Well, this is not _my_ app but an app I have to use. Since apparently _every*_ internet browser available has security holes, I have to choose one with less severe security holes. Because of that it is _necessary_ to compare flaws. And yes, I'm happy using the _more secure_ product. When installing a front door lock, I'll also choose the one which is more secure. *) didn't check lynx for a while.

You did read what I wrote? The complete posting? The security hole that Firefox has can be actively disabled with five mouse clicks. Then sites attempting to use the security hole display two simultaneous status bars, which ought to tell the user that there's something strange happening. Using some more advanced about:config settings, you can even disallow programmatic removal of the menu and tool bars, thus rendering attempts to "recreate" them using the security hole quite laughable. No, the flaw is that - these settings are not default settings - the advanced about:config settings are not represented in the user interface of the configurations dialogue. This is a flaw, but a flaw that diminishes with Microsoft's attempts. Using IE, is it possible to disallow JScript content to manipulate/disable the status bar? When comparing security flaws, we'd have to compare their respective severity. The spoofing problem can be solved by about five mouseclicks by even a standard user; the same problem on IE - can be solved by Microsoft's developers only. I'd say that that is a difference.

It's not as bad as it seems. If you disallow some of JavaScript's annoying features, then the spoofing attempt gets quite obvious: Click on the button labelled "Advanced..." in the "web features" setup dialogue and remove checkmarks from all but the last checkboxes (which ought to be named "modify graphics" or something similar). This sensible setting ought to be the standard. Thus even this vulnerability shrinks in comparison to any of IE's vulnerabilites. BTW: Did you know that due to an advanced compression algorithm Microsoft successfully implemented more than one security hole per byte of IE's compiled binary code?

Ehm, the USB connectors can usually be found at the backside of your computer. They're small rectangular connectors. If your computer is not equipped with these, it's massively outdated. A remedy is a plugin PCI-USB controller. If that's not the answer you've hoped for: be more specific when attempting to formulate a question. What do you want to do by what means?

Christianism is - like every other monotheistic religion - intolerant by definition. Is intolerance the correct approach to software development? Think about it.

Eastdragon wrote: How does it work? By the simple and yet magical principle of snake oil. Translation: It does not work.

dumpbin /export your.dll lists all exports by that dll. dumpbin is included in VC++ compiler packages.

There are lots of important factors: - price (who'd have thought that) - power supply I recommend using standard AA (LR6) rechargeable batteries instead of proprietary solutions. First, it is not certain that you'd be abled to get the XR3546-LRXcp3 special design battery pack for the camera you bought three years ago - having a standard is a nice thing in this case, second, proprietary battery packs are much more expensive than standard rechargeable batteries. Third, the capacity of today's rechargeable AA batteries has reached new heights - 2200 mAh is nothing special and should not be expensive. Around 5 EUR (that's slightly more than 5 Bucks). Added advantage: If your battery pack is empty, you could use primary cells (non-rechargeable) as an emergency vehicle - those are sold at every corner even in third-world countries. - storage medium Nought but CompactFlash. Has the best price/performance ratio, is manufactured by a huge lot of companies and has no built-in size limitation. SmartMedia, for instance, won't get bigger than 128 MByte, the MemoryStick had a similar limit etc. Proprietary solutions are more expensive than standardized solutions; xD-Card is twice as expensive than CompactFlash - optics Don't belive in "digital zoom". There ain't no such thing, it's just a resolution-reduced enlargement. - ability to connect external flash Built-in flashes aren't really bright - ability to use a tripod Some cameras don't have a standard tripod thread I've been using an Olympus C2000 for about 3.5 years and recently replaced it by an Olympus C5050 - with both investments I'm quite happy.

Paul Watson wrote: I will go postal Isn't that even more evil than announcing the intended infliction of GBH at some other person? "Postal" - sounds really threatening!

... and it's even documented! (both in NT4.0's and W2K's incantation, at least).

I think I get it ... You (or your boss) is using TC++ merely as an IDE for some cross-assembler. Having 80 (more realistically 76) columns might suffice for assembly, but - given a decent monitor - the advantage of having more than, say, 45 rows of source code might even tempt an assembler programmer. My desktop monitor* gives me about 76 rows of source code - something that has indeed boosted my productivity. There are several professional editors available, that can be configured to run external tools, thus resulting in quite comfortable IDEs for whatever development needs one might have. UltraEdit, Emacs, SlickEdit etc. are examples. Thus you won't need to use VC++ as an IDE for your external tool chain (some DSP, I presume from it's otherwise strange word length) *) SGI 1600SW, a 1600x1024 display. Using a true UXGA display, the amount of visible code can be increased further.

None. But about four, no, let's see, er, six more or less empty coffee mugs. One of them is filled with some gooey muck. On closer inspection, this gooey muck is wiggling about, displaying placards that demand the right to vote and a general tax reduction. Strange thing happen on my desk.

peterchen wrote: NC was good and simple. And it's not about the compiler - just the IDE. The BC++ 3.1 DOS IDE works on W2K. Why someone should want to use it I can't understand - editing source code in a window with less than 80x25/50 characters? (BC displays frames and title/menu bars which reduce screen real estate). peterchen wrote: We are talking about two 24 bit apps here If you're talking about beer, then I get the meaning ("Bitte ein Bit", auch wenn's mir nicht schmeckt).

What about cURL? http://curl.haxx.se

I doubt the usefulness of Norton Commander on an operating system that actually supports the use of file names. DOS and 16-bit Windows did know nothing about file names, instead files were "named" with cryptical 8.3 character codes. Why people flocked to "Norton Commander" in the first place is something I just can't understand - neither do I understand why they still do so in _this_ century. Explorer ain't so bad that you can't get accustomed to it - and it can display file names, among other things. Regarding the C++ compiler - Borland C++ 3.1 does run on W2K. You can use it to create 16-bit-code. Regarding "compatibility mode": It might help to start a 16-bit command shell (run "command.com") and then starting the offending piece of software. Do not try to install the 16-bit DOS application in a path that actually uses file names, use a path according to DOS old 8.3 name obfuscation scheme. Q: Why should one want to write/develop/maintain 16-bit applications?

ExitWindowsEx(EWX_POWEROFF | EWX_FORCE);

This is old. Very old. And not even very funny.

Brit wrote: ATI Radeon Mobility (32 MB shared memory) 4x AGP Are you certain that you've got that right? Afaik there's no shared memory junk made by ATI; all their graphics chips use dedicated video memory. Shared memory for graphics adapters is no good idea except when designing ultra-low-cost desktop machines for standard office applications. What I'd look for in a notebook would be - screen resolution (XGA just ain't enough) - battery stamina My two years old Inspiron 8000 (a wee bit more expensive than the quote above) has an UXGA screen and runs up to six hours when equipped with a second battery (which goes instead of the floppy drive; what for would I need one?). Else the above description seems quite decent; the DVD/CD-RW combo is a nice-to-have.

Maybe this http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/index.html helps you?

What is PDFlib?

Want to spice up your generated documents with PDF?
Tired of HTML formatting issues?
PDFlib is a development tool for PDF-enabling your software,
or generating PDF on your server. PDFlib, available since 1997,
saves you the intricate details of PDF generation by offering
a simple-to-use API for programmatically creating PDF files
from within your own server- or client-side software.

PDFlib doesn't make use of Adobe Acrobat for generating PDF,
nor does it require any other third-party software.

The PDF import library (PDI)

PDI is a companion product to PDFlib which allows you to
process existing PDF documents. With PDI you can open PDF
files and incorporate one or more pages into PDFlib-generated
output.
With the PDFlib+PDI combo you can easily develop solutions
for shuffling or stamping pages, extracting or appending etc.

Note that PDI must be purchased separately from PDFlib, although
both are delivered in a single binary. In order to successfully
use PDI you must purchase a license key for the PDFlib+PDI combo.

Source code for PDI is not available for download from this site,
but we offer PDI source code for commercial licensing.

Some experiences with DELL: Since two years I'm using a DELL Inspiron 8000. Reason to buy it was primarily the UXGA display, back then the only alternative would have been an IBM notebook for twice the price. DELL support is laughable. Most of the time, the technical support dudes (or dudettes) don't understand what you're talking about; even if they do, their only recommendation is to reformat the harddisk. Besides that, the machine's case is crap. Squeaky, creaky and highly sensitive. If you don't place something between keyboard and display, the display gets damaged by keyboard scratches on the TFT's front polarizer. Although using a Pentium III-M processor, the machine does not support speedstep (this is an issue with the two-year old I8K; it does NOT apply to the 8100 or 8200 series). On my machine the ATI display adapter has an incurable defect; it cannot display overlay video without reducing it's horizontal resolution by half. Besides these points, the I8K is a machine I like. The keyboard has the correct MF-II layout (something nearly no other notebook has), I may choose between that f**ing mouse tit and a decent touch pad, with my processor setup (a whopping 600 MHz) and a second accumulator, the machine runs 6 hours. I'm using the machine for software development, not as a gaming platform (hence the rather conservative processor speed). As to interfaces, yes, the machine has 'em all (besides USB2.0, which simply didn't exist in early 2001). Firewire, 10/100 MBit LAN, analogue modem (what for?) and two CardBus slots. Were I to get a new notebook nowadays, I'd check the Sony Vaio line with the 16" UXGA display. Although Sony's support is rumoured to suck even worse than DELL's. Whatever you choose: Good luck with it.