I will tell you a secret: There are freeware programs in Windows, so you don't have to buy everything. For index.dat files, for example, there is CCleaner or Index Dat Spy.

My Windows machine is full with Open-sourced and freeware programs. I didn't have to pay for a single program here, except for games. And that is (yet) another popular belief that you have to pay for everything in Windows.

Also, isn't index.dat files used by Internet Explorer? With all the horrors surrounding IE, why would you want to use it?

There is also a lot of misinformation surrounding index.dat files, especially on the wikipedia. Please read this:

http://blogs.msdn.com/wndp/archive/2...Index_dat.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/01/12/512232.aspx

Still, if you really need to use IE, there is a great add-on called IE7pro (it works with IE 6.x as well).

http://www.ie7pro.com/

which I definitely recommend to anyone using IE. It adds enhanced security, mouse gestures and a lot more neat features.

[QUOTE=AceofSpades19;3036892]You missed my point entirely, first off, they don't need WGA to update your computer,

My apologies ace, I thought you meant the snooping/controlling.I also hate the so called "WGA" and the pretense that it protects us. Why not just call it anti-piracy that protects their bottom line?

I meant that updates protect against crime by trying to close security flaws as they are discovered.

I don't wish to argue about bigger machines doing more work. I could say a small efficient tool - like an axe - is more powerful than a truck. The axe can destroy the truck easier than the truck can destroy the axe.

Nevertheless, I have found that bigger machines and more complex systems, while more difficult to maintain, do provide more choices. Finding a way to use the increased potential to make more money is the challenge called business. I'm not good at it, I just said "more", not "a lot"

I like small and efficient. Knoppix is my overall favorite - the " swiss army knife of software" (not my line) - but often bigger is better in this world.

I just don't think we should close our minds to trying out all kinds of software.

My idea of bloat is all the extra unwanted junkware that comes preloaded on new computers - not just useless but conflicting and boggy (and buggy).

I bought a dell laptop in part because they come with the minimum - just what you order, your choices, - and because they have a good download center and have begun to offer open source OS. I got visa basic on mine but I appreciate the direction they are taking.

[QUOTE=Miah;I bought a dell laptop in part because they come with the minimum - just what you order, your choices, - and because they have a good download center and have begun to offer open source OS. I got visa basic on mine but I appreciate the direction they are taking.[/QUOTE]

PS I would like to mention that before I even booted up vista - which I'd already used an another box - I partitioned the hard drive and added linux

You are right, I use Ccleaner, too, But using XP64 with IE7, I have found that dealing with these files has become eve more complex. Not to mention that one of the articles (apparently written by an MS employee) is full of crap. One gets the impression that it is actually easy to take care of these hidden files. Simply deleting them from the IE menu? Not on your life. Even Ccleaner can't delete them and in order to clear them you have to reboot first.

As it is, I have deleted all references to IE from my desktop and my menus, just to prevent myself from accidentally picking the wrong browser and seeing index.dat and cookies filling up. Even so,after cleaning, a defrag shows several red zones that represent parts of the index and cookies files that cannot be degragmented, not with Ccleaner, not with Index Dat spy, which I have run numerous times. So clearly MS have done a very thorough job. How ironic that they should have the guts to compare IE with firefox. As far as I know, deleting the cache from firefox is a piece of cake. And even if it didn't work, one would (and could!) simply delete the file manually - no reboots, no messing with third party apps, no whining about other applications requiring the information "so, sorry, we can't allow you to decide what should be on your computer or not"... God damned, if I decide that I don't want that information stored, isn't it logical that I shouldn't want any other applications to use it either? Not in the MS world.

I remember an article posted on the net somewhere around 2000 in which someone blasted MS for using these types of file. Or rather, for the poor implementation. Seven or eigh years later, the answer is still the same. Why should they be system files? Because they are system files. Why are they so essential to other applications? Because they are system files. This, more than anything else, is why I rarely use Windows anymore. Vista is slick and one the computers that I have tested it, it run well enough. But in the end it is still a closed box with a lot of "features" that a person can't properly control even though it is difficult to think why that should be so. Let's face it, whose interests would be hurt if a cache were written in such a way that it can actually be deleted?

I will be building a new gaming PC here soon, because I really want to play fallout3 and starcraft2 when they come out. I may go the vista DX10 route, just have to wait and see. I already own both a copy of XP Pro, and Vista ultimate, since I work IT for a living our MS rep hooked us up.

I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

I think that software is like fine wine: one should let it age.

Microsoft seriously succumbed to Wall Street pressure to "release something, dammit" after years of futzing-around with various things that "promised to be 'Longhorn.'" (In fact, their latest server product, not Vista, "officially" got stuck with that code-name.)

As I recall they did more-or-less the same thing with Windows-XP, which was "no damm good" until Service Pack 2. And so that is eventually what I bought for that machine.

In another couple of years I'll look at Vista again... SP2, no doubt... and I consider that I have plenty of time to wait. Windows is not particularly strategic to me anymore and it has become stuffed with things that I never asked for, don't need, and generally cannot without much difficulty remove. Quite a difference from my Linux and OS/X boxes... Quite literally, Microsoft has made itself non-competitive for me in my main line-of-business now. In other words, I do "have a choice," and I rather consistently do not find myself inclined to put-up-with Windows. OS/X and Linux beat it all to hot-underground-place.

There is at least one company that starts thinking different about the whole piracy issue.

What a beautiful article. Thanks you very much crashmeister. I could not agree more with them. For every game I bought, which according to my wife, are a lot (hehe), I had to find a nocd crack or something like that. I just can't play using the CD, because it annoys me. I just want to install it, play it and the Box with the cd's on my bookcase.

I personally liked this too:

In the stores I buy my games from, Warcraft 3 and the Frozen throne are out selling big guns such as Crysis, CoD4 and UT3. In fact, Diablo 2 with LOD expansion is tied with Crysis (I am not putting World of Wacraft here, because it just dominates the sales here). If I check the 40 TOP selling games, you will still see StarCraft and Battlefield 1942.

Sure, those games are much cheaper than the others, but Wow has a monthly fee. I bet they are selling so well because they are easier on hardware and still have a great number of players playing them, on and offline. The number of players that can run Diablo 2 today is far greater than the ones who can run UT3. Just as the article says.

Now if only more companies thought like them...

P.S: If my memory doesn't fail, one of the employees from Starforce, the most hated copy protection on the planet, posted a link to download Galactic Civilization 2, illegally through a torrent:

And I never, ever buy any games with Starforce anymore, although I did that mistake a couple of times, especially with Ubisoft older titles.

I am pretty sure that company is on to something.

They apparently do make good money because they make games that are playable with a lot of hardware and don't bother paying a bunch of fools like mediadefender a lot of money for accomplishing nothing anyway.

Instead they concentrate on their customers which seems like a good idea.

Here is also an interesting interview with a guy that argues totally against common wisdom (which seems to be that PC gaming is dead because of piracy and consoles are the future).

He has a completely different take on that story.

Oh my crashmeister, where do you find these great articles :). I read a big deal off the Internet, but never anything that interesting. Pretty interesting the way Alex St. thinks.

He says that people who own consoles play more PC games. That is my case, exactly. I've several consoles at home, but the computer is just more practical. Chatting, watching movies, playing games and the bigger selling point for me is to do not need to change discs when changing a game (more often than not, using a NoCD crack). This was a cool think too:

Years ago, I hated Steam. I was simply against it. It was buggy, it was slow and it took precious system resources. Today, if I can buy a game off Steam and on the stores, I will always take the Steam version. First of all, no need to have the CD/DVD on the drive... obviously. Then, since the games are tied to my account, I can play them on any computer, as long as Steam is installed. And let's face it, it is just practical. Ordering the game adds Post Office charges. Going to the store requires a trip (gas or otherwise). And to top it all, when you have virtually hundreds if not thousands of games, you start to have trouble to store them. And there is the auto-patching commodity too...

Now, when I play on a console, it bores me to go all the way to the console and swap the disc when I want to play another game. I know I am lazy, but come on. Why do we have remote controls today? So we don't have to go up from our couch and change the channel.

Oh well, I still believe Nintendo is the only one doing things right this time. I try not to add World of Warcraft when writing about PC games, because Wow is more of a phenomenon (or Fad? Fine line isn't it) than a game, IMHO.

Thanks again for the link. Sorry for being totally off-topic and posting so much. It just has been such a long time I came across something good to read and discuss :D

Normally I don't post links like that because I figure everybody already read it anyway :p

Anyway - it's not completely off-topic.

In the secound part the guy blasts away about the directX implementation in vista being a nightmare that just manages to workaround what directX was meant to do (access the hardware directly).

Oh - almost forgot.Back to topic:
Ain't going to buy vista.Is this supposed to be a joke?
What would you need it for?