the pathnames of the attached drives. This is important information that I will use to compose the commands below. I wait until Gparted has gathered its information, which takes about a minute, and then click on a different program, the Terminal icon, which gives the command prompt.

Do not fear the Linux command prompt. It is your friend. It will let you do what you want to do, unlike Windows. What I want to do is kill the files that Windows won't kill because Windows is stupid. The first step is to mount the Windows drive into the Linux file hierarchy. I prepare for this by creating a directory that will be used to mount the NTFS drive:

sudo mkdir /mnt/windoze

Then I take the information observed from the Gparted window, which reveals the name of the drive, /dev/sdsomething-or-other, and compose a command resembling this:

sudo mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/windoze

Note that /dev/sda2 isn't necessarily going to be the case on your computer, and /mnt/windoze is simply a name I made up, although it is quite proper to mount drives in the /mnt directory.

What's left is to navigate to the directory with the bad file and kill it.

cd /mnt/windoze
ls

Note that ls is the rough equivalent of dir in the Windows command line. I enter several more cd commands. Once I find the directory or the files that I want to delete, I use a very powerful command, rm, which I suggest examining prior to using. To get some help on a Linux command, one enters the command followed by --help. Try

rm --help

The command that finally gets rid of the bad filenames, which exist in a folder called "documentaries", is

sudo rm documentaries --recursive

And that's that! No more immortal files lingering on my Windows filesystem. I clicked on Exit, and Gparted let me reboot the system back into Windows, where I confirmed that the files were indeed gone.

Windows Networking is No Fun

Nothing is more complicated and less fun than trying to debug a Windows 7 home network. There are about a dozen different places to look for things, and if something doesn't work, there could be multiple reasons. I've spent an entire day debugging a home network with a stubborn Windows 7 box. In the end, after much googling, I discovered a nasty secret. Linux and Macs cannot join a Windows 7 Homegroup.

I tote a USB stick from my Windows 7 box to my Linux box whenever I need to transfer a couple of files, despite the fact I have a home network, which used to work fine when the box had Windows XP.

Windows only gets worse with each new version, losing functionality along the way; devolution, rather than evolution. Microsoft adds new restrictions and limitations that are intended to enhance its profits, and only a few bells and whistles to entice the end users to shell out another hundred dollars.

I look forward to the day when I can dispense with Windows altogether, but I need it for the moment to run ACDSee and Call Clerk. One day my network will work well again, because every machine on it will be running Linux, and the many problems created by Microsoft will be only a memory.

Mounting a USB DVD / CDROM in Ubuntu / Linux Mint

I had difficulty this morning mounting a USB DVD-ROM in Linux Mint and spent over an hour googling for the answer. Ah, but Google is a crutch for a lazy mind. I entered scores of commands at the terminal, mainly variations of:

sudo mount /dev/cdrom

Which returned an error:

mount: can't find /dev/cdrom in /etc/fstab or /etc/mtab

And when I tried to mount /dev/cdrom /mnt, I got something to the effect of "no medium found".

Now what could be the problem? Is Windows easier than Linux in this particular case? Did the evil manufacturer collude with Microsoft to leave millions of Linux users in the lurch? These scenarios and more floated through my fevered mind. I even resorted to editing /etc/fstab, although once I loaded it in my text editor, I didn't really know what to put in there. I also tried rebooting. At last, I decided to test my hypothesis that the USB DVD player would only work in Windows. I plugged it into my Windows computer. Nothing happened. Windows did not recognize the drive either. That meant that the drive was bad, and I needed to throw it in the garbage unless. . . unless . . . that was when I noticed something at the end of the USB cable. Apparently this drive, for a mysterious reason, has not one, but two USB connectors, and I had been using the connector at the end of the cable, which offered more length and seemed the logical choice. However, the drive only works and is only recognized if the very first USB connector is plugged into the computer. Once I tried the first connector, the drive worked in both Linux Mint and Windows without any difficulty. This was not a Linux/Windows problem at all, but a situation where the manufacturer chose a poor design in defiance of logic. I have never seen a USB device with two connectors. The second USB connector exists only as a practical joke on the end user. When I tried to visit the product page at the manufacturer's web page, I was told that the page no longer existed, which is typical, as manufacturers abandon kludges almost as soon as their sales begin to drop, in order to dodge customer complaints.

Moral of the story: Beware the hydra.

Intuit's TurboTax Spyware

Intuit TurboTax won't let me file taxes online. Chris Pederick's user-agent switcher won't work to bypass the "system requirements" check, either. There's only one reason I know for a web site to require the use of a specific operating system, and that is that they want to load spyware onto the user's PC. So that makes me wonder what kind of spyware Intuit Turbotax is deploying and for what reason?

I hate to switch to a different product, but I'm leaving Intuit alone this year. They seem to be resorting to desperate measures in this economy. I can't say I'm terribly surprised, as I used to get unsolicited phone calls from Intuit on a regular basis--they'd call every week, punctual, usually around dinner-time, trying to sell me Quicken or some other product I don't care about. Thank goodness I run Call Clerk now to intercept annoying calls from clueless companies such as Intuit that have no idea how to treat a customer.

Turn Your Computer into a Fortress

I often hear of users having sorry experiences with Windows. Slow-downs, malware, bloatware, viruses, anti-viruses, and lots of money and time down the drain seem to be the order of the day. It does not have to be this way. There is a better solution. I would estimate that at least half of all computer users today are using their computer for one task that does not demand much of the operating system at all--internet surfing. Yes, occasionally, the typical user might also wish to edit a spreadsheet, write a document, or play multimedia files. Linux can do all of these things quite well. Linux does not require much in the way of hardware, either. A computer built in 2008 will serve admirably. Only two gigs of RAM, you say? That is not a problem. Why not buy a used computer for $100 or less? Linux runs Firefox or Chrome like a champ, and all the add-ons that are used on Firefox in Windows can also be used on Firefox in Linux. One caveat--there may or may not be an issue where Flash is concerned. One's experience with youtube may vary depending on the computer hardware. However, Chrome has no difficulty at all running Flash in Linux, because Chrome's flash decoder is native rather than suffering from a dependency upon Adobe.

If I were designing a laptop or desktop for the casual Internet user, I would install the latest version of 64-bit Linux Mint KDE with Firefox as the internet browser and the NoScript add-on for security. Some people hate NoScript, because it is annoying by design, disabling all scripts until the user manually approves a site. Thus, clicking on a link no longer can result automatically in infection, because the user must first approve the scripts that are to run. However, the first time one visits Ebay, Amazon, et al, one must approve of the scripts being run before using the sites as one is accustomed.

A fortress against malware is presented by Linux Mint KDE with the firewall enabled to deny incoming connections, Firefox as the browser, and the NoScript Add-on installed. This set-up is also fast to boot, easy to install, and free. There are further refinements that can be made, given experience and the knowledge that comes with it, but the basic setup is easy to understand.

Batch Mode is Unknown to File Managers

When will Thunar, Dolphin, Window Explorer, et al, learn how to copy files in batch mode? Copying files in batch mode would require about an afternoon's worth of programming, at the most, but would avoid fragmentation and speed up the copy. Right now, I am waiting on Dolphin to finish copying six groups of files, which it is attempting to do all at once, which is the worst possible method. That means the overall copy takes more time to complete and disk fragmentation will be the inevitable result.

Pirated Software

Back in the day, I used to be a high level pirate, capable of cracking copy protection, although in those days cracking copy protection was often just a matter of using a hex editor on a 5.25" or 3.5" diskette to find the hidden sectors and tamper with them or revising a hidden BASIC program. I don't know whether many people even remember 5.25" diskettes these days. At one time, I traded software with people around the world, but since PirateBay wasn't around back then, let alone the Internet, or even BBSes, we used to use the good old-fashioned postal system to ship our disks, sometimes vast packages of thirty or forty disks at a time with everything conceivable. I do believe that many of us were collecting simply for the nerdy joy of collecting and then being able to make gifts to others and receive their thank-yous, praise and attention. We were actually using maybe .001%, at most, of what we shared. I don't think I ever played more than a handful of the thousands of games I acquired, and most disks simply collected dust in their plastic boxes.

Back in the day, pirates forged personal relationships and often knew one another to a certain extent. I knew a guy that programmed in assembler and made his own game, but also cracked software by disassembling code. He was hardcore and extremely talented. He confessed that there wasn't much money to be made in programming things, and surely he was right. I programmed games myself, although I only used BASIC to do so. My skills were pretty good as far as BASIC goes, but BASIC never went very far; it was slow by comparison to assembler and not capable of doing very much in terms of graphics at that time. From a thousand hours of programming, I probably made $50, from which one can deduce my hourly wage of $0.20, which I understand is the norm in China. In piracy, there was no money to be made, only glory to be had, and that glory wasn't worth two nickels rubbed together, unless one sold pirated software and that was close to impossible--that would bring the heat down faster than anything. Identity theft and viruses had not been fully developed in my day. But all that has changed.

Nowadays we have the Internet, Pirate Bay, and tons of money to be made by licit and illicit means, and new actors such as state spy agencies, organized crime and multinational corporations, many of them eager to exploit computers, whether personal or commercial. Many such actors are motivated by greed, fear, the urge to dominate and control, and hate. I tell you what it is, I'm wondering what motivates Pirate Bay and its group of hackers to offer the Windows Operating System to everyone. It seems to me that the temptation to implant some kind of malware must be tremendous, and the motives as various as human nature allows. Profit stands out as an obvious motive, but there are also reasons that state agencies might want to spread altered copies of Windows. A copy may not even have a virus at all--it may be "clean" as judged by any antivirus--but it may have a certain vulnerability introduced deep within its inner workings that can then be exploited by a web page or software application. How is all of that to be detected and by whom? Who is watching the chickens? No one. People are placing all their faith in a stupid antivirus that merely detects the most obvious and stupid malware programs that were written by idiots. What about the viruses that were crafted by cunning hackers? I can see a motive for a corporation to release a pirate version of Windows that doesn't work well with their competitor's hardware or software. Perhaps a virus only activates for certain regions of the world; perhaps people living in Israel get a different experience from the pirated software than people living in, say, China. Perhaps a virus only activates when it detects that there is no antivirus present. I find it difficult to accept that the Pirate Bay would exist as a charity to distribute Microsoft's products to poor people when there is a legitimate alternative to Windows to be found in Linux, which is open source.

That Linux is open source means its code can be examined and reviewed by academics and others. The userbase includes a high percentage of experts who know what they are about. I feel more confident placing some of my trust in Linux than I do in a pirated copy of Windows. I just keep wondering, what is the motive for this pirate outfit to give me a free copy of Windows? What do they get in return? I think they must be getting something in return, in order to pay their legal bills, server bills, salaries and miscellaneous operating expenses, but it is not clear what form their remuneration takes. Who would donate to PirateBay out of the goodness of their heart? The answer is no one. So PirateBay has to find a way to pay the bills. Many downloaders seem unconcerned and do not think this is worth worrying about, but many people are also the victims of identity theft, like some acquaintances I know, and there are many compromised machines in the wild. I can think of a million reasons why someone would want to release an altered version of Windows, and not many reasons at all that someone would go to the pains of releasing a cracked version on a regular basis to defeat Microsoft's constant updates and seed their upload with sufficient bandwidth to disseminate throughout the world. Come now, would they not feel the slightest temptation to make a tiny alteration that would result in profit for them--compensation, in their view, for their hard work and dedication? Or would they choose to work for nothing, out of some sense of idealism? Even if profit were not a motive, perhaps they might feel a duty to plant some code that would benefit one group or one region while harming another. Maybe they don't like America, and they put something in that is going to harm Americans, or only harm Americans on the Fourth of July, or only harm one in ten of the Americans that download their malware-infested OS. Maybe they place a backdoor in their releases to enable access on an as-needed basis. I don't think it is really possible to evaluate the safety of pirated copies based upon a few comments by under-informed individuals who like to LOL and LMFAO. Most of the comments on PirateBay seem worthless to me and I do not think PirateBay has made a serious effort to cultivate trust. Too much is left mysterious and vague, and in shadows lurks a threat.

Overcoming Windows

Over the years, I've resorted to unorthodox methods to overcome the limitations of the Windows operating system. Observe the photo below, taken two days ago.

What on earth is that contraption hovering precariously over my keyboard?

The contraption is a day calendar that has a plastic back molded with a little round hole that I discovered would hold the tip of a plastic pen, which I am using as a leg. The pen supports part of the weight of the day calendar and transfers the force of gravity to the "N" key on my keyboard.

The reason I rigged this contraption was that I was copying a vast number of files from one drive to another, an operation that required several hours, and I did not want Windows to stop the entire process with an input prompt asking me to confirm whether I wanted to overwrite an already existing file. This contraption ensures that "N" will be pressed everytime Windows asks me that idiotic question. It would not have been necessary if the programmers had thought to include a flag in the Xcopy command for the same purpose, but at Microsoft, the programmers are busy working on ways to maximize shareholder value; they are less concerned about making life easier for the end user.

ACDSee Persuades Me Not to Buy ACDSee 15

I almost bought ACDSee 15 today--was ready to checkout--when I noticed that they tack on a sneaky little piece of thievery, an auto-renewal (to the tune of $25) of the worthless 40 GB of online storage. The auto-renewal is a charge that will hit your credit card every year, unless you spend several hours waiting on their toll-free support line to see whether one of their customer service representatives is in a good mood and will let you cancel the auto-renewal.

All in all, I think I'm going to stick with version 8 of ACDSee and forget about these new versions. It seems to me the main change in the new versions is just that ACDSee is getting greedier and sneakier, while making tiny incremental changes to the user interface to make users think they are getting something new. If I don't move to Windows 7, I won't need the new version, so that's another reason to stick with Windows XP.

Change Upload Directory for Windows Image Acquisition

With each new year, I like to change the upload directory for my Canon Elph 100 digital camera. This year I fell behind and did not get around to changing my upload directory until today.

I no longer wished for the camera to upload its pictures to c:\photos\2012. I wanted it to upload to c:\photos\2013. The question was how to communicate my intention to the computer. Naturally, human memory being what it is, I had forgotten my trick.

After poking around in the Canon utilities, I came to the conclusion that none of them would serve my purpose. I looked in the usual places where configuration files are stored in Windows and examined some .xml files, but they didn't have the setting I was looking for. Finally, intuition led me to fire up Regedit, a very useful program in Windows XP. I searched (F5) for a portion of my upload directory name--photos\2012. I found my upload directory mentioned in a couple of places, but kept tapping F3 for the next search result until I found the one for WIA, an acronym that jogged my memory. The actual program transferring photos from my camera to my computer was not a Canon utility at all. It was a Microsoft utility--Windows Image Acquisition--WIA for short. I had forgotten, but long ago, I opted to use WIA instead of Canon's stuff, because WIA is faster and doesn't require a bunch of clicks. I changed WIA's directory to photos\2013 and did not even have to reboot. WIA handled the next upload properly, and that was that.

I never did discover how to make WIA auto-delete files once they are uploaded, but as it only requires a single keypress--"Y"--that is no big potato.

Windows 8 Review

Looks like Windows still stinks after all these years. Makes me glad I use Linux Mint instead.Post a Comment

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

NewEgg Reviews are Worthless

NewEgg is as pigheaded as the day is long about reviews. The problem with NewEgg's review system is that there's no way to change your mind. Once you submit a review, they keep it forever, and there's no editing or deleting. So if you, say, give a product a five-star review, and later discover undesirable aspects about the product that was reviewed, too bad. Your recommendation will be there forever, misleading customers. To compound the problem, NewEgg discards negative reviews, while retaining positive ones in order to sucker their customers into buying substandard merchandise. So once you write a positive review on NewEgg, you will be a supporter of that product until Doom's Day, whether you like it or not. As far as NewEgg is concerned, your writing is the sole property of NewEgg, Inc., forever and ever. That is why I no longer write reviews on NewEgg, and I'm not at all sure I'm ever going to buy something from 'RottenEgg' again. I'm certainly going to do a great deal of comparison shopping before I settle upon the least desirable 'RottenEgg', and I will be willing to pay five or ten dollars more to get the same product from a different vendor, because for me, the trust is not there with 'RottenEgg'.Post a Comment

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Lie, Cheat, Steal: The ECS Way

If you are considering buying an ECS motherboard or any product manufactured by ECS, think again. Their rebates are lies, all lies. If you mail in your rebate, they will discard it and keep your money. That is the ECS way--lie, cheat, and steal from the customer.Post a Comment

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Datacollectionsite.com Phishing Scam

Did you receive an email like this:

This is a reminder that tomorrow is the deadline to earn $50 by completing this survey. If you have already shared your opinions, please kindly disregard this email.

As a Chase customer, we are interested in your feedback. Please take some time to tell us what you think.

Again, this is strictly for research purposes and your answers will be completely confidential and will not affect the relationship or current business you may have with Chase. You will not be asked to buy anything.

You will need to answer some questions to determine whether you qualify for this survey. If you qualify and complete the full survey by Tuesday, February 12, 2013, you will receive a $50 check within four to six weeks after you complete the survey to thank you for your participation.

Once you complete the initial questions and fill in the registration form you will be entered into a sweepstakes to win 1 of 3 iPads minis, whether or not you qualify to complete the full survey.

Please use the following link to begin:

Don't do it. It's a scam! Criminals want your sensitive financial info.

Please use your common sense. Nowhere on this good green earth does anybody pay $50 for a survey that takes less than one hour. You would have to work harder and put up with a lot more hassle to earn fifty bucks.Post a Comment

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

You Can Buy a Computer for $100

I don't understand why people pay so much for computers. Really I don't. It is as easy as 1-2-3 to save money on your next computer purchase.

The first thing is to settle on a manufacturer, model, and mode--desktop or laptop--that you prefer. I wanted a Thinkpad (model) laptop (mode) by Lenovo (manufacturer). Why Lenovo? Because I like their style. They took over the IBM line of desktops and laptops and carry on with the IBM reputation for good design or at any rate nice, sleek black outer casing, which I have always preferred when it comes to electronic gadgetry of any kind. Tech should be like the ninja; its impact felt, but not seen. I needed a laptop in particular because I wanted to carry my computer to work.

I had two choices--buy a new Lenovo or a used one. I imagine that this is where my years of experience come in handy, because I felt confident enough to buy a used one on Ebay--and not just used, but broken. The seller fretted far too much over what I regarded as a trivial issue, the trackpad button, which I never use, preferring the mouse. I do not have a high opinion of trackpads and their buttons. Give me a mouse any day. The button probably was broken on purpose by a user irritated by the inaccuracy of the trackpad. The seller knocked off $30 due to this supposed severe defect, which I never notice. Indeed, I've considered disabling trackpad support in the operating system to avoid possible interference with my mouse. My final cost for a Lenovo Thinkpad R60 with 2 gigs of RAM, a 60 gig hard drive which passes S.M.A.R.T., and Intel Core 2 Duo processor was under $100, with free shipping. This rig is more than enough to surf the Internet. It is ridiculously overpowered for my modest needs. I don't give a fig about Windows, so I'm running Linux Mint Nadia KDE as my operating system, with Firefox 18.02 as my browser. As a rule, computer technology declines rapidly in value, so that used hardware with much life remaining can be purchased at a slight fraction of its original price. I think that any processor from 2008 will be perfectly usable in 2013, and at any rate that has been my experience.

But then I talk to my non-techie friends and find that they are still spending hundreds of dollars for a brand new laptop, because they think they need the latest version of Windows in order to be safe from viruses, and in some cases the new laptops arrive broken or crippled by malware. For my part, the first thing I do when a computer arrives is to repartition and format the drive, wiping clean any crap on there and especially getting rid of Windows, which takes so long to boot. The reason people are investing in SSD technology, which remains in its infancy, is due to the slow boot time of Windows. My operating system boots in seconds. On my system, with its slow 5400 rpm hard drive, Linux Mint Nadia KDE boots in 36 seconds! I would like to add that this is considered slow by Linux standards, and a desktop like Xfce would boot faster. But I don't mind waiting 36 seconds for KDE.Post a Comment

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments