Recent Posts

376

Living Room / Re: badBIOS revisited - it is possible to bridge the airgap after all

« Last post by Vurbal on December 09, 2013, 09:21 PM »

I'll stick with Motorhead for my malware protection.   

377

General Software Discussion / Re: myWOT uninstall

« Last post by Vurbal on December 09, 2013, 06:17 PM »

I used WOT for a while last year and had mixed feelings about its usefulness. Then I started seeing the troubling criticisms and got rid of it. I can say for sure that not all WOT ratings have the problems people have been talking about, which isn't an excuse of course. The apparent issues which have cropped up are significant.

The bigger issue, though, and the reason WOT seems like it was always doomed to failure, is that it really isn't a web of trust at all. If you're not familiar with the web of trust security model it's easy to miss the distinction. WOT's fundamental problem is that ultimately there is a single authority at the top with the power to approve or veto all decisions.

An actual web of trust, whether it's a network of public PGP keyservers or a heirarchy of DNSSEC nameservers, is only as reliable as the democratization of authority. Let's say, for example, there was a PGP server which ignored key revocation and continued to verify those keys as being valid. Over time the other servers in the web could stop communicating with it and sooner or later it would die, for lack of a better term.

Like most things in the real world, WOT involves competing interests. The interests of most users would be to get reliable information about the safety and reliability of a website. The users who have gained more prestige in the system OTOH have an interest in being more equal than all the other animals. And of course WOT's owner gains most if the breadth and depth of site rankings grows exponentially since that's what makes it useful - or not.

If WOT were simply using some standard protocol and their plugin allowed users to choose to get their information from competing servers it would give the community at large leverage to hold those competing interests at bay. In other words it would be a competing market force - in this case in a marketplace of ideas. When it became public knowledge that the system was being rigged to whatever extent people could simply change servers and either WOT would straighten out or lose out.

Without that counter to the inevitable human tendency for the people at the top to game the system in order to maintain their position, a service like WOT will always be doomed to failure. And generally sooner rather than later.

378

General Software Discussion / Re: Tips for Windows 8 (got any?)

« Last post by Vurbal on October 30, 2013, 11:04 PM »

Why can't Windows 8 find the Startup Folder?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2806079

• Win+R
• Type the following text in Run dialog box and click OK: shell:startup
  

-erikts (October 30, 2013, 09:52 PM)

Can you make that into something like a desktop shortcut?

-TaoPhoenix (October 30, 2013, 10:28 PM)

That should be possible. Just remember you can't make shortcuts directly to shell locations. You have to make a shortcut to explorer.exe with the shell folder as an argument. Like this:

explorer.exe shell:startup

379

Living Room / Re: Musician Lou Reed has died

« Last post by Vurbal on October 29, 2013, 04:52 PM »

For some reason I never could get into the Velvet Underground studio stuff much. Possibly because it was a little too sophisticated for me when I was younger and I had already been introduced to some of it via Rock N Roll Animal.

I should probably go back and give it a fresh listen. My tastes have expanded much more into the sophisticated and nuanced over the years.

380

Living Room / Re: Musician Lou Reed has died

« Last post by Vurbal on October 29, 2013, 08:08 AM »

As a connoisseur of live recordings Lou Reed's Rock N Roll Animal is among my favorite albums of all time. As a bassist I'm particularly fond of the (oddly Johnny Winters like) performance of White Light White Heat.

I have also always been impressed by his ability to continue making great music for so long. Another favorite of mine is Video Violence, originally written and recorded in the mid-80s.

At some point I'll probably get around to buying the double album he made with Metallica as well. I actually haven't even bothered to check out any of the songs yet, but if their performance together at a Rock and Roll Hall of Sham concert is any indication it should be interesting at the very least.

381

Living Room / Re: Google's Storage Problem

« Last post by Vurbal on October 29, 2013, 07:43 AM »

Yeah but there's already consumer products on the shelves that do this- the MyCloud device I mentioned that I installed at work, I picked that up off the shelf at Staples when replacing an external hard drive.

Instead of having to install and configure such a solution, you can just buy a device that is web-configured like any other soho box and have a ready to use private cloud with the data physically located in a stand alone device in your household- or anywhere convenient with suitable network access. It even attempts to upnp its way through your router if enabled, or you can configure the ports manually for those so inclined.

-SeraphimLabs (October 25, 2013, 10:10 PM)

You should actually be able to get something comparable by using a Turnkey Linux OwnCloud VM. The nice thing about Turnkey Linux is it's an entirely appliance oriented setup which utilizes standardized web interfaces, most commonly Webmin IIRC, to provide as user friendly and consistent an interface as possible. Since each appliance is designed for a narrowly defined purpose the basic configuration is typically fairly complete by default.

I've been thinking about converting my older Linux server to run a handful of Turnkey Linux VMs to simplify and segregate functionality.

382

Living Room / Re: TrueCrypt Audit

« Last post by Vurbal on October 29, 2013, 07:07 AM »

^^ +1 for what @Vurbal said: Spot-on. Some food for thought.   

Yes, an audit could help to "prove" things, but then you'd need to audit the other crypto-g schemes (MS, Norton/Symantec, etc.), as a basis of comparison, to establish a level playing field.

-IainB (October 10, 2013, 06:20 PM)

Why? ...

-Vurbal (October 25, 2013, 05:42 AM)

My comment was kinda tongue-in-cheek, as I couldn't see a particularly compelling and valid reason for selecting TrueCrypt out of the stack, almost at random, and it could arguably be a complete waste of time, mostly for the reasons you pointed out.
I only said it could help, I didn't say it would necessarily prove anything. Audits of anything always have potential value.

-IainB (October 28, 2013, 11:16 PM)

Fair enough. I couldn't really tell how much, if any, of your post was entirely serious. 

However, recommending audits can be a damaging thing. Suggesting out of the blue that something "needs to be independently audited" carries with it an unfounded and implicit suggestion that scrutiny is required as there is or may be or could be something dubious about it - it's a bit like casting aspersions. Anyway, that's when my BS alert went off and I suspected FUD. I guess I've seen it too often before not to be wary of it.

I would agree that it's important to be careful about how you suggest it needs and audit. However the default assumption about any security product should be that it isn't effective until some level of auditing has been completed. Likewise the public should be educated on that point, although once again in a responsible manner rather than one that spreads FUD.

383

Living Room / Re: Best Roku channels?

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 07:31 PM »

Alex and I have a bunch of Roku channels loaded.

What we mainly watch is something we usually found on:

• Netflix
• TED
• Hulu+

But we're more the full movie and educational/science show types so YMMV.

-40hz (October 25, 2013, 02:25 PM)

I don't have a Roku box yet. That will probably be changing within the next few months. However like you I love the educational/documentary content available through Internet VOD.

I actually wish Netflix had a more complete selection of Nova and Frontline though. It annoys me watching that stuff on Hulu+. When they make the claim before each episode that it's shown with "limited commercial interruptions" all I can think is "Compared to what?" When it originally aired on TV there were no commercials. Any non-zero number of commercials is an increase rather than a limitation by definition.

384

Living Room / Re: Google's Storage Problem

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 07:26 PM »

In the meantime, OwnCloud seems to be gaining traction. But (I say) if ya gotta authenticate through THEIR server... what's the sense in that?

-saralynn (October 24, 2013, 06:04 PM)

I'm not sure I follow. If I setup an OwnCloud server at home I have to authenticate against my server to use it. You seem to be saying you have to authenticate against some third party server which isn't true. They may have a product that works that way but it's definitely not a requirement if you're running your own server.

The one downside to OwnCloud, assuming it hasn't improved since I looked into it a few months ago, is the encryption it uses is apparently a joke. It's not really a downside for me. My philosophy is not to rely on a single vendor or product to provide a complete solution. I would never rely on a single provider for both cloud storage and the encryption to protect my files. I avoid single points of failure whenever possible.

However for the average person - particularly when the cloud storage isn't provided by some big company - that's exactly what they want and need.

385

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 07:14 PM »

You're just jealous. 

386

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 06:44 PM »

I'd go with the HAL 9000. Already proven against the human threat. 

-Vurbal (October 25, 2013, 02:20 PM)

HAL9000 was still just a computer that only had control of its own direct environment. Lawnmower Man (by the end of the movie) was a pure energy being ... So he could travel up the wire and kill the hacker in their own home. Which would greatly simplify security response times because you don't have to waste time analyzing the attack to mount a counter strategy. Because you could simply kill the person launching it.


...And no I couldn't say that IRL with a straight face.

-Stoic Joker (October 25, 2013, 02:55 PM)

Yeah but could the Lawnmower Man sing?

https://www.youtube..../watch?v=OuEN5TjYRCE

387

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 02:20 PM »

I'd go with the HAL 9000. Already proven against the human threat. 


I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

388

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 12:43 PM »

What's the better response to this article?  Crickets and Silence?  Or Laughter?

-wraith808 (October 25, 2013, 12:25 PM)

I tend to favor point and laugh.

389

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 12:05 PM »

WOOHOO!

I'm going to send them in a robot that unplugs computers!

-Renegade (October 25, 2013, 10:28 AM)

That's outdated technology. They already have contractors who not only unplug them but take them home when they're done. 

390

Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 12:03 PM »

And this explains the entire reason why the government's systems are so easily hacked. If you're Joe Six Pack automated protection will usually be good enough to secure your network. If you're the highest profile target in the world your only chance at defending yourself is an elite team of security professionals.

They aren't being attacked by code. There aren't any 1s and 0s on a mission to break into their systems. They are being targeted by hackers - in other words people. No computer, no cluster of supercomputers, can effectively strategize against expert human hackers any more than a giant armored wall can defend against a human army. In both cases people will just go around it.

If you want to defend yourself against people you have to have people of your own. Otherwise you've lost before the first attack comes in.

391

General Software Discussion / Re: Sandboxie lifetime license discontinued

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 08:26 AM »

That was a great post Vurbal, and it reflects many of my thoughts on licensing as well .

As I wrote, I can understand his need to make money, and lifetime licenses are a short-term solution in many cases. My concerns were with the way he implemented the change -- someone on the forum even called it a coup.

Like you say, lifetime licenses are sometimes used to get into a market. I think they can also work for some more mature products, if you sell them at a high enough premium that you feel reasonably confident they cover a large part of what revenue you could have realistically expected from one customer through regular paid upgrades (2.5-3 times the normal price seems to be a popular level).

Paid upgrades have the drawback that you have to periodically actually make enough useful changes that your users see justification in paying again. As you described, most software reaches a level of maturity where this becomes harder to achieve.

For many products, the ideal solution for the developer seems to be subscription based licenses, where you are guaranteed a steady stream of income, as long as you (at least appear to) continue updates.

-Jibz (October 25, 2013, 07:18 AM)

You've definitely hit the nail on the head there. The issue is a lot more complex than just lifetime licenses vs periodic updates. You need to find the license - or in many cases a combination of licensing options - that best suits your product. And just as importantly you need to regularly review your strategy because the best strategy today may be catastrophic 3 months from now.

For example several years ago I bought a character generation program written for the old Hero System RPG. At the time Hero was in something of a renaissance period, having just changed ownership and released a new edition their long time fanbase had been waiting on for several years. Initially it was licensed with a simple purchase/upgrade license which made sense due to both the interest at the time and the maturity of the software.

It stayed that way through 2 major versions. After v2 though there weren't any major architectural changes in development and sales had slowed. However there were still fairly regular updates to include information from new rulebooks (including a new edition) and add minor, but still extremely useful and cool, features.

Much of the software's value is in the minor updates and it's important they become available as soon as possible. Likewise the little add-ons that were occasionally put in were more valuable for keeping existing customers happy - especially since they paid for minor upgrades as part of their purchase. The new edition of the rules was definitely a big enough change to consider a major revision but the next one won't come for years - who knows maybe not ever.

His solution was to make a clean break from the old licensing model with the new version. Rather than $45 for the initial purchase and $25 for major upgrades he switched to a straight $25 license for 2 years of updates. After 2 years if you choose not to renew your license the software still works and you still have access to all the updates through the end of your license period. If you renew again 6 months or 2 years later it's just another $25 and you get all the updates through the end of that license.

Most people who bought it were going to be upgrading anyway so he lost basically nothing off the top. There's an additional incentive to maintain your license for access to a value added character vault service where you can post writeups and download other people's creations. If you're an active player $25 every 2 years is still a bargain and if you stop playing for a couple years it's convenient and affordable to wait until it makes sense to renew.

That license wouldn't make sense for a lot of software but arguably no other license would make sense for Hero Designer.

392

Living Room / Re: TrueCrypt Audit

« Last post by Vurbal on October 25, 2013, 05:42 AM »

Yes, an audit could help to "prove" things, but then you'd need to audit the other crypto-g schemes (MS, Norton/Symantec, etc.), as a basis of comparison, to establish a level playing field.

-IainB (October 10, 2013, 06:20 PM)

Why? The purpose of such an audit is to identify potential weaknesses, intentional or inadvertent, in TrueCrypt. If you want to find out how secure your defenses are against potential attacks the only comparison that matters is against known attack vectors.

Comparisons against other security projects don't really tell you anything useful unless your goal is choosing between multiple programs, all of which are assumed to be vulnerable to some subset of known attack vectors. You could then select the one with either the most desirable or least undesirable traits. However Brand X could be better in every conceivable area than Brand Y and still not be effective enough to do the job.

In fact even the most thorough security audit can't actually prove there aren't vulnerabilities. At best it could show whether it is or isn't vulnerable to the types of attacks generally known among security researchers. However that doesn't tell you whether there are vulnerabilities known only to TrueCrypt developers which the community doesn't know to test for. It's possible a review of the source code might reveal new types of backdoors but probably much more likely they would go undetected.

There is a reasonable comparison to be made in looking at who is behind the development of each program. There's a strong argument to be made that whether a program is free/open or closed is not as good an indicator of how trustworthy it is than the history of the developers. As we already know from the Snowden revelations the NSA can and does secretly manipulate the development process for open standards and software, building in vulnerabilities which have remained undetected for many years.

For example, what I know about Symantec's close ties to the government and have reason to suspect about their secret dealings with the intelligence community based on apparent spending in support of CISPA makes me distrust any product or service that comes from them.

Of course TrueCrypt's developers have gone to great pains to hide their own identities and also to not only avoid discussing their software's internals but also to punish other people for discussing them in any real detail on their official forum. If they were to take that a step or 2 further it would be perilously close to the companies who have tried to muzzle security researchers who dare to point out weaknesses in their products and those companies I distrust completely.

However the overall pattern of actions by TrueCrypt's developers suggests instead (to me at least) that they're probably just too thin skinned and/or perhaps simply control freaks. Either or both of those qualities makes me uneasy about TrueCrypt but not to a degree even approaching my distrust of Symantec.

In fact they also meet what has become an important criteria for me over the last few months. They don't live in the US. That automatically puts them outside the primary sphere of NSA influence. Since, as an American, my encrypted data is more likely to be the target of US intelligence and law enforcement agencies than those of foreign powers that weighs heavily in their favor even if there are secret backdoors.

393

General Software Discussion / Re: self-hosted, high quality video podcast. How?

« Last post by Vurbal on October 24, 2013, 11:29 PM »

That's kind of what I was assuming.  I thought the buffers had something do do with getting around bandwidth issues.  I don't know how it translates calculation-wise...the question is still "How much kbps do I need?"

-superboyac (October 09, 2013, 09:03 AM)

Unfortunately the only good answer based on the information you're able to provide right now would appear to be, "It depends."

If you want to be realistic the better question to ask is what resolution and quality combination is viable within the restrictions imposed by your recording equipment/conditions and the bandwidth you can afford? Under optimal conditions 3Mbps for 1080p podcasts is entirely reasonable. Presumably optimal isn't an option. Until you know just how far off you're looking at you haven't really even formulated a question yet.

It seems like you have a pretty good idea about the content so that's a start. Next you should probably focus on the camera and lighting.

Do you have a camera already? If not do you have any in mind? If not what kind of money are you willing and able to spend?

Do you have an environment available with a good backdrop and lighting conditions? How about just the backdrop and a budget for some simple lighting? One trick I learned while working as a musician many moons ago was the creative application of cheap track lighting. Add in some dimmer switches and DIY lighting gels and you can manage surprisingly good quality for not too much money.

And don't forget to figure audio into your budget. There are a lot of options, depending of course on the physical constraints of the recording environment. This isn't directly relevant to answering your question but if you have a starting budget make sure to figure in something for microphones. Fortunately you can get surprisingly good results for not too much money. The CAD Audio U1 podcasting mike I use cost me $25. Eventually I want better but it's a great starting point.

394

General Software Discussion / Re: Sandboxie lifetime license discontinued

« Last post by Vurbal on October 24, 2013, 08:06 PM »

As appealing as they are from a short or even medium term consumer perspective it seems to me that lifetime upgrade licenses introduce a challenge that typically isn't given enough thought by developers who adopt them. At some point any program will reach some sort of saturation point where sales growth slows, eventually to the point where revenue from new customers is not enough to cover development costs. Possibly at that same point, but potentially either sooner or later, it simply won't make sense for the program to continue at all.

A developer cannot possibly hope to predict what that cycle will look like when a new program is introduced. In fact I would argue more often than not it will be difficult to predict at all and may only be apparent in hindsight. Lifetime licenses, particularly the ones you sell right before you realize revenue, technology, or both are adversely affecting your business, create pressure on developers to make decisions which are unhealthy for your business in the long term.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered or used at all. It does mean they almost always cause more problems than they solve unless used sparingly and carefully to achieve specific and limited goals. Typically the reason for offering a lifetime license is to build either a completely new market or market share for a relatively unknown brand or product. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you don't plan to make it the standard licensing model forever and you are honest and upfront

I don't need hindsight to know that licensing model never has and never will be sustainable indefinitely. If that's your choice then your calculations better take the inevitable product lifecycle - including its eventual end - into account. That had better include either regular and continuous release of new products with the same license or a slate of other products with slower development cycles but sustainable licensing.

Otherwise you should resign yourself to eventually either cutting off a bunch of angry customers or ruining yourself financially by putting it off as long as possible. We, and as someone whose job is increasingly promoting other people's software I include myself, need to find ways to help developers avoid suicidal decisions. Simply as a consumer I want developers to thrive so they can create new and better software for me to use.

It's probably more important today than ever as smaller developers and cheaper, more specialized software has become the backbone of the industry. It's actually something mouser and I have discussed at length and our conversations have definitely helped clarify my vision for a successful future. The future I envision and intend to be proactive in building is one where groups of "little guys," developers and media outlets together, work together to create a sort of infrastructure that benefits all of us.

Microsoft, Google, and Apple leverage the strengths inherent to their size and we need to do the same. They just don't happen to be the same strengths. They throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. They add every feature they can think of and decide what to keep after the returns are in. But we can get direct feedback from individuals and adjust on the fly. They can attract followers but we can build communities. We will fail frequently and repeatedly but we can learn from our failures and make the adjustments millions of shareholders wouldn't stand for.

395

General Software Discussion / Re: So-called upgrades that ruin good programs

« Last post by Vurbal on October 24, 2013, 04:06 PM »

If this post seems more appropriate as an entirely separate discussion or part of some other existing thread hopefully a mod will take care of that. I'll leave it to more organized minds to make that determination. 

At the risk of derailing this thread, for anyone experiencing a lot of problems in Windows 8.x with programs slowing down either routinely or randomly or even hanging for no apparent reason a few months ago I ran across a likely culprit. If you're using desktop compositing in Windows 7 it applies there as well. On my computer it turns out the common component for all of my "not responding" problems is the window manager - DWM.exe.

Warning: If taken internally the spoilered explanation which follows may induce headaches, blurred vision, nauseau, and vomiting.
If you experience any of these symptoms you are advised to stop reading and/or start drinking immediately.
You have been warned!

I actually stumbled across the answer entirely by accident when I was looking for replacements for Windows components. Specifically it was my choice to start using System Explorer as an alternative to the built-in Windows Task Manager. It turns out Task Manager conveniently omits DWM from the list of running programs and therefore doesn't tell you when it's hanging. Instead it will list other applications as not responding when in fact they are working correctly but waiting for the window manager to respond to some request.

The big problem in Windows 8 is that, unlike Windows 7 and Vista, compositing is mandatory because the Desktop is always composited on top of the Start Screen. Whereas Windows 7 gives you the option to turn off compositing by turning off all the Aero features (and potentially requiring you to turn off the DWM Session Manager service manually) there is no alternative window manager to use in Windows 8.

This has a number of implications for using compositing, whether in Vista, 7, or 8. The most problematic IMO is the impact your video driver potentially has on system performance. Since DWM is heavily reliant on advanced features of modern video cards, any video card driver problem potentially represents a system stability and/or performance issue.

If, like me, you happen to have a system utilizing integrated AMD/ATI video, that's particularly bad news. Prior to the introduction of the first Radeon cards ATI was arguably the model of stability and reliability. Since high performance video became essentially a 2 horse race between them and nVidia their driver development has turned into almost a primer in how not to support your hardware. In the case of outdated legacy products like my integrated Radeon 4250 (AMD 880g chipset) it's compounded by the expected (and normally not unreasonable) disinterest in anything beyond basic stability upgrades.

At least in Windows 8.0, there appears to be a mechanism in place for restarting DWM when it hangs. That's great in theory but in practice it seems to rely on explorer.exe to identify when DWM hangs and initiate the restart. In fact given the tendencies in Microsoft/Windows design I wouldn't be surprised if it is contained entirely in explorer. Without either a lot more analysis than I'm willing to perform that's nothing more than a guess on my part, albeit a somewhat educated guess.

I can explain how I discovered all this, though, starting as I said with using System Explorer rather than the Windows Task Manager to monitor processes. The first clue, which I didn't recognize immediately, was that explorer.exe appeared to be crashing a lot in Win8. I only noticed it happening when I had 2 or more file manager (or WTF ever they're calling Windows Explorer) windows open, but I never bothered to do much digging so it could have been happening in other circumstances without me noticing.

It's probably worth noting that one difference I've noticed between Win7 and Win8 (now that I'm paying attention anyway) is this. In Windows 7 if I restart DWM it doesn't appear to impact explorer at all. Explorer.exe seems to continue running resulting in my File Manager windows simply disappearing when the window manager shuts down and then reappearing when DWM starts up again. In Win8 I didn't get around to monitoring explorer.exe when I restarted DWM manually but it definitely killed all the File Manager windows.

I knew explorer.exe was significantly rewritten for Win8 because of the (IMO major step backwards) integration of the "Modern" UI (eg Start Screen) to ensure it would run at all times. Essentially that created the exact sort of monolithic code they've been removing and replacing for close to a decade. Figuring that to be a likely suspect in the problem I hypothesized that using a third party file manager might solve the problem. In fact that might be true if it's one of the more sophisticated (typically payware) alternatives with as few hooks as possible into explorer features like shell extensions.

However I was looking for something to recommend to Joe Six Pack which meant it should retain as much of explorer's File Manager features and if possible a very similar look and feel. For that reason, and various others, I settled on Explorer++. That did solve the problem of explorer crashing but replaced it with even more problematic behavior.

From time to time, and with increasing frequency the longer I went between reboots, Explorer++ would hang - or at least that's what the Windows Task Manager claimed. What was worse was that killing or restarting it from the Task Manager didn't work. I mean it worked in the sense that the process was definitely running but the window never appeared no matter how many times I killed and restarted it. Except I could get it to work by opening an explorer File Manager window and then using Open with... from the context menu to open a folder with Explorer++.

When I switched to System Explorer, though, I saw a very different picture. It didn't tell me Explorer++ was hung (ie Not Responding) but instead showed DWM was hung. That seemed to be the entire key to the problem since I could restart DWM and then restart Explorer++ and it worked normally. Just as importantly the time between DWM hanging seemed to reset to the longer period typical right after a reboot.

Or at least it worked most of the time. Eventually, though, I realized sometimes I could restart DWM and restart (or kill and then normally launch) Explorer++ and it didn't solve the problem at all. However if I restarted explorer.exe as well it always sorted the problem. My takeaway from all this - and let me repeat my analysis was incomplete - is that troubleshooting performance problems, especially program hangs, requires an alternate task manager. Additionally it's entirely possible, if not extremely likely, chance the shell (explorer.exe), window manager (dwm.exe), and video driver may be involved.

tl;dr
If you are having performance issues in Windows 8.x don't rely on the Windows Task Manager to tell you where the bottleneck is. There's a not-insignificant chance the window manager is at least partly to blame and a 100% chance Task Manager will blame any program waiting for the window manager if that's the case.

System Explorer will definitely show you more reliable information. Some or all other third party process monitoring/management software may be just as good or better. As a last resort restarting dwm.exe (the window manager) and/or explorer.exe (the shell) may temporarily fix performance issues. Due to the mandatory compositing of the window manager the video driver may be part of the problem and/or solution but if it's old enough hardware you probably shouldn't hold your breath.

396

General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.

« Last post by Vurbal on October 22, 2013, 04:21 AM »

Probably got lucky with the OOB default of having Simple File Sharing enabled, which shares everything with everyone IIRC.

-Stoic Joker (October 21, 2013, 03:34 PM)

Like I said, simple = simpleton.

Closest thing to that in 7 is a HomeGroup.

...But if I say HomeGroup one more time I think 40hz is going to shoot me.

I won't shoot you but I may chip in for ammo.   

397

General Software Discussion / Re: So-called upgrades that ruin good programs

« Last post by Vurbal on October 22, 2013, 04:17 AM »

The $40 I spent on Acronis True Image 9.0 was arguably the best software investment I ever made. It was designed for Windows XP but still worked on Vista and even on Windows 7 until some Windows update in 2012 broke it.

I'm not sure when it happened, judging from their forums apparently some time around the 2010 version, they turned it into a steaming pile of crap. I know how it happened - the same way a lot of software titles get run into the ground. In order to release a new major version every year they continually added new features to get upgrade sales and eventually they were adding more bugs than features.

Unfortunately I didn't discover this until after they suckered me into an upgrade deal for the 2012 version. They had a promotion running to get both the Home version and Plus Pack (with CDP and bare metal restore) for $30. Unfortunately it was more than 90 days later that I finally had time to install and test it so by the time I realized how badly it hosed my computer they refused to give me any support.

It didn't take long reading their forums to realize they didn't even have the foggiest idea how to uninstall their own software, let alone fix what I determined were common, but not universal problems. To add insult to injury they were perfectly happy to tell me I should pay them for additional support for help fixing their defective crap even though it seemed pretty certain they had no chance of actually managing that.

Thankfully the Bart's PE plugin still works beautifully on my boot disc and the bare metal restore CD can be downloaded to avoid installing Acronis and mangling Windows again.

398

General Software Discussion / Re: What's up with Flash crashing all the time lately?

« Last post by Vurbal on October 21, 2013, 12:43 PM »

So how do we sum up everyone's feelings about Flash??

How about this: (see attachment in previous post)

-Stoic Joker (October 17, 2013, 11:32 AM)

I might go so far as to extend that to Adobe as a whole.

399

Living Room / Re: Razors and Intellectual Property (Patents)

« Last post by Vurbal on October 21, 2013, 09:07 AM »

I have been on the receiving end of a patent troll who tried to (unsuccessfully) extort/intimidate me away from a software program on an absolutely silly basis.  Despite the fact that the patent troll failed, I came out of the experience firmly convinced that the patent system is completely broken, and is yet another industry which has built a fiefdom out of extracting maximum legal costs, and benefit those corporations with the largest bank reserves.

Having said that -- I have to disagree with those who say that the very idea of intellectual property protection is unimportant.  I think that without some system to ensure that inventors are properly compensated for their discoveries, the result would be large corporate marketing giants what come in like vampires and simply do a better job of mass producing/marketing/monopolizing/bullying/etc than the original inventors.

-mouser (October 20, 2013, 11:00 AM)

There's a legitimate debate to be made WRT that issue but there's an equally compelling argument on the other side that the mass production and marketing bits are not particularly effective at fending off competition based on actual innovation. That leaves bullying and market manipulation, neither of which is specific to patents.

So I believe there has to be some middle ground.  I don't have the answers but we could start by removing the middlemen between the inventors and the producers.

I look at it this way. The first hurdle to overcome is simply taking back the language. For decades there has been a lot of talk, and by talk I mean propaganda, about so-called "free markets." No such animal exists in nature. The question isn't whether there are restraints on the market but rather who controls them.

What we need to be striving for is not freedom but liberty, which in this case means competition. That is the government's proper minimal role in all markets - to provide an environment where competition has space to flourish. I'm not talking about a particular formula per se, but rather a general philosophy. In some cases - perhaps most - it may be best accomplished with a light regulatory touch. In others - particularly those with significant public policy implications - wide open performance biased competition for lucrative government contracts may be more appropriate.

400

Living Room / Re: Razors and Intellectual Property (Patents)

« Last post by Vurbal on October 17, 2013, 09:01 AM »

It's been firmly established in study after study that patents don't promote progress. They don't even precede it. They follow it because people don't want competition. Gillette's original razor is a perfect example. If you're making the best product and you need a government crutch to succeed that just means you suck at business.