Cedega Install: City of Heroes

Another guide I've been meaning to remake for a while. Here's installing City of Heroes atop Cedega under Mepis 8.5 Beta 4. As shown in the Cedega Install, my original platform was a 64bit version of Mepis 8.5 Beta 4, and Cedega has issues with properly detecting hardware under 64bit system. Granted, the detection issues are not as severe as the play issues with 64bit Nvidia drivers, so we'll be sticking with ATi hardware for the game install, but dropping to a 32bit OS base.

1: If you don't already have the City of Heroes installer, it is available for download from the NCSoft site.

Left Click on Download PC Client



2: Wait for the download to complete...



3: Then locate the downloaded file: CoH_NA_Setup.exe

Here, Firefox is set to save to /home/(username)/Downloads



4: Okay, lets go to Cedega and left click on Install



5: A new window will pop up. Left Click on Browse



6: By default Cedega looks in the CD/DVD drive first...



7: So you'll need to navigate to your download folder.

Left Click on CoH_NA_Setup.exe, then Left Click on OK.



8: We should now be back to the Install Window.

The Program line should be filled in with our CoH_NA_Setup.exe file.



9: Left Click on Advanced



10: in Advanced there is an option for Run in Window.

Left Click in the drop box.



11: Left Click on your Desktop Resolution.

Since mine is 1280*1024, I'm going to select 1280*1024.



12: With a resolution set, Left Click on OK.



13: Don't forget to put a name under Game Folder. Here I've gone with CoH

With the Game Folder filled in, Left Click on Install.



14: Here's one of the reasons we needed to be in windowed mode. If you try to do the install without a window, these boxes may or may not show. Remember, City of Heroes is Licensed Software.



15: If you agree with the license, Left Click on I agree.



16: We shouldn't need to make any changes to the install.

Left Click on Next.



17: Left Click on Next.



18: Left Click on Next.



19: Now this pop-up window won't show at all if you try the install outside of Windowed mode. If you don't already have an account for City of Heroes, you'll need to go to NCSoft.com and purchase an account.

Since I already have an account, I'm going to Left Click on No.



20: The installer is finished, so Left Click on Finish

Here, I've left the automatically run updater checked in.



21: The City of Heroes updater should launch at this point.



22: Now, since I really don't feel like waiting for the entire game to download and install, I'm going to cheat. After giving the game a few minutes to get the base files in place, I'm going to use Cedega to Halt the install.



23: Here we see one of KDE4's tools, a dedicated Widget for plugged in flash drives.

Left Clicking on the Flash Drive should cause it to automatically open up in Dolphin.



24: In the flash drive I have a copy from a Windows Install of City of Heroes. Inside the City of Heroes folder, I'm looking for the folder named: piggs.



25: I'm going to copy the piggs folder.



26: Then open up a new tab



27: In the new tab I'm going to Left Click on Home from the left hand bar.



28: You'll need to enable View Hidden Folders under the View Menu from the Top Bar.

Here, I have the hidden folder .cedega



29: Under .cedega I have the folder CoH that was created earlier.



30: Under CoH I have the folder c_drive



31: Now we have something that resembles a Windows Directory structure, with Program Files.



32: Under Program Files there is City of Heroes



33: Finally, under /home/(username)/.cedega/CoH/c_drive/Program Files/City of Heroes... we've arrived.

Paste the copied piggs folder.



34: What we are doing here is copying over the vast bulk of the actual game files. All of the texture, polygon, sound, and other data needed for the game is contained in the piggs.



35: With the piggs file copied, we can go back to Cedega.



36: Here we can see multiple entries for City of Heroes.

For now, Left Click on Play.



37: The installer should fire up and begin work on processing the game files.



38: Even if you cheated and copied over files from a pre-existing install, the update process can still take a while.

Here though, it's finished, and we can enter the game.



39: Now, if you get the login-screen... great.

Chances are though, if you are using an LCD panel, you didn't get a login screen. You probably got something that was graphicall corrupted or off center.



40: If you didn't get a login screen you should be able to alt-tab out of the game, even with ATi hardware. (more on that in a bit)

We can use Cedega to halt the game with Stop All.



41: When we are click into the CoH folder, there are some tabs on the lower half of the Cedega interface.

Left Click on the Settings Tab.



42: Here we can set our Run in Window resolution.



43: With your desktop resolution set, Left Click on Apply.



44: Try to Play the game again...



45: This time the launcher should be framed in a windowed box...



46: The Login screen should display correctly now, although it's at a lower resolution than was specified.



47: Now, if you are using ATi hardware, you do have to come to terms with some issues the game currently has. These issues are largely two-fold as I understand them.

A: Nvidia helped write / create some of the advanced shader affects for the City of Heroes game, so all other vendors hardware support was sabotaged at the game's code level years ago.

B: In the past, Transgaming has openly optimized for Nvidia hardware, treating ATi users as distinctly second-class citizens.

With this in mind, features like Full Screen Alt-Tab that work fine on Nvidia 32bit drivers, don't work on ATi drivers, 32bit or 64bit. You'll also, more than likely, load into City of Heroes with a screen that looks somewhat like this one:



48: Getting out of this display corruption is actually pretty easy. The game still follows a window display hierarchy, so new windows will layer on top of existing displays.

Left Click on Menu. (on my screen it's in the top right hand corner)



49: Left Click on Options.



50: Left Click on the tab Graphics and Audio



51: Now, existing guides will tell you to drop the recommended settings. We don't need to do that.



52: Left Click on Advanced Graphics Settings

This should Enable separate control of graphics features.



53: Scroll down and Left Click on Water Effects TWICE.



54: This should change Water Effects to None.



55: Left Click on Apply Now.



56: The screen corruption should clear right up.

Now, what's interesting about this, and I'll show it in the next guide, is that Water Effects are disabled on equivalent Nvidia hardware.



57: Now we can work on changing our resolution.



58: Select your desktop resolution...



59: Left Click on Apply Now once your resolution is selected...



60: City of Heroes will issue a warning that you'll need to quit and restart to see the changes.



61: So lets Quit



62: However, we need to Quit to Login Screen.

Do not Quit to Desktop. For some reason, resolution changes don't always apply if you quit straight to the desktop.



63: Once at the login screen, Left Click on Exit.



64: Now, when we go to Play the game again...



65: We should now find that the game is in full resolution.



66: If you want to, you can take the game out of windowed mode now.



67: Just use the Cedega Run in Window setting with No to go to a Full Screen mode.


Okay. In all fairness, some of the issues seen in this guide are expected to be fixed / addressed in the coming months. Paragon Studios, the developers behind City of Heroes, have a new graphics engine purportedly based on OpenGL 3.0 arriving in April. The branded Ultra Mode graphics engine also brings fixes to the existing graphics engine currently in use. Reportedly the graphics issues specific to all Non-Nvidia hardware have been addressed at the code level in the graphics engine, with the older Nvidia developed sabotaging shaders replaced with shaders that should work across all OpenGL enabled hardware. So, in theory, as long as your graphics card supports OpenGL 1.4, 1.5, 2.x, or 3.x, you should have the exact same image regardless of who the graphics vendor is.

Transgaming also has a new proprietary Cedega engine in development, which reportedly is not as optimized for one graphics vendor alone. Reportedly Transgaming has also been working closely with the Khronos Group, who manages OpenGL. Theoretically then, the upcoming Cedega 8 engine should fix the Cedega specific issues, such as lack of Full Screen Alt-Tab on ATi hardware, and fix the advanced shader features that are exposed as options to the end user. There is hope then that within the next few months, ATi users won't be second class Linux Citizens that they are in some games now.

***

As a special note, I do need to extend thanks to Intel. The processor used for this guide system is one of their I7 Engineering Samples.

Cedega Install: KDE4

Been meaning to do this for a while. Here's a walkthrough of install Cedega atop a KDE4 desktop. As a precursor note, Cedega does not yet actually work on the hardware platform I used to write this guide. There's an issue with Cedega's hardware identification failing to recognize a mobile RadeonHD 2600 with Catalyst 10.1 atop a 2.6.32 kernel. Native OpenGL titles like QuakeLive and WarSow work fine, so there's no issue with the installed software. However, Cedega's support team was caught with their pants hanging down feeding junk answers to users with this particular problem, and so far, at the time of this posting, Cedega's staff has not responded to provide a date on when their software will be fixed.

1: Starting with the cedega install file already downloaded.

Left Click on the file in Dolphin



2: Kpackage should automatically open up.

Left Click on the Install button in the lower right hand corner.



3: Now Kpackages second Window will pop up.

Left Click on the Install button in the lower left hand corner.



4: Kpackage will now ask for the root password.



5: Here in Mepis 8.5 beta we've come across our first error. Parts of python are not installed. Under KDE3 we could use apt-get install -f to complete the install, but sadly this method no longer works under KDE4. We'll need to go get the Python files manually.



6: Open up Synaptic Package Manager

Here in Mepis 8.5 Beta 4, it's on the menu bar by default.



7: Synpatic will ask for the root password. Enter the password.



8: Synaptic has gotten a bit of a make over from the KDE3 edition.

The Search icon is now indicated by a pair of Binoculars on the upper bar.



9: Left Click on the Binoculars to initate a search



10: In the search box typ in the term: python-gtk

Then Left Click on Search.



11: We have quite a few python options, but the one we want is close to the top.



12: Right Click on the python-gtk2 package.



13: Then Left Click on Mark for Installation.



14: Python will ask for a couple of depencies.



15: Left Click on Mark.



16: Getting a little ahead of myself here. I also know that Cedega will ask for python-glade, so left click on the Binoculars to search again.

Enter the term python-glade then Left Click on Search.



17: Same thing as before. Right Click on the python-glade2 package...

Then Left Click on Mark for Installation.



18: Now with our Python files marked, Left Click on the Green Checkmark.

This will apply all marked changes.



19: Left Click on the Apply button.



20: Sit back and get comfy, this part could take a while.



21: The Python files shouldn't require any more user-intervention, so once Synaptic finishes, go ahead and Close Synaptic.



22: Go back to the Kpackage Windows.

Left Click on the Install button in the lower left hand corner again.



23: This time the install completed, so we can Close Kpackage.



24: In most cases there should be a menu entry for under Cedega Gaming Service under Games in the Kmenu.



25: At this point I began to regret sticking with 800*600 for a capture resolution.

There's an Accept button in the lower right hand corner. Left Click the button.



26: At this point you'll either need to agree to the trial or purchase an account.



27: The next part of the installer will ask which type of install to use.

For most users the Single-user install is fine, so Left Click on Continue.



28: Cedega will begin checking for updates.



29: Remember, Cedega uses non open-source licensed software and fonts to maintain better compatibility.

This license agreement also has an Accept button in the lower right hand corner.



30: Get comfy again as Cedega starts to download the support files.



31: Cedega is now installed and ready to run... or is it?



32: As I mentioned, Cedega has issues with the latest ATi drivers and the 64bit 2.6.32 kernel combination as the Cedega System specs show.



33: It's also not due to lack of proper OpenGL support either. As shown here, the Catalyst control center shows the hardware and driver are installed and operational...


And games such as QuakeLive, UT2k4, and WarSow work pretty much flawlessly.

QuakeLive KDE-4 2.6.32 Kernel 64bit - Catalyst 10.1



QuakeLive KDE-4 2.6.32 Kernel 64bit - Catalyst 10.1



The problem appears to be limited to 2.6.32 64bit installs as the following installs show:

KDE4 - Nvidia Beta Driver - 2.6.32 Kernel 32bit




KDE4 - Catalyst 10.1 - 2.6.32 32bit kernel



KDE3 - Catalyst 10.1 - 2.6.27 32bit kernel



However, the detection problem rears it's head again with another system I have on hand. I had been testing one of the RadeonHD 4850's on an Intel D975XBX motherboard before swapping out and dropping down to an x1950 Pro. As shown, Cedega is still convinced that the RadeonHD 4800 series card is installed... while Catalyst Control Center shows the card actually in use, an x1950.

KDE3 - Catalyst 9.3 - 2.6.27 64bit kernel



So no, things aren't "perfect" in the Cedega world. Their 64bit hardware detection needs some work.

Nvidia - background data

Okay, here we go with a couple of posts from the City of Heroes forums, archiving them here. These were written before Intel killed off the Larrabee project, so there are references to Intel's current GPU plans when these were posted.

Post #1

Re: video cards

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill I'm wondering if that's not just because they want to be seen as *more than* a gaming company. The GPU's been turning into just "more processors" for a while now (Folding@Home, for instance, can use some of them for computations, as can some graphics apps - just off the top of my head.) So, really, pushing that would (to me) make a bit more sense than just "You can push 5000 FPS over 9 screens @192000x14500" as far as what they want to highlight. I was under the impression that was a result over the stink between them and Intel over chip support, patents/licensing or some such.

(note, this rambles as I try to fit everything together)

These two parts are actually related. Nvidia doesn't just want to be seen as something other than a gaming company... they have to be seen as something other than a gaming company.

The reality is, the stink over the Intel chipset licensing was a bit of a red herring. The short version is that Nvidia claimed that their pre-existing licensing for the system bus used on the Core platform also gave them license to the use the Front Side Bus developed for the Nehalem architecture. Intel said no, it didn't. Intel didn't actually explicitly tell Nvidia that they could not ever have a license for the Bus Logic system used in the Nehalem architecture. Intel just told Nvidia they couldn't use their pre-existing contracts.

What this meant is that in order to have chipsets for Core I7 processors Nvidia would have to come to a new contractual agreement with Intel... and Intel had set that price higher than Nvidia was willing pay.

The other problem with Nvidia's lines about why they were leaving the chipset market is that they abandoned the AMD platform. Not even 2 years ago the best AMD motherboards were shipping with Nvidia chipsets. Then, when Socket AM3 hit, Nvidia announced several chipset solutions... then never delivered.

If Nvidia had been serious about Intel's licensing being the reason why they left the chipset market, they would have been pushing their chipsets for both AMD and Intel platforms at the same time. They weren't. They had already axed development of one branch, and evidently, were looking to axe the other in a convenient manner. Now, I can't fault Nvidia for leaving the chipset market. The other third parties like Via and SiS had been winding down chipset support for other processors for years, and Nvidia took Uli out of the market. I can, and do, fault Nvidia for not being straight-forward with their investors about why Nvidia left the chipset market.

***

Now the reason(s) behind these product moves are partially found in both Intel Larrabee and AMD Fusion. Part of the goal of the Larrabee project wasn't just to develop a competitive performance graphics solution based on the x86 architecturer, it was also to merge an x86 based GPU onto an x86 based CPU. Both AMD and Intel will be launching Central Processors that include integrated graphics... on the same physical chip.

These new CPU/GPU hybrids will virtually eliminate many of the design issues OEM's have with current integrated graphics motherboards. TheGPU will be able to take advantage of the processor's cooling, and the display hardware and memory access components will be greatly simplified. The design changes will free up wiring going to and from the Central Processor and System chipset.

In the Integrated graphics world as pictured by Intel and AMD, a third party graphics solution doesn't actually exist. There's no design spacewhere a third party like Nvidia, SiS, or Via could plop in their own graphics solution. This means that the only place for a 3rd party graphics vendor, within just a couple of years, is going to be as an add-in card vendor.

From Nvidia's point of view this wouldn't quite be a bad thing since AMD / ATi is their only real competitor. Via's S3 Chrome series never gained any traction. PowerVR is only playing in the mobile segment if memory serves correctly, Matrox is only interested in TripleHead2Go, and 3DLabs hasn't been heard from since 2006.

However, with Intel entering the add-in card market, things don't look so rosy for Nvidia. One of the (many) reasons Intel's current graphics processors resemble an electrolux is that an integrated GPU can only run at limited clockspeeds, and in Intel's case, they don't actually make a GPU, they only make graphics accelerators that still leverage the CPU for some operations. In an external card though, Intel can crank the clockspeeds and cores... and Intel's gotten really good at software rendering through x86. As a mid-range part, Larrabee based cards are (were, still will be) a nightmare for Nvidia.

The fact is, the largest selling graphics segment.. is mid-range and low-end cards. Nvidia and AMD make very little money off of their high-end cards. Most of their operating cash comes from the midrange sets, like the GeforceFX 5200, Radeon 9600, Geforce 6600, RadeonHD 3650, and so on.

With a potentially legitimate, and humongous, competitor coming up in what has traditionally been the bread-and-butter for most graphics vendors, the market Nvidia thought they could sell into was lessened. Nvidia also had other issues, such as bad reputation with ODM's like Clevo and FoxConn, and OEM's such as Asus, Acer, HP, and Apple, over the issues with various NV4x, G7x, and G8x GPU's having (drastically) different thermal envelopes than Nvidia originally said those parts had. Just look up Exploding Nvidia Laptop.

**

As a company, Nvidia's market strategy needed to change. They need to become something other than a graphics card vendor. They couldn't depend on Intel's GPU entry being a complete mongrel. Learning that Epic Software, the guys behind one of the engines that builtNvidia as a gaming company (Unreal Engine), was involved in helping Intel optimize Larrabee for gaming had to land like a blow to the solar plexus. While I'm not saying that Epic's involvement is magically going to make an x86 software rendering solution good... I think Intel is serious about getting Larrabee right as a graphics product... and when Intel gets serious about a product, they generally deliver. E.G. Banias into Core 2, and then the Core 2 architecture into I7.

As a company, I can't really figure out what Nvidia's ultimate strategy is going to be. A couple months ago I would have throught they were trying to get into the x86 processor market, and produce a competitor to both the Intel CPU's and AMD CPU's, essentially becoming yet another platform vendor. I think, emphasis on think, these plans have been scrubbed.

It's been more profitable for Nvidia to focus on offering multimedia platforms, such as the Tegra. If rumors are to be believed, Nvidia may have even landed the contract for the next Nintendo handheld platform... a potential slap in the face to rival AMD whose employees have been behind the N64 (SGI), GameCube (ArtX), and Wii (ATi) consoles, and who were at one point contracted to build a system platform for the successor to the GameBoy... a project that fell through when the DS started flying off shelfs like it was powered by redbull wings.

It's the opinion of some analysts, and myself, that maybe not even Nvidia themselves know what direction they are going to take in the coming months. While it would be disappointing to see Nvidia leave the gaming card market, it is perhaps one of the options on their table.

Quote:

<

(I'm poking through these threads since I have a system build coming up. Haven't decided if I want to run AMD or jump to Intel - not least because of money, but partially because of Socket Madness that's traditional to Intel. I can throw the $150-$200 I'd save off of the Intel system towards a better video card, after all. Current system - AMD, 3+ years old, and just barely at the end of its supported CPU upgradeability.)

I know what you mean. I've commented before about the Intel D975XBxmotherboard I have, that despite being a Socket 755 motherboard, and if I'm not mistaken, the first Crossfire enabled motherboard Intel ever did, only supported Conroe, Allendale, Kentsfield Core 2 processors, and will not support any Yorkfield or Wolfdale processors... that were just die-shrinks of the processors it did support.

On the other hand, I've got an Asus M2R32-MVP, which uses the Radeon Xpress 3200 chipset, which was a Socket AM2 motherboard from 2006... that's happily chugging away with a Phenom 9600.

*****

Post #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geobaldi Ok here's my question. I have a 9800gtx right now on a quad core cpu (2.8ghz) with 8 gigs ram. Would just getting a 2nd 9800 gtx for sli be a better choice than trying to spend alot on a 275?

Yes / no / not really Yes, two 9800 GTX's in SLI are pretty powerful, but you are dependent on software support of multi-gpu rendering. It'd be a cheaper way to gain more performance while you wait for Nvidia to go bankrupt or get bought out. (and no, that's actually not a joke, I think Human Being addressed the financial problem Nvidia has trying to move GTX chips right now... or somebody did in the thread) No, I'm pretty sure that a single GTX 275 would outrun two 9800's. Granted, I can't actually test this. I don't have a GTX 275 on hand, although I do have GTS 250's... which are pretty much just die-shrunk rebadged 9800's. I'll get to the Not Really at the end.

Quote:

After reading toms hardware guide on where video cards stand I'm reluctant to purchace any of the 2xx series at this time.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I'd keep a barrel of salt on hand if you're reading Tom's. The site has been busted multiple times for accepting money to slant reviews one way or another. Now, while I can come up with dozens of reasons of my own not to buy a GTX 2xx card from Nvidia, most of my concerns simply won't matter to the average gamer.

********************************************

Okay, here's the Not Really part for those not interested in a soft analysis. Not Really: it's a toss-up. If your an Nvidia fan, well. To broach the subject again, it's really questionable whether or not Nvidia is actually going to matter in a few months. Fermi's going to be launching against Larrabee and shortly before the product refreshes on the RadeonHD 5x00 series. Intel and AMD are also going to be pushing CPU's with Integrated GPU's in a 6months to 8months... and that's going to nce again create a three-horse race in the low to mid-range graphics processor segment. I'm not too entirely sure Nvidia can survive as a vendor of gaming graphics cards if it's traditional bread and butter market, the low end market where the likes of the Geforce2 MX, Geforce4 MX, Geforce FX 5200, and Geforce 6600 dominated, goes away.

Nvidia's going to have to launch Fermi with parts at all segments, from the low-end to the High-End, and deliver large quantities. Since they are dependent on TSMC, that's... not really something I'm sure Nvidia can pull off. AMD is having enough problems pulling their own 40nm parts that are completed out of TSMC.

In order for Nvidia to survive, they are going to need a megabucks deal. One of the hot rumors that is going around now is that Nvidia has won the contract for the next Nintendo handheld. Personally, I doubt it given Nintendo's decades long relationship with AMD. Remember, the N64 was created with help from SGI, and that SGI team left to become ArtX. ArtX did the design for the Gamecube's LSI, but were bought up by ATi shortly before 2003. ArtX turned ATi around, helping to launch the Radeon 9700 series of cards and revamp ATi's... broken... driver program. ATi then did the graphics design for the Wii, something AMD was rather grateful for after the merger as Nintendo's profits helped shore up crashing processor revenue streams. At one time ATi had a contract to do the GPU for the so called GameBoy 2, a console that was halted, then dropped, after the DS went from side-toy to main-show.

With this kind of history, Nvidia would have to offer an astoundingly good deal to beat what has been a financially successful string of consoles for Nintendo. So I don't think this kind of guaranteed income deal is in store from Nvidia.

We also know that Nvidia's president has very kind words for Apple, and has been developing mobile platforms targeted towards the markets serviced by PowerVR / Imagination... a company that Apple has invested in. Some have suggested Nvidia is trying to maneuver themselves into a position to be bought out by Apple.

Now, with this sort of background, and multiple questions surrounding what's going to happen to / with Nvidia, the sensible thing to do is wait it out. Wait for Fermi parts to be delivered.

TL;DR version: Honestly, I'd save your money for next year rather than rushing to upgrade now.

Corporate Irresponsibility in the Obama Era

As I type this first post in 2010 I am struck by the changes over the last year. More and more people have come to see Obama as the narcissist prat he is. Those that cheered for his entry into office have by and large found themselves wondering what in the world they voted for. One of the primary cases in point for me is Corporate Responsibility, or in many cases, Irresponsibility. Obama entered office with promises to get tough on large corporations that were spending money left and right, and promptly showed himself to be the liberal democrat he is.

The biggest failure of the Obama Era Financial Responsibility is found in the US Car Manufacturing Industry. The major US auto-manufacturers generally take part in the outdated practice of employing Unions, which foster environments where personal responsibility does not matter, and laziness is just as valuable as hard work. The Obama Administration and two of the major car companies, Chrysler and General Motors, successfully convinced the Liberal Democrats in congress that the US car industry was too big to fail. Well, sometimes large companies need to die properly, and doing so can be overall healthy for a market.

The auto-industry's leading example is British Leyland. Yes, Britain doesn't have much of an auto-industry left, with remaining brands Jaguar, Aston Martin, Rover, and Land Rover all having been sold to outside parties. However, the auto-industry in Britain is still booming when you consider the marques of Caterham, Noble, Lotus, Morgan, and Ariel. Sure, none of these cars sell in the volumes that a Land Rover Discovery or a BWM 3 Series sell in, but the British car industry is far from dead.

The Obama administration, however, worked in conjunction with the liberal democrats in Congress to keep General Motors and Chrysler alive. Ford Motors, as far as I'm aware, didn't actually take part in the bail-out, and the results were predictable. Consumers spoke with their wallets and when buying American Cars largely bought from Ford with the oft stated reasoning, Ford hadn't taken part in the bailout.

The Obama Administration's junker program was also a collective failure for General Motors and Chrysler's. Korean and Japanese marks like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Kia raked in sales of their new cars. Ford did pretty well in the junker program, with again, consumers voicing a preference for Ford because Ford hadn't participated in the bailout.

Failings of the Obama Administration continued, with GM pretty much failing to complete or close the deal on any one of their marques. While the Hummer brand was successfully sold to Chinese parties, I don't think it can be said that Hummer's actually ever sold in volume. Saab, Pontiac, and Saturn, 2 of which were General Motor's best car series, are gone. Granted, Saab was actually a Swedish company to start with, which explained their quality, but failings on the part of General Motors saw both Koenigsegg and Spyker pull out of potential deals. Saturn was also better known for it's Holden imports, and for selling rebadged Lotus's, and there actually is some hope that Holden will be moving some dealerships into the US. Thus, maybe not all is lost with the good cars Saturn put on the market. Then, there was Pontiac, which was home to the legendary Trans-Am. Okay, so Pontiac only had one good car, and it was built on Chevy's F-body platform, and it was several years ago. Maybe it's not such a bad thing Pontiac is gone.

The failure of the Obama Administration and the Liberal Democrats in congress was made readily apparent in early December as their appointed leader of General Motors, Frederick "Fritz" Henderson, stepped down. However, the saga of the Liberal Democrats inability to spend money wisely, or efficiently, has had an impact on other industries other than just the US auto-industry.

At an event that I was, not-surprisingly, not invited to despite it behind held in Georgia, Vice President Biden announced the first payouts of a rough $8 billion dollar plan to expand broadband Internet access. Now, I've had a look over the plan, and there's only one word for it. Rubbish. One of the major problems with the Obama Administration Plan, as I've read it, is that it's only for existing Internet providers with certain levels of existing subscribers. There doesn't seem to be any way for a small-town or regional provider to apply for the funds.

So, before I finish dealing with this problem, lets get the setup out of the way first. Where did this money come from? Well, because it's the US Federal Government doling the money out, the money obviously came from Taxes, or is going to be paid for by Taxes. There's actually a large amount of controversy here because one of the factors in the Obama 2008 presidential victory was the accusation that Senator John McCain was going to continue President Bush's War in Iraq with money he doesn't have. A big deal, at least from my point of view, was made over how the Senator, and for that matter the sitting President, were going to pay for a Military occupation. The Obama Administration rode into office on a wave of financial questions and promising Fiscal Responsibility.

What the US got, however, was an Administration whose financial playbook came from Marx, Lennon, Stalin, and a healthy dose of Roosevelt entitlement. So, once again, we have the Obama Administration, in conjunction with the liberal democrats in congress, promising huge amounts of money that at some point is going to fall on the American Citizen in the form of a tax.

There's the setup, here's the payoff. If the only companies that can take advantage of these broadband stimulus funds are existing ISP's with an existing subscriber base, why do they need the money to begin with? Isn't expansion and upgrading of the network part of an ISP's business plan? Isn't it something they budget for?

NO.

Thing is, I used to work for Cox Communications. Every year two headends on the cable network in Los Vegas and Pheonix Arizona would conk out in the summer. The heat would rise, and thousands of customers would get disconnected. There are of course a couple of logical courses of action. The first is to replace the headend with equipment that was built to withstand the rise in temperature. The second would be to split the headend into multiple newer, smaller, and more efficient units that could handle the traffic loads and heat. The third would be to do away with the headend and implement a Fiber network which is far more heat resistant.

So what did Cox Communications do? Nothing. Nothing at all. No techs sent out. No trucks rolled. Just tell the customer it should be up soon and take the next call. Thing was, Cox Communications business plan, and this is something I got told by a corporate rep directly, was to go in to areas that didn't have any competition. Thus, if a customer wanted Broadband Internet, they would have no other choice but to buy Cox Services, no matter how bad the service was. The corporate mentality of Cox Communications was so bad, that after Hurricane's Katrina and Rita, Cox decided to pull out of the area and largely sold off that market to Suddenlink. Cox Communications had no interest in upgrading either it's equipment or it's network.

The profit-minded mentality isn't just confined to Cox Communications. AT&T is one of the backbone providers of Internet access in the US, and their backbone services often left something to be desired. However, AT&T's mentality is revealed by a quick look at their Wireless Network, or lack there-of. AT&T is widely regarded as having the slowest and worst wireless network running, with only a fraction of the network having been upgraded to quote, 3G Status. However, AT&T pays an unknown sum of money to Apple Computer to retain exclusive sales and use of the Apple Iphone. Rather than spending money on it's wireless network, AT&T seems to be spending money everywhere else.

Comcast, often referred to in less polite terms, has an even lower opinion of it's users and it's networking options. Comcast has been slapped by both consumers and regulatory agencies for it's bandwidth throttling and invasive network scanning. Comcast contractors have been caught disconnecting competitors connections, then trying to sell consumers on the Comcast network while the competitor was down. In my own direct experience with Comcast, they came into town, bought up an existing cable provider by the name of Jones Intercable, then did nothing. No new lines, no new channels. Just a banner change on the TV and that was it. Now this was 10 years ago, back in 2000 when the deal was complete. There are still large sections of the cable network here, in my city, that are still running on the Jones Intercable wiring.

I think this is enough evidence to frame my point. Large Telecommunications companies are spending subscribers money pretty much everywhere but where the money should go. If AT&T had invested subscriber money back into their wireless networks, their 3G network would be as good as Verizon's or T-Mobiles. If Cox Communications had invested subscriber money back into it's cable services, they could have rolled out Fiber-Optic connections in heat-prone cities and kept thousands of customers happy, and perhaps have been in a position to lower costs since the maintenance on Fiber networks is significantly lower than those on copper and coaxial networks. If Comcast bothered investing their money back into the network, they wouldn't be in a position to say that users are clogging bandwidth.

However, because many of these large telecommunication companies have pretty much deliberately failed to budget their finances properly, they are now being offered, by the Obama Administration and the Liberal Democrats in Congress, a chance to dip into Tax Payer money to perform the network upgrades and expansions that their existing subscriber bases thought they were paying for.

The big question on many voter's minds right now then is whether or not the abject failures of the Obama Administration and the Liberal Democrats in congress will be remembered when the 2010 elections role around. Speaking for myself, I've no intention of forgetting, and every intention of pointing out to people who voted for Obama what a collossal mess that idiot and his friends in congress have made of everything.

It Business Edge: How not to give writers credibility

RE: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/content/is-it-time-to-reconsider-firefox.aspx

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1479118

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035072116&postcount=26

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrex The real questions are which browser is more likely to reveal browser vulnerabilities; and which has the largest, most knowledgeable and critically looking community that has access to the browsers code?

This. Microsoft has a lousy history of not disclosing bugs until well after exploits are already on the market. Apple as well has a history of failing to disclose bugs until after exploits on are on the market. Both companies also have histories of failing to disclose many bugs that they receive, yet patch before exploits enter circulation, or bugs that never have any actual exploits made available.

Mozilla on the other hand... well... They and Chrome...

When a bug is posted for a Mozilla product here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

It's posted. It's disclosed. There's no hiding it. There's no not telling investors. It's made available for everyone to see. As the common user can submit bug reports and errors in a public setting, Mozilla doesn't really ever have a chance to hide or obfuscate problems with the code.

When a bug is posted for a Google Chrome product here : http://www.chromium.org/for-testers/...ing-guidelines

Same thing. It's posted. It's disclosed. There's no hiding it. Sure, Google may not talk about bugs that affect their officially pre-compiled Chrome browser and ChromeOS, but as long as their source code is available, pretty much anybody can report bugs or exploits in the platform.

Like Microsoft and Apple, Opera doesn't maintain a public bug tracking system. While they do offer a form feedback, https://bugs.opera.com/wizard/, they point to a non-tracking system for followup.

Quote:

If your bug is being discussed in the Opera community forums, newsgroups, or mailing lists, a report has probably already been filed. Additional reports will then serve no purpose, as they will simply be marked as duplicates.

That being said, Opera has a history of accurately reporting problems and issues with their released binary code. Opera also has a tendency to follow an aggressive and constant patching strategy. I'm not exactly aware of Opera having hidden or failing to talk about exploits that were widely available for the platform.

KDE also has a bug tracking system : https://bugs.kde.org/ So bugs filed against the KHTML based Konqueror are again, like Mozilla and Chrome. The bugs are out there, no hiding, no obfuscating.

Now, from Chromium and Konqueror compiled against Mach BSD, we can get an idea of what kind of bugs Safari actually has, and what exploits could be used against Safari as all 3 share the same type of engine: KHTML / Webkit. That doesn't mean Apple's own behind-the-scenes mixing doesn't produce other odd errors.

Given what we know of the background data of the engines, and those producing the engines, I'm not really sure the author of the article knows what he's talking about if he's suggesting that we reconsider FireFox because of reported exploits. I'd almost say that sort of statement immediately disqualifies the author from any sort of credibility.

Fun with Apple Store

Had a few moments earlier today and I dropped by the relatively new Apple store in Augusta Georgia.... and then brought up the Acid3 test on several of the systems under Safari, and started running a Chrome Experiment on others. Wonder how long it will take the Apple employees to notice.

Win7 New Install + FireFox New Install = Pain

Recently I started playing around with the Windows 7 Professional discs that I had pre-ordered several months ago. While the 64bit version installed fine, and is running fine, on the Core I7 processor that Intel sent me coupled with a DFI board from Hades, I can't actually say the same for my older Asus M2R32-MVP motherboard coupled with a Phenom 9600. While installation on the Intel system was blazing fast, and relatively painless, the install on the AMD system has been less than pleasant. From the start the installer just seemed to be taking twice as long for each operation, and I finally presumed a hard-drive problem. I'm on my third hard-drive now, and I've actually gone to the 32bit edition of Win7 over the 64bit version, as anytime I tried to run the Windows System Rating, to see if there was an issue with hard-drive speed that Windows would report, the 64bit edition blue-screened.

Since both the Intel and AMD systems are running at overclocked rates, I turned the overclock off since the blue-screen error said something about clocks. System still blue-screened when trying to run the system rating, and even basic operations like Web-browser and file management were visibly stuttering.

So I've switched to the 32bit version, and honestly, it's not that much better. Now, I've got both Mepis 8.0.10 and Windows Xp on other drives for this AMD system, and neither one of them seems to hang or take so long in each task. With just FireFox and IE open, the Windows Task Manager is reporting an astounding 918 MB of data is being used. In the processors I have 48,000k to firefox, 31k to explorere.exe, 23k to iexplore.exe, 21k to a different iexplore.exe, 15k to a dwm.exe, 14k to yet another Iexplore.exe, 7k to Catalyst Control Center, and then down to the rest of the system processors. What's weirder to me is that I've only got one Internet Explorer Window Open, and yet the system has 3 different executable entries?

***

Anyways, when I got to the point of installing Firefox, I ran into a slight issue. Interent Explorer wouldn't run the file directly, I had to save it to the hard-drive. Upon launching the FireFox installer I was greated with a systems permission pop-up, with the system asking me to either log-in as Administrator or use the current username. Attempting to install with the username that I'm under, the only username I gave during the actual physical installation of the remixed Vista SP2 Operating System, met with failure.

So I tried the trick of using control USERPASSWORDS2 in the white search box in the start menu. Not surprisingly, this command has been disabled from this shortcut.

I wound up having to type in CMD into the white search box, hit enter to bring up the command terminal, and only then could I enter control USERPASSWORDS2 and get power user version of the System Accounts.

Then I had to go to the Advanced Tab in the User Accounts Box, and click on the ADVANCED button under Advanced User Management.

Then, under the new Window, I had to go into Users and actually ENABLE the Adminstrator login.

Then I had to go all the way back to the original User Accounts box, re-open it with control USERPASSWORDS2... and finally I could set a password for my administrator account.

***

After these hoops I tried to install FireFox again, this time using my new Adminstrator login... and it worked.

Why do I have a feeling that this behavior was intentional on the part of Microsoft to prevent people from using FireFox on Win7?

***

Also as a note, the Advanced user control window can also be accessed through the Control Panel's Administrative Tools under Computer Management. However, depending on the version of Windows in use, these tools may not be exposed through Administrative Tools.

***

The 32bit version finally ran the system rating... Which was a bit odd. The Phenom 9600 scored a 7.1 calculation speed from Win7... versus the Core I7 920's 6.8. The Phenom 9600 scored a 5.5 on the memory test, while the Core I7 took a 7.3. The Phenom with it's crossfired RadeonHD 4850's took desktop and gaming performance ratings of 6.9. The Core I7 with it's crossfired RadeonHD 3780's took desktop and graphics performance ratings of 7.0. Where as the Core I7 took a 5.9 disk drive speed, the Phenom 9600... didn't. According to Windows, my Asus M2R32-MVP took a drive speed rating of 2.4.

So, it does appear that there is a driver issue or otherwise with Windows 7 on the older ATi board. Which is really depressing.

Sansa e280: Key Locked, System Shutdown

For the past, well, while now, I've been using a Sansa c250 2gb as my portable music player. I had bought the c250 because it was really cheap from 3btech.net, and supported Rockbox. The Rockbox firmware also unlocked some capabilities of the hardware that Sandisk wouldn't enable in the default firmware, such as support for MicroSDHC cards. The default firmware topped at 2gb MicroSD cards, while the Rockbox firmware offers support for up to 32gb cards. Only, recently, I sat on the player damaging the screen. As a refurb unit, Sandisk wasn't willing to repair the unit, or allow me to purchase replacement parts.

So I started keeping an eye out for another media player. Recently 3btech offered an e260 4gb player for $40, which also is supported by Rockbox, but the unit wasn't actually in stock, and according to an email back from 3btech, wouldn't be in stock for a while, if at all. So I started searching around and found that TigerDirect was offering an e280 8gb player for $50. While the $50 price tag was a bit more than I had intended to spend, it was hard to ignore double the storage space for what was not double the price of the e260, or quadruple the price of the e250, the 2gb model which TD had for around $30.

So I bought it, and it arrived today, and I ran into a strange problem. SanDisk ships their players with the HOLD button enabled. This of course prevents accidental jostling or mishandling from activating the player in the box, since the battery comes pre-installed.

However, after turning off the HOLD button, I still got the message Key Locked, System Shutdown whenever I turned the player on.

I'm still not sure how I got around this, but I tried forcing the player to start in the firmware recovery mode, which is accomplished by holding down the RECORD button and hitting the power button. While in firmware recovery mode I hooked the player up to my main Mepis 8 system and verified that the 16mb root file was visible and mountable. I got some message on the screen about how the firmware recovery had worked, and upon disconnecting the e280, turning it off, and turning it back on... the default firmware loaded up normally.

So, I don't know if this will help anybody else searching for problems with the e200 series and Key Locked, System Shutdown, but somehow it worked for me.

***

And, update, it seems that the Hold Key itself is a little buggy. Over the weekend I took the player out of hold, but the lights wouldn't come on... jiggled the hold button, and poof... it was working.

Which actually is sounding just about right for the build quality of Sandisk's equipment compared to the c2x0 units I've gone through.

Borderlands - Cedega

Borderlands released earlier this morning on Steam and I've been fiddling with Cedega for the past couple of hours... so far it's been a no go.

The game does seem to feature an AMD processor check which halted the install, which when forced closed, seemed to be linked back or linking into a DXSETUP.

Changed Colors

You might notice that some of the colors have been adjusted here.

Well, there's a simple reason. When visiting this site on somebody's netbook, I found the links really, really, really hard to make out in the default orange and background white. This generally hasn't been a problem across the wide range of LCD panels and CRT displays that I normally use, so I haven't ever really noticed it before. On this person's little netbook screen, it was outright painful.

So I've gone with a darker background color to the page, and changed the links from orange to blue, which seem to stand out more. Hopefully this will work better across a wider range of hardware displays.

***

In... changing the colors... I've now got something else a little weirder in FireFox and Chrome at least. The left hand side bar extends further to the right, and the blog posts start in the center of the page and wrap all the way to the right...

Is WIndows 7 still a Crossgrade? Yes.

While most people hear about the Linux and Apple fanatics in the news and various reports, very, very few times is the subject of Windows Fanatics brought up. Oh yes, they do exist. Just as Linux Fanatics and Apple Fanatics can't be told left from right, Windows fanatics shove their noses in a book and automatically declare everybody else wrong, clueless, idiot, and so on. I got a good dose of this when correcting somebody recently that their Windows 7 upgrade... wasn't an upgrade. It was a crossgrade.

Thing is, upgrades don't actually exist in the Windows world. They don't. This is not an opinion. This is not up for an argument. Windows Upgrades do not exist.

It is, however, possible to crossgrade across different versions of Windows. What you can do is trade the problems of one Windows system for the problems of another Windows system. In Windows 95 you traded the small size of the Operating System for increased bulk. I don't mean just amount of space taken up on the hard-drive, I mean the performance of the OS as well. Windows 98 didn't have high system requirements... but it couldn't run on some really low end computers that Win95 could.

From Windows 98 to Windows ME, Users traded off relative stability for better media controls. From Windows ME to 2000, users got better stability, but a server and work-space oriented system. From ME to Xp, users traded off system lightness for ever larger amounts of bloat. From 2000 to Xp, users traded in service pack numbers for what was the exact same operating system. From Xp to Vista, users once again traded in performance for bloat. Then from Vista to Windows 7, once again, it's the exact same operating system... but users trade off even more freedoms of use. Seriously, read the Windows 7 Licensing agreement. Nobody is purchasing the software, everybody is renting it.

Now, in being correct, this also means you'll find crossgrades in Linux and Apple. OF course, you might be thinking I'm going to say that converting from Gnome to KDE is an upgrade... and you might think that replacing that BSD based Unix with a Linux based system is an upgrade... but they are not. Those are crossgrades. It's trading off one interface for another, one system for another, personal opinions aside.

Apple, strangely enough, gets this aspect of computers. They made fun of it on a recent ad. Everything that's happening with Windows 7 now has pretty much been promised before. Lets be honest here, Microsoft's not exactly known for corporate reliability now... are they?

Thus I maintain that the only way you can upgrade from a Windows system is to get a Non-Microsoft Operating System.

Ignoring the social factors, such as licenses and freedom to use, just think about things from a performance and hardware perspective. If you around the Top500 supercomputer users, you'll find that from a performance standpoint, Windows doesn't compete with Linux on a processing basis. If you ask around Netcraft about servers, you'll find that Microsoft's not competitive when it comes to putting webpages online. If you ask the London Stock Exchange what they thought about Windows, you'll find that one of the worlds large financial institutions gave it a failing grade. If you ask Infinity Ward about Servers, you'll quickly find that rather than face the embarrassing question of why they use Linux servers and won't produce a Linux client, they just took dedicated servers away. No, stop laughing. I've brought this up before. Virtually all game developers and publishers don't use Windows to host multiplayer games. The Windows platform just isn't up to the task. So, they use Linux. But they won't produce a Linux client.

Even though, as Phoronix found out, games running under Linux are generally faster than the same code running under windows. And no link this time, you'll have to go dig it up yourself.

Then there is the security aspect. People can say all they want about the number of holes found and patched in various operating systems. What actually matters is the number of virus's that actually make it into the wild. Once again, Windows comes up short. The list of known virus's in the wild lists into the hundreds each day, while Linux, BSD, OSX, and pretty much everybody else chugs along peacefully.

Then there's the price aspect. Typically in the past Apple's were much more expensive options than a white-box Windows computer. If you want to buy a good Apple with a decent graphics card, be prepared to shell out some cash. That being said, Apple's most recent OS is just $29.00. Microsoft's entry starts at $300 if you were to buy just the entry level version outright. Course, that's not exactly fair to Apple is it, since you can only (theoretically), install Snow Leopard onto a pre-existing OSX install. The Home Premium Upgrade is $119, and that's still not being fair to Apple since it's OS doesn't come in a limited edition. If you want the Windows 7 Ultimate Upgrade, the equivalent of what Snow Leopard is, you'd be looking at a massive $319 charge to get it retail.

So, once again, it's not really an upgrade there either. Of course, the pricing is intentional. Microsoft doesn't want people buying copies of Windows 7 to put on existing computers. Microsoft wants people to buy new computers with copies of Windows 7 pre-loaded.

Now, I could go on, but at this point it's be like taking a Mac-Truck and putting it through an already burnt down building. From all perspectives, Windows 7 isn't an upgrade from previous versions of Windows. It's just another crossgrade. And in comparison to it's competitors?

It's still a downgrade.

Nvidia: Fermi Faked?

I've actually got more to say on this subject, but while I figure out how to phrase what appears to be Nvidia's attempt to go bankrupt, take a look at what Semi-Accurate has to say on Nvidia's Fermi launch. It looks like Nvidia has taken the paper-launch to a whole new level.